Council Regulation (EC) No 1339/2002 of 22 July 2002 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of sulphanilic acid originating in the People's Republic of China and India
Date: 2002-07-22
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: China, India, anti-dumping duty, chemical product, countervailing charge, import, originating product

25.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 196/11

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1339/2002

of 22 July 2002

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed
on imports of sulphanilic acid originating in the People's Republic of China and India

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

(6)

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22
December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from
countries not Members of the European Community (1), and in
particular Article 9 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission
after consulting the Advisory Committee,

Having reviewed the provisional findings on the basis of
the information gathered since then, it is concluded that
the main findings as set out in the provisional Regula-
tion are confirmed.

C. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

Whereas:

1. Product concerned

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES

(7)

The Commission by Regulation (EC) No 575/2002 (2)
(‘provisional Regulation’)
imposed a provisional anti-
dumping duty on imports of sulphanilic acid originating
in the People's Republic of China (‘PRC’) and India. The
Commission by Regulation (EC) No 573/2002 (3) (‘provi-
sional anti-subsidy Regulation’) also imposed a provi-
sional countervailing duty on imports of sulphanilic acid
originating in India.

B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE

Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and
considerations on the basis of which it was decided to
impose provisional anti-dumping measures, a number of
interested parties submitted comments in writing. All
interested parties who requested a hearing were granted
an opportunity to be heard by the Commission.

The Commission continued to seek and verify all infor-
mation deemed necessary for the definitive findings.

(8)

the essential

All parties were informed of
facts and
considerations on the basis of which it was intended to
recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping
duties and the definitive collection of amounts secured
by way of provisional duties. They were also granted a
period within which they could make representations
subsequent to this disclosure.

(5)

The oral and written arguments submitted by the parties
were taken into account.

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regula-

tion (EC) No 2238/2000 (OJ L 257, 11.10.2000, p. 2).

(2) OJ L 87, 4.4.2002, p. 28.
(3) OJ L 87, 4.4.2002, p. 5.

Subsequent to the publication of the provisional Regula-
tion, a number of interested parties claimed that the
definition of the product concerned was incorrect. They
argued that the technical and purified grades of sulpha-
nilic acid were substantially different in terms of their
purity and had different properties and applications. It
was claimed that the two grades of sulphanilic acid
could not be considered as a homogeneous product and
should therefore have been treated as distinct products
for the purposes of the investigation. In support of this
assertion, it was argued that there was insufficient inter-
changeability between the two grades of sulphanilic acid.
Whilst it was accepted that the purified grade could be
used in all applications, the same could not be said of
technical grade sulphanilic acid because of the level of
impurities it contained, most notably aniline residues.
These impurities consequently made technical grade acid
unsuitable for use in the production of optical bright-
eners and food dyes.

It is recalled that purified grade sulphanilic acid results
from the purification of technical grade sulphanilic acid
in a process which removes certain impurities. This puri-
fication process does not alter the molecular properties
of the compound or the way in which it reacts with
other chemicals. Therefore, technical and purified grades
share the same basic chemical characteristics. The fact
that interchangeability may only be in one direction in
certain applications because of concerns about impuri-
ties is therefore not considered to be sufficient justifica-
tion that purified and technical grades
constitute
different products which should be treated separately in
two different investigations. Whilst accepting that the
purification process adds certain additional costs to the
production process, it is recalled that these were taken
into account when making a fair comparison between
the different grades produced by the Community
industry and those
countries
concerned for the purposes of calculating the level of
price undercutting and the injury elimination level.

imported from the

L 196/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.7.2002

(9)

Consequently, it was not considered that the comments
made by interested parties concerning the definition of
the product concerned were sufficient to alter the find-
ings on this issue that had been reached at the provi-
sional stage. It is therefore definitively concluded that
both grades of sulphanilic acid should be treated as one
single product
the present
proceeding.

the purpose of

for

2. Like product

(10) No new elements were brought to the attention of the
Commission that would lead it to alter the conclusions
reached at the provisional stage, namely that sulphanilic
acid produced and sold by Community producers and
that produced in the countries concerned and exported
to the Community are like products.

(11)

The provisional findings concerning the like product as
set out in recital 12 of the provisional Regulation are
hereby confirmed.

D. DUMPING

1. India

1.1. Normal value

(12)

(13)

(14)

The Indian exporting producer contested the methodo-
logy for the determination of the profit margin used in
the construction of normal value as set out in recital 18
of
the
opening and closing stocks of the like product should be
taken into account in this determination.

the provisional Regulation.

It claimed that

This claim was rejected because the company suggested
taking into account opening and closing stocks only in
determining the profit margin and not in determining
the
cost of manufacturing used to calculate
the
constructed normal value. Thus, the use of two different
costs of manufacturing for the same purpose cannot be
accepted. Moreover, the cost of manufacturing used in
calculating normal value in the provisional Regulation
was that incurred during the investigation period (‘IP’)
and was considered more appropriate since it is not
affected by any ad hoc valuation of stocks.

1.2. Export price

export price

related importer,

The same company claimed that for the sales made via
should be
its
the
its
constructed by using the actual profit margin of
related importer. This claim could not be accepted since
the profit margin realised by the related importer is
based on transfer prices between associated parties (the
company in question and its related importer) and as
such these prices cannot be considered to be reliable in
accordance with Article 2(9) of Regulation (EC) No 384/
96 (‘basic Regulation’).

(15) On the basis of the above, the findings set in recitals 19

to 21 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

1.3. Comparison

(16) No comments were received under this heading. The
findings as set out in recitals 22 to 26 of the provisional
Regulation are therefore confirmed.

1.4. Dumping margin

(17) As no comments were submitted justifying changes to
the dumping findings as set out in the provisional Regu-
lation,
the dumping margin (24,6 %) established in
recital 29 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.

2. People's Republic of China

2.1. Normal value

(18) As no new information was submitted under

this
heading, the findings as set out in recitals 30 to 35 of
the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

2.2. Export price

(19) As no new information was submitted under

this
heading, the findings as set out in recitals 36 to 39 of
the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

2.3. Comparison

(20) As no new information was submitted under

this
heading, the findings as set out in recital 40 of the
provisional Regulation are confirmed.

2.4. Dumping margin

(21)

The dumping margin (21,0 %) established in recitals 41
and 42 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.

(22)

(23)

E. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY

Following the publication of the provisional Regulation,
a number of interested parties queried the definition of
the Community industry and its standing in terms of
Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. In particular, it was
suggested that the complainant producer, Sorochimie
Chime Fine did not have the support of the second
Community producer, Quimigal S.A. when it lodged its
complaint.

It is recalled that whilst Quimigal was not a party to the
it did express its support for the
original complaint,
proceeding at the initiation stage and has fully cooper-
ated in the investigation. In response to the claims of
certain interested parties, it has also reiterated its support
for the proceeding during the course of
the invest-
igation. Therefore, as no new elements were brought to
the attention of the Commission that would lead it to
alter
findings
concerning the definition of the Community industry
and its standing as detailed in recital 44 of the provi-
sional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

the provisional

findings,

earlier

its

25.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 196/13

F. INJURY

1. Preliminary remarks

(24)

(25)

Several interested parties questioned the way in which
the Commission had established figures for imports of
sulphanilic acid into the Community, Community
consumption and market shares. They claimed that there
had been insufficient disclosure of the Commission's
findings regarding imports, in both volume and value
terms, and that consequently their rights of defence had
been impeded. It was noted that some of this informa-
tion was also missing from the public version of the
complaint with the result that the complaint did not
meet the standards detailed in Article 5(2) of the basic
Regulation.

It is to be noted that according to Article 19(1) of the
basic Regulation,
information which is submitted in
confidence by parties to an investigation shall be treated
as such by the investigation authority so long as the
information concerned warrants such treatment.
It is
recalled that sulphanilic acid is manufactured by a rela-
tively small number of producers around the world.
Consequently, it was not possible for reasons of confi-
dentiality to disclose precise information relating to
imports of the product into the Community, especially
for those countries where there is only one exporting
producer. Therefore,
for the purposes of disclosure,
indexed figures and explanatory narrative were made
available to interested parties concerning this and related
items.

(26) As none of the interested parties which raised the issue
of insufficient disclosure were able to demonstrate that
the information made available to them in a summarised
form did not enable them to defend their rights, their
arguments in this respect had to be rejected.

2. Imports concerned

(27) One interested party suggested that the figure for the
increase in imports noted in the provisional Regulation
was misleading. It was claimed that as a number of other
producers had withdrawn from the market, users in the
Community were obliged to purchase sulphanilic acid
on the world market, thereby leading to the sharp rise in
import volumes. This claim had to be rejected for a
number of reasons. In the first instance, no additional
evidence oncerning the level of imports was submitted
so as to alter the findings reached at the provisional
stage on this point. Similarly, whilst it was acknowl-
edged in recital 127 of the provisional Regulation that
imports were expected to continue to play a significant
role in meeting demand in the Community, it was also
noted that had the Community industry not been
subject to the injurious effects of the dumped imports, it
would have been able to put into effect certain expan-
larger part of
sion plans,
satisfying
thereby
the
the above,
Community demand.

In the light of

a

findings

into the
concerning
provisional
Community from the countries concerned and their
level of price undercutting as noted in recitals 47 to 54
of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

imports

(28)

(29)

(30)

3. Situation of the Community industry

In accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation,
the examination of the impact of the dumped imports
on the Community industry included an evaluation of all
relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing
on its state.

Subsequent to provisional disclosure, a number of inter-
in which the
ested parties questioned the manner
Commission had reached its provisional determination
concerning injury as certain indicators were showing
positive developments. In particular,
it was suggested
that the increase in the Community industry's produc-
tion, sales and capacity utilisation during the analysis
period (1 January 1997 to 30 June 2001) proved that it
suffered injury. One interested party also
had not
claimed that
the Commission had failed to make a
proper assessment of wage costs as required by the
Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.

It is recalled that according to Article 3(5) of the basic
Regulation, none of the economic factors or indices
listed in the aforementioned article shall necessarily be
decisive in the determination of injury. It is indeed true
that certain indicators relating to quantities produced
and sold by the community industry showed positive
developments. This should be seen in the light of the
fact that Community consumption of sulphanilic acid
increased by some 13 % during the analysis period and
that
the number of
suppliers on the market due to the closure of certain
Community producers.

there has been a reduction of

(31) More importantly,

it

In particular,

should be recalled that

the
Community industry suffered injury in the form of price
its
depression and price suppression.
average selling price declined sharply between 1997 and
1998, as the pressure exerted by the increasing volume
of the imports concerned on the market became evident.
Subsequently, although the Community industry was
able to increase its average selling price as demand on
the Community market also increased,
failed to
achieve a level which would enable it to cover its full
cost of production and losses continued to be incurred
in the IP.

it

(32) With regard to the argument raised concerning wages, it
is noted that although the number of workers employed
by Sorochimie decreased during the analysis period, the
average employment cost per employee increased. This
is due to the fact that there was a change in the mix of
employee during the period and also to general wage
inflation. With regard to Quimigal, it is to be noted that
in the base year for the index (1998) the company was

L 196/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.7.2002

not producing sulphanilic acid. When it began produc-
tion in 1999, the workers were engaged full time in this
activity with an extra day being worked from 2000
onwards. Neither company noted that
the wages of
those employed in sulphanilic acid activities had been
effected by the imports concerned. Therefore, wages
were not considered to be an indicator of injury.

(33)

In view of the above, the provisional findings that the
Community industry suffered material injury within the
meaning of Article 3 of the basic Regulation, as detailed
in recitals 57 to 76 of the provisional Regulation, are
confirmed.

demand in the Community and changes in the number
of suppliers of sulphanilic acid both in the Community
and outside. It was also noted that the company was
obliged to offer prices similar to those of the dumped
imports in order to establish itself on the market and
gain market share in 1999 and 2000 in that its relatively
small size meant that it was a price taker rather than a
its market share decreased
price setter. Nevertheless,
slightly in the IP as
from the countries
concerned increased in volume. No indication has there-
fore been found that the deterioration of the situation of
the Community industry is due to excessive intra
Community industry competition.

imports

G. CAUSATION

(34)

(35)

1. General comments on the Commission's conclu-

sions regarding the causation of injury

Certain interested parties argued that the Community
industry was itself partly responsible for the injury it had
suffered. Several parties questioned the quality of Soro-
chimie's management, product and customer service and
highlighted the fact it had itself imported sulphanilic
acid during the analysis period. One party also alleged
that the injury suffered by Sorochimie should be attrib-
uted to its other business activity (glue) which experi-
enced significant difficulties during the IP. With regard
the second company
to the situation of Quimigal,
forming part of the Community industry, it was argued
that its decision to enter the market with a low price
strategy during its start-up phase had also contributed to
the alleged injury. Finally, it was also claimed that the
Community industry had to meet stringent environ-
mental regulations and had higher labour and transport
costs than exporting producers in India with the impli-
cation that imports originating in that country had a
competitive advantage and were not made at injurious
prices.

The investigation showed that Sorochimie, despite its
financial difficulties linked to the excessively low prices
prevailing on the market, was able to gain new
customers during the analysis period and to adapt its
products to meet their needs. The company was obliged
to purchase certain quantities of the product concerned
during the analysis period in order to meet existing
customer requirements while its production equipment
was undergoing essential repairs.
thus be
considered that Sorochimie contributed to its own injury
Similarly, it is recalled that any exceptional costs relating
to the company's difficulties in its glue business have
been excluded from the current investigation as they are
not linked to the product concerned and thus are not
reflected in the injury indicators described in the provi-
sional Regulation.

It cannot

(36)

It was noted in recital 85 of the provisional Regulation
that Quimigal's decision to enter the market was taken
at a time when prices for sulphanilic acid on the
Community market were higher. Quimigal was able to
establish itself on the market at a time of both increasing

(37) With regard to the allegedly higher costs that

the
Community industry is obliged to meet in terms of
complying with environmental regulations and other
items, it should be recalled that the competitive advan-
tage of the imports concerned was taken into account in
the determination of normal value. Consequently, the
provisional findings concerning causation as set out in
recitals 88 and 89 of the provisional Regulation are
confirmed.

H. COMMUNITY INTEREST

(38)

It

Following the publication of the provisional Regulation,
one interested party questioned how the Commission
could determine,
in the light of Sorochimie being in
administration, that the Community industry was viable
is recalled that Sorochimie was
and competitive.
obliged to seek protection from its creditors following
certain difficulties in its glue business and other pres-
sures in its sulphanilic acid activities. The Commercial
Court of Charleville Mézières has appointed an adminis-
trator to oversee the company's trading activities and has
granted the company a period of time in which to
prepare a restructuring plan. This period of time has
recently been extended until 31 January 2003. In the
absence of other unforeseen events, the company should
continue to be in existence for the immediate future and
therefore be in a position to benefit from the imposition
of definitive measures. Consequently,
the provisional
findings that
the imposition of measures is in the
interest of the Community industry as noted in recital
100 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

(39) A number of

interested parties claimed that

the
Commission had failed to make an objective assessment
of the situation of users in not taking into account any
increase in the Community industry's prices that would
likely follow the imposition of measures. It was also
claimed that measures ran counter to the Community
interest as the production capacity of the Community
industry was insufficient to meet Community demand
and a possible duopolistic situation based on the two
Community producers could result from the closure of
the market to imports from India and the PRC.

25.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 196/15

(40)

(41)

In respect of the claim that the Commission failed to
take account of the various interests in an objective
manner when determining whether the imposition of
measures ran counter to the Community interest, it is
recalled that at the provisional stage, the Commission
made a detailed analysis of each of the main user sectors
(optical brighteners, concrete additives and dyes and
colorant producers). This analysis included an assess-
ment of the impact of measures on their costs on the
basis that the prices of the imports concerned would
increase in line with the proposed measures. At the same
time, due allowance was made in this calculation for a
maximum possible increase in the price of sulphanilic
acid sold by the Community industry of 10 % on the
basis that its prices would increase to a level similar to
that of the imports concerned following the imposition
of measures taking into account that it was already
operating at a fairly high rate of capacity utilisation in
the IP. As such, no new elements were submitted by
interested parties which would alter the provisional find-
ings concerning the possible increase in the manufac-
turing costs of the different user industries.

Regarding the supply and competition situation on the
Community market, it is to be noted that the current
production capacity of the Community industry could
satisfy in the region of 50 % of Community demand. In
any event, the purpose of the measures is not to close
the market to imports from the countries concerned but
to ensure that they are made at non-dumped and non-
injurious prices. It is therefore expected that imports
from third countries including India and the PRC will
continue to enter the market. At the same time, meas-
ures should ensure continued sulphanilic acid produc-
tion in the Community with the result that users will
have more choice and competition between suppliers. It
should also be stressed that the Community industry has
plans to increase its output by investing in new facilities
if the capital expenditure can be justified. For this to
occur, the injurious effects of the dumped imports need
to be removed.

(42)

In the light of the above, the provisional findings that
the imposition of measures is not contrary to the
interest of the Community as noted in recital 130 of the
provisional Regulation is confirmed.

I. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

1. Injury elimination level

(43)

The methodology to establish the injury margin as set
out at recitals 131 to 133 of the provisional Regulation
is hereby confirmed.

2. Definitive measures

(44)

Since for both India and the PRC the dumping margin
has been found to be lower than the injury elimination
level, the definitive duties to be imposed should corre-
spond to the dumping margins established, in accord-
ance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation.

India,

(45) However, with regard to the parallel anti-subsidy
proceeding in respect of
in accordance with
Article 24(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 (1)
(‘the basic anti-subsidy Regulation’) and Article 14(1) of
the basic Regulation, no product shall be subject to both
anti-dumping and countervailing duties for the purpose
of dealing with one and the same situation arising from
dumping or export subsidisation. It is therefore neces-
sary to determine whether, and to what extent,
the
subsidy amounts and the dumping margins arise from
the same situation.

(46) With regard to India, a definitive countervailing duty
corresponding to the amount of subsidy, which was
found to be lower than the injury margin, was proposed
the basic anti-
in accordance with Article 15(1) of
subsidy Regulation. Certain of
the subsidy schemes
investigated, which were found to be countervailable in
India, constituted export subsidies within the meaning of
Article 3(4)(a) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation. As
such, these subsidies could only affect the export price
of the Indian exporting producer, thus leading to an
increased margin of dumping. In other words, the defin-
itive dumping margin established for the sole cooper-
ating Indian producer is partly due to the existence of
export subsidies. In these circumstances, it is not consid-
ered appropriate to impose both countervailing and anti-
dumping duties to the full extent of the relevant export
subsidy amount and dumping margin definitively estab-
the definitive anti-dumping duty
lished. Therefore,
should be adjusted to reflect the actual dumping margin
remaining after the imposition of the definitive counter-
vailing duty offsetting the effect of the export subsidies.
Consequently, the definitive anti-dumping duty rate for
India has been set at the level of the dumping margin
(24,6 %) minus the rate of definitive countervailing duty
of the export subsidies (6,3 %).

(47)

The Government of
India and the Indian exporting
producer opposed this approach and claimed that the
definitive anti-dumping duty should be reduced by the
total level of subsidisation found (7,1 %) and not only by
the amount export subsidies. They argued that in prac-
tice any benefit may be used to cross-subsidise any area
of activity the exporter so chooses, which would mean
that if the subsidy is not used to lower the export prices
they
it
argued, if the subsidy is used to lower domestic prices
then only part of that subsidy which enables unfair
export pricing should be countervailed.

should not be countervailed. Alternatively,

(1) OJ L 288, 21.10.1997, p. 1.

L 196/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.7.2002

(48)

In this respect, it is noted that subsidies which are not
contingent upon export performance (‘domestic subsi-
dies’) are considered to affect equally the export price
and the normal value of the Indian exporting producer,
which means that they have a neutral effect on the
margin of dumping. It is, therefore, concluded that the
amounts of domestic
subsidies and the dumping
margins do not arise from the same situation and conse-
quently no adjustment to the dumping duty is warranted
from the existence of such subsidisation.

(49)

For the PRC, the anti-dumping duty rate has been set at
the level of the dumping margin.

3. Definitive collection of provisional duties

(50)

In view of the magnitude of the dumping found for the
exporting producers, and in the light of the seriousness
of the injury caused to the Community industry, it is
considered necessary that the amounts secured by way
of provisional anti-dumping duties shall be collected at
the rate of the duty definitively imposed.

of dumping. The company will also provide the
Commission with regular and detailed information
concerning its exports to the Community, meaning that
the undertaking can be monitored effectively by the
Commission. Furthermore,
the
the Commission
exporting producer
considers that
the risk of circumventing the agreed
undertaking is limited.

the sales structure of

such that

is

(53)

(54)

In view of this, the offer of an undertaking was accepted
by the Commission in Decision 2002/611/EC (1).

In order to ensure the effective respect and monitoring
of the undertaking, when the request for release for free
circulation pursuant to the undertaking is presented to
the relevant customs authority, exemption from the duty
should be conditional upon presentation of a commer-
cial
invoice containing the information listed in the
Annex to this Regulation which is necessary for customs
to ascertain that shipments correspond to the commer-
cial documents at the required level of detail. Where no
such invoice is presented, or when it does not corre-
spond to the product concerned presented to customs,
the appropriate rate of anti-dumping duty should instead
be payable.

(55)

It should be noted that in the event of a breach or
withdrawal of the undertaking or a suspected breach, an
anti-dumping duty may be imposed pursuant to Article
8(9) and (10) of the basic Regulation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

J. UNDERTAKING

Article 1

(51)

it

The sole cooperating company in the PRC, Mancheng
Gold Star Chemical
Industry Co., Ltd of Baoding
(‘Mancheng’), has proposed a joint undertaking together
with the state controlled trading company, Sinochem
Hebei
is
Import & Export Corporation. However,
recalled that Mancheng was a producer which did not
meet the requirements to be granted individual treat-
ment because it was not licensed to export and all its
exports were made via the said state controlled trading
company. Moreover, due to the very low level of
cooperation obtained from exporting producers in the
PRC,
the Commission is not a position to consider
further an undertaking proposed by a trading company
because of the high inherent risk of circumvention of
such an undertaking. The Chinese parties concerned
were informed accordingly.

(52)

Subsequent to the imposition of provisional measures,
the sole cooperating exporting producer in India of the
product concerned offered a price undertaking in
accordance with Article 8(1) of the basic Regulation. By
doing so, it agreed to sell the product concerned at or
above price levels which eliminate the injurious effects

A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on
1.
imports of
falling within CN codes
ex 2921 42 10 (TARIC code 2921 42 10*60) originating in
the People's Republic of China and India.

sulphanilic

acid

2.
The rate of definitive anti-dumping duty applicable,
before duty, to the net, free-at-Community frontier price of the
products described in paragraph 1, shall be as follows:

Country

Definitive duty
(%)

The People's Republic of China

India

21,0

18,3

3.
Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the definitive duty shall
not apply to imports released for free circulation in accordance
with Article 2.

4.
Unless otherwise specified,
concerning customs duties shall apply.

the provisions

in force

(1) See page 36 of this Official Journal.

25.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 196/17

Article 2

Imports under

1.
the following TARIC additional code
which are produced and directly exported (i.e. shipped and
invoiced) by the company named below to a company in the
Community acting as an importer shall be exempt from the
anti-dumping duty imposed by Article 1 provided that they are
imported in accordance with paragraph 2.

Country

Company

India

Kokan Synthetics & Chemicals Pvt
Ltd,
14 Guruprasad, Gokhale Road (N),
Dadar (W),
Mumbai 400 028, India

TARIC
additional code

A398

Imports mentioned in paragraph 1 shall be exempt from

2.
the duty on condition that:
(i) a commercial invoice containing at least the elements of
the necessary information listed in the Annex is presented
to Member States customs authorities upon presentation of
the declaration for release into free circulation; and

(ii) the goods declared and presented to customs correspond
invoice.

precisely to the description on the commercial

Article 3

The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping
duty imposed pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 575/2002 shall
be definitively collected at the rate of the duties definitively
imposed on imports of sulphanilic acid originating in the
People's Republic of China and India, as defined in that Regula-
tion.

The amounts secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-
dumping duties shall be released.

Article 4

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that
of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communi-
ties.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 July 2002.

For the Council

The President

P. S. MØLLER

L 196/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.7.2002

ANNEX

Elements to be indicated in the commercial invoice referred to in Article 2(2):

1. The heading ‘COMMERCIAL INVOICE ACCOMPANYING GOODS SUBJECT TO AN UNDERTAKING’

2. The name of the company mentioned in Article 2(1) issuing the commercial invoice

3. The commercial invoice number

4. The date of issue of the commercial invoice

5. The TARIC additional code under which the goods on the invoice are to be customs-cleared at the Community fron-

tier

6. The exact description of the goods, including:

— the Product Code Number (PCN), i.e. ‘PA99’, PS85 or ‘TA98’,

— the technical/physical specifications of the PCN, i.e. for ‘PA99’ and ‘PS85’ white free flowing powder, and for

‘TA98’ grey free-flowing powder.

— the company product code number (CPC) (if applicable),

— CN code,

— quantity (to be given in tonnes).

7. The description of the terms of the sale, including:

— price per tonne,

— the applicable payment terms,

— the applicable delivery terms,

— total discounts and rebates.

8. Name of the company acting as an importer to which the invoice is issued directly by the company.

9. The name of the official of the company that has issued the commercial invoice and the following signed declaration:

‘I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for direct export to the European Community of the goods covered by this
invoice is being made within the scope and under the terms of the Undertaking offered by Kokan Synthetics & Chemi-
cals Pvt Ltd, 14 Guruprasad, Gokhale Road (N), Dadar (W), Mumbai 400 028, India, and accepted by the European
Commission through Decision 2002/611/EC. I declare that the information provided on this invoice is complete and
correct.’