Commission Regulation (EC) No 1235/2003 of 10 July 2003 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of silicon originating in Russia
Date: 2003-07-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Russia, anti-dumping duty, import, originating product, semi-metal

L 173/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.7.2003

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1235/2003

of 10 July 2003

imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of silicon originating in Russia

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

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)
(the basic Regulation), as last
amended by Regulation (EC) No 1972/2002 (2), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

After consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

A. PROCEDURE

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

On 12 October 2002, the Commission announced by a notice (notice of initiation) published in the
Official Journal of the European Communities (3), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with
regard to imports into the Community of silicon originating in Russia.

The anti-dumping proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 30 August 2002 by
Euroalliages (Liaison Committee of the Ferro-Alloy Industry) (the complainant) on behalf of produ-
cers representing 100 % of the Community production of silicon. The complaint contained evidence
of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered
sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.

The Commission officially advised the complainant, the exporting producers,
importers/traders,
suppliers and users, as well as their associations known to be concerned and the representatives of
Russia, of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make
their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of
initiation.

The complainant, the exporting producers, importers, suppliers and users made their views known
in writing. All parties who so requested within the time limit and showed that there were particular
reasons why they should be heard were granted a hearing.

In order to allow exporting producers in Russia to submit a claim for market economy treatment
(MET) or individual treatment (IT), the Commission sent claim forms to the three Russian companies
listed in the complaint. All three Russian companies requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7) of the
basic Regulation or individual treatment, should the investigation establish that they did not meet
the conditions for MET.

The Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned and to all the other
companies that made themselves known within the deadlines set out in the notice of initiation.
Replies were received from the complainant Community producers, the cooperating exporting
producers, three importers, three suppliers, five users and one users' association.

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 305, 7.11.2002, p. 1.
(3) OJ C 246, 12.10.2002, p. 12.

11.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 173/15

(7)

The Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for a provisional deter-
mination of dumping, resulting injury and Community interest. Verification visits were carried out
at the premises of the following companies:

(a) Exporting producers

— OJSC Bratsk Aluminium Plant, Bratsk, Irkutsk Region, Russia (belonging to the RUSAL

Holding Group)

— SUAL-Kremny-Ural LLC (SKU), Kamensk, Ural Region, Russia (belonging to the SUAL

Holding Group)

— JSC ZAO Kremny, Irkutsk, Irkutsk Region, Russia (belonging to the SUAL Holding Group)

(b) Importer

— Pultwen Ltd, Maidenhead, United Kingdom

(c) Community producers

— Invensil, Pechiney Group, Paris, France

— Ferroatlantica, Madrid, Spain

— R W Silicium, Pocking, Germany

(d) Analogue country producers

— Fesil ASA, Trondheim, Norway

— Elkem ASA, Oslo, Norway.

(8)

The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 October 2001 to 30 September
2002 (investigation period or IP). The examination of trends in the context of the injury analysis
covered the period from 1 January 1998 to the end of the IP (period under consideration).

B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

1. Product concerned

(9)

(10)

The product concerned is silicon originating in Russia, currently classifiable within CN code
2804 69 00 (silicon content less than 99,99 % by weight).

Silicon is produced in electric submerged arc furnaces with carbothermic reduction of quartz (silica)
in the presence of various types of carbon reductants. It is marketed in the form of lumps, grains,
granules or powder according to internationally accepted technical specifications as regards its
industry for the production of
purity. Silicon is used primarily by two industries, the chemical
methylchlorosilanes or trichlorosilanes and tetrachlorosilicon, and the aluminium industry for the
production of aluminium alloys, primary and secondary smelters, intended for the production of
casting alloys for different industries, in particular the automotive industry. Silicon with a higher
purity, that is containing by weight not less than 99,99 % of silicon, used mostly in the electronic
semiconductor industry, falls under a different CN code and it is not covered by this proceeding.

2. Like product

(11) All Russian exporting producers cooperating in the investigation argued that silicon produced in
Russia and exported to the Community market could not be considered comparable with that
produced in the Community. In particular, they claimed that the silicon manufactured in Russia was
of a much lower quality than that produced by the Community industry due to differences in its
chemical composition.

(12)

The Commission considers that, despite some differences in the chemical composition and purity of
the product produced, silicon produced in the Community, in Russia, and indeed in the analogue
country (Norway) is essentially the same product, since the chemical differences relate to trace
elements and do not alter the fundamental nature of the product. It was also found that the silicon
from the EU, Russia and Norway all had the same physical characteristics and that they were all sold
to different user groups for different applications. Quality differences were taken into account when
comparing exports from Russian producers with the product produced and sold in the EU market.
The claim is therefore provisionally rejected.

L 173/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.7.2003

(13) Accordingly it is provisionally considered that silicon manufactured in Russia and sold domestically
as well as that exported to the Community, the silicon sold on the domestic market of Norway and
that manufactured and sold in the Community by the Community industry have basically the same
physical, chemical and technical characteristics and the same uses. It is therefore provisionally
concluded that these products constitute one like product within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the
basic Regulation.

(14) One Russian exporting producer claimed that the product control number (PCN) table provided by
the Commission in the anti-dumping (AD) questionnaire did not include sufficient details of the
chemical composition of the different types of silicon and it was therefore not possible to make a
proper comparison of the different grades of silicon. As this claim was substantiated by a concrete
proposal well after the deadline for returning the reply to the AD questionnaire, the Commission
can not, at this stage of the proceeding, make the necessary analysis to justify a modification to the
PCN table in the questionnaire. Nevertheless, the Commission will continue to analyse this issue in
more depth during the remainder of the proceeding.

C. DUMPING

1. Normal value

(a) Market economy treatment

(15) As the current investigation was initiated before the date of entry into force of the amendment to
the basic Regulation, i.e. by Regulation (EC) No 1972/2002, the new regime defined by this amend-
ment does not apply to the present investigation. Therefore, pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic
Regulation normal value was determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of Article 2 for those
exporting producers which were able to show that they met the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c)
of that Regulation, i.e. that market economy conditions prevailed in respect of the manufacture and
sale of the like product concerned.

(16)

(17)

Claims for MET were received from all cooperating Russian exporting producers. The claims were
analysed on the basis of the five criteria required by Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. The
investigation showed that all three companies fulfilled the required criteria.

The Community industry was given the opportunity to comment and in particular questioned
whether the raw material prices were market prices. The subsequent investigation showed that prices
for the main raw materials of the three Russian exporting producers were in line with world market
prices as well as with the purchase prices of the Community industry. With regard to electricity
prices it was clearly indicated that, should any distortion appear in the course of the further investi-
gation, this would be corrected by an appropriate adjustment.

(18) However, in view of the fact that the cooperating Russian exporting producers represented 100 % of
the Russian production of silicon, and all received market economy status, the use of analogue coun-
try's items was not necessary.

(b) Determination of normal value

(19) As far as the determination of normal value is concerned, the Commission first established, for each
exporting producer, whether its total domestic sales of the product concerned were representative in
comparison with its total export sales to the Community. In accordance with Article 2(2) of the
basic Regulation, domestic sales were considered representative when the total domestic sales
volume of each exporting producer was at least 5 % of its total export sales volume to the Commu-
nity. The comparison showed that domestic sales were representative.

(20)

For each type sold by the exporting producers on their domestic markets and found to be directly
comparable with the type of the product concerned sold for export to the Community, it was estab-
lished whether domestic sales were sufficiently representative for the purposes of Article 2(2) of the
basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular type of the product concerned were considered suffi-
ciently representative when the total domestic sales volume of that type during the IP represented
5 % or more of the total sales volume of the comparable type exported to the Community.

11.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 173/17

(21)

The Commission subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of each company could be
considered as being made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regu-
lation.

(22) An examination was made as to whether the domestic sales of each type of the product concerned
could be regarded as having been made in the ordinary course of trade, by establishing the propor-
tion of profitable sales to independent customers of the type in question. In cases where the sales
volume of silicon, sold at a net sales price equal to or above the calculated cost of production, repre-
sented 80 % or more of the total sales volume and where the weighted average price of that type
was equal to or above the cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price,
calculated as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales made during the IP, irrespective
of whether these sales were profitable or not. In cases where the volume of profitable sales of silicon
represented less than 80 % of the total sales volume or where the weighted average price of that
type was below the cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calcu-
lated as a weighted average of profitable sales only, provided that these sales represented 10 % or
more of the total sales volume.

(23)

(24)

In cases where the volume of profitable sales of any type of silicon represented less than 10 % of the
total sales volume, it was considered that this particular type was sold in insufficient quantities for
the domestic price to provide an appropriate basis for the establishment of the normal value.

In all cases where constructed normal value was used and in accordance with Article 2(3) of the
basic Regulation, normal value was constructed by adding to the manufacturing costs of the
exported types, adjusted where necessary, a reasonable percentage for selling, general and adminis-
trative expenses (SG & A) and a reasonable margin of profit.

(25) With regard to the manufacturing costs, and in particular energy costs, it was found that the price
charged by Russian electricity suppliers to two silicon producers could not reasonably reflect the
costs associated with the production of electricity, when compared to prices of representative electri-
city producers in the Community, the analogue country and Russia, including those in Russia. It was
therefore concluded that the energy cost was not reliable for these two producers. It was therefore
provisionally decided to use the power price charged to another producer in Russia.

(26) As regards SG & A and profits, in accordance with Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation, the amounts

for SG & A and profits used were those pertaining to the exporting producer concerned.

2. Export price

(27) All three cooperating exporting producers sold most of the product concerned to importers, located
in the European Union (United Kingdom), Switzerland and the British Virgin Islands. On the basis of
the information available at this stage of the proceeding, these importers must be considered inde-
pendent. Therefore the export prices for the three cooperating exporting producers were established
provisionally on the basis of their sales prices to these importers.

3. Comparison

(28)

For the purposes of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price at an
ex-works level, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences that were
claimed and demonstrated to affect prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10)
of the basic Regulation. Adjustments were made in respect of level of trade, inland freight, ocean
freight, packing, credit costs and other charges, such as handling and loading and customs declara-
tions. Two companies requested an adjustment for differences in quantities. This adjustment was not
granted, as these differences in quantities have been taken into account by granting the level of trade
adjustment for different types of customers. One company requested an adjustment for differences
in physical characteristics. Within the evidence given for the request, it was found that more than
95 % of the types were sold to both markets, the European Community and domestic. Therefore, a
comparison was made within the PCNs having similar characteristics. Consequently, an adjustment
for differences in physical characteristics could not be granted, since they were not sufficiently
substantiated on a transaction by transaction basis.

L 173/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.7.2003

4. Dumping margin

(29)

In accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin was established on
the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export
prices, as determined above. This comparison showed the existence of dumping. The provisional
dumping margin was expressed as a percentage of the cif Community frontier price duty unpaid.

(30) With regard to SKU LLC and ZAO Kremny, as they both belong to the same group (SUAL), only
one weighted average dumping margin has been calculated, as it is the Commission's standard prac-
tice to establish one dumping margin for related exporting producers, in order to preclude the possi-
bility that future exports to the Community might be channelled through the companies having the
lower margin.

(31)

The provisional dumping margins are:

OJSC ‘Bratsk Aluminium Plant’ (RUSAL group)

SKU LLC, Sual-Kremny-Ural and ZAO Kremny (SUAL group)

24,0 %

33,4 %

(32) As the level of cooperation for Russia was 100 %, the residual provisional dumping margin was set

at the same level as that of the highest margin level of a cooperating company, i.e. 33,4 %.

1. Definition of the Community industry

D. INJURY

(33)

The three complainant Community producers replied to the questionnaires and fully cooperated in
the investigation. During the IP they represented 100 % of the Community production. It was found
that, during the IP, one of the three complainant Community producers imported the product
concerned from other third countries, principally from South Africa. This Community producer
imported the product concerned essentially to supplement products supplied to their customers.
These imports decreased over the period under consideration, particularly between 1998 and 1999
when they dropped by half, following the installation of new Community production facilities by
the producer concerned and a strategic commitment to the EU silicon market. During the IP the
quantities imported represented, by volume, only 2,1 % of the Community industry's sales of silicon
within the Community (3,5 % of the sales of the producer in question). In respect of production, the
percentages are 1,9 % and 3,2 % respectively. In view of the small proportion represented by those
imports, it is concluded that they do not affect the status of Community producer for the producer
in question.

(34) On this basis, the three complainant Community producers are deemed to constitute the Commu-

nity industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation.

2. Injury

2.1. Commu ni ty c onsu mp t i on

(35)

Community consumption was based on the combined volume of supplies made by the Community
industry in the Community, imports from other third countries (based on Eurostat), as well as veri-
fied sales into the Community from the country concerned.

TABLE 1

Community consumption (based on sales volumes)

1998

1999

2000

2001

IP

Tonnes

290 684

325 234

388 938

373 950

371 540

Index
Y/Y trend

100

112
+ 12 %

134
+ 20 %

129
– 4 %

128
– 1 %

Source: verified questionnaire replies and Eurostat.

11.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 173/19

(36)

EU consumption of silicon peaked in the year 2000 at almost 390 000 tonnes before falling back
again in both 2001 and the IP to end at 371 540 tonnes. In total there was a 28 % increase over the
whole period under consideration.

2.2. Imp or t s c onc e r ne d

(a) Volume of the imports concerned

(37)

Between 1998 and the IP, the volume of imports into the EU originating in Russia developed as
follows:

TABLE 2

Volume of imports concerned

Tonnes

10 798

6 272

14 172

16 907

18 006

1998

1999

2000

2001

IP

Index

100

58

131

157

Y/Y trend

– 42 %

– 126 %

+ 19 %

167

+ 7 %

Source: verified questionnaire replies.

(38)

Between 1998 and 1999 Russian imports of silicon fell by over 40 % (or by 4 526 tonnes). From
1999 onwards, throughout the remainder of the period under consideration, imports increased in
absolute terms year on year. These imports increased particularly strongly in 2000 (by 7 900
tonnes) and increased again in both 2001 (by 2 735 tonnes) and during the IP (by 1 099 tonnes),
even in the face of declining EU consumption in 2001 and the IP. As a result, imports from Russia
increased by over 67 % in total over the period under consideration.

(b) Market share of the imports concerned

(39)

The market share held by imports from the country concerned developed as shown below:

Market share of the imports from Russia (based on sales volume)

TABLE 3

% age of EU market

1998

3,7

1999

1,9

2000

3,6

2001

4,5

IP

4,8

Y/Y trend (% age points)

– 1,8 %

+ 1,7 %

+ 0,9 %

+ 0,3 %

Source: verified questionnaire replies and Eurostat.

(40)

(41)

The market share of imports from Russia followed a similar increasing trend to that seen for the
volume of imports, albeit on a lesser scale due to the dampening effect of increasing EU consump-
tion. Over the period under consideration, the market share of the dumped imports increased by
1,1 percentage points or by nearly a third.

Between 1998 and 1999, a reduced export volume caused the Russian producers to lose almost half
of their market share (from 3,7 % to 1,9 %). This loss was largely recouped in the following year,
and market share further increased thereafter to peak in the IP at 4,8 %.

(c) Average prices of dumped imports

(42)

The price evolution of Russian silicon at the Community border level and sold on the Community
market is shown below.

L 173/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.7.2003

TABLE 4

Average price of dumped imports

1998

1 048

Index

100

Y/Y trend

1999

963

92

– 8 %

2000

1 131

108

+ 17 %

2001

999

95

– 12 %

IP

929

89

– 7 %

EUR

Source: Eurostat.

(43) Over the period under consideration the average price of dumped imports decreased by 11 %. The
price decrease was particularly evident (-19 %) between 2000, when the average price reached a
high of EUR 1 131 per tonne, due to increased EU demand, and the IP, which saw the lowest price
of EUR 929 per tonne.

(d) Price undercutting and price depression

(44)

(45)

(46)

(47)

For the determination of price undercutting data pertaining to the IP were analysed. As outlined in
recital 10, there are various types of silicon which are produced and sold on the Community market
both by the Community industry and by exporting producers in Russia. Price undercutting was
established on the basis of a direct comparison of the sales prices for each type of silicon charged by
the Community industry and the sales prices charged by the exporting producers concerned. For
each type all prices were compared after deducting discounts and rebates.

The sales prices for the exporting producers concerned were those at cif Community border level, to
which were added customs duties and unloading costs. The sales prices of the Community industry
were adjusted where necessary to an ex-works level, i.e. excluding transport costs.

The results of the comparison, on a weighted-average to weighted-average basis, showed that the
average price undercutting margins, expressed as a percentage of the Community industry's average
selling prices, were over 11 % for Russia.

This level of undercutting should also be seen in light of the fact that prices decreased significantly
over the period under consideration and, in view of the losses incurred by the Community industry,
can be considered to be depressed.

2.3. E conomi c si tu a t i on of th e Commu ni ty i ndu str y

(a) Preliminary remark

(48)

In accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, all economic factors and indices having a
bearing on the state of the industry on the EU market were examined.

(b) Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation

TABLE 5

Production

Tonnes

107 303

129 285

143 268

147 811

143 818

1998

1999

2000

2001

IP

Index

100

Y/Y trend

120

+ 20 %

134

+ 14 %

138

+ 3 %

134

– 3 %

Source: verified questionnaire replies of Community industry.

11.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 173/21

(49) Over the period under consideration Community industry production increased by 34 %, but did fall
by 3 % between 2001 and the IP. During the IP Community industry production of silicon repre-
sented 38,7 % of Community consumption.

TABLE 6

Production capacity

Tonnes

125 000

142 300

158 000

165 600

162 000

1998

1999

2000

2001

IP

Index

100

114

126

Y/Y trend

+ 14 %

+ 12 %

132

+ 5 %

130

– 2 %

Source: verified questionnaire replies of the Community industry.

(50)

Production capacity increased each year, except for the IP when there was a small fall. In all, capa-
city increased by a total of 30 % over the period under consideration as a result of investment deci-
sions made in 1998.

TABLE 7

Capacity utilisation

% age utilised

1998

85,8

Index

100

1999

90,9

106

2000

90,7

106

2001

89,3

104

IP

88,8

103

Source: verified questionnaire replies of the Community industry.

(51)

The above table shows that during the period under consideration capacity utilisation increased by
three percentage points.

(c) Sales volume and sales prices

TABLE 8

Sales volume

Tonnes

86 718

114 587

133 568

128 219

136 421

1998

1999

2000

2001

IP

Index

100

132

154

Y/Y trend

+ 32 %

+ 17 %

148

– 7 %

157

+ 6 %

Source: verified questionnaire replies of the Community industry.

(52)

The Community industry's sales to unrelated customers in the Community increased by 57 %
between 1998 and the IP. In 2001 the Community industry lost sales volumes in an attempt to
maintain prices in the face of falling prices of silicon from Russia. During the IP this trend was
reversed as the Community industry was forced to react to price pressures in order to maintain sales
volumes.

L 173/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.7.2003

(53)

Sales to related companies remained stable and represented less than 6 % of all sales of silicon
during the period under consideration.

TABLE 9

Community industry sales prices of silicon

Euro/Tonne

1998

1 415

Index

100

Y/Y trend

1999

1 184

84

– 16 %

2000

1 231

87

+ 4 %

2001

1 271

90

+ 3 %

IP

1 185

84

– 7 %

Source: verified questionnaire replies of the Community industry.

(54)

In the period 1998 to the IP, the average sales prices of silicon charged by the Community industry
on the Community market saw significant falls of 16 %. The year on year trend was similar to that
seen for the prices of imports from Russia, except for 2001 when Russian prices fell but the
Community industry's prices rose slightly. Average prices fell sharply in 1999 to reach a low of
EUR 1 184 per tonne, before recovering to EUR 1 271 per tonne by 2001. Prices then fell by 7 %
during the IP, to finish at an equivalent level to that seen in 1999.

(d) Market share

TABLE 10

Market share

% age of market

1998

29,8

Index

100

1999

35,2

118

2000

34,3

115

2001

34,3

115

IP

36,7

123

Source: verified questionnaire replies of the Community industry.

(55)

The market share held by the Community industry increased from 29,8 % in 1998 to 36,7 % in the
IP in line with their increased production and sales volumes. A large increase took place between
1998 and 1999 (+5,4 % of the market) with the introduction of new EU manufacturing facilities. A
smaller rise (+2,4 percentage points) took place between 2001 and the IP.

(e) Stocks

TABLE 11

Stocks

Tonnes

32 768

33 140

27 803

33 186

23 118

1998

1999

2000

2001

IP

Index

100

Y/Y trend

101

+ 1 %

85

– 16 %

101

+ 19 %

71

– 30 %

Source: verified questionnaire replies of the Community industry.

(56)

The above table shows that during the period under consideration stocks were reduced by 29 %.
Apart from the year 2000, stocks were at around 33 thousand tonnes, until the IP when they fell to
just over 23 thousand tonnes.

11.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 173/23

(57)

Stocks, which had represented around 38 % of the Community industry's EU sales volume in 1998,
fell to below 17 % of EU sales during the IP. Part of this fall is explained by the fact that stocks
usually built up at the end of each calendar year to allow for reduced production volumes during
the winter months when energy costs peak. The IP ended in September, i.e. before the full effect of
stock build up is felt.

(f) Profitability and cash flow

(58) During the period under consideration profitability expressed as a percentage of net sales value

developed as follows:

TABLE 12

Profitability

% age profit

1998

12,6

1999

1,8

2000

5,0

2001

1,7

IP

– 2,1

Y/Y trend

– 10,8 %

+ 3,2 %

– 3,3 %

– 3,8 %

Source: verified questionnaire replies of the Community industry.

(59)

Save for the year 2000, profitability deteriorated continuously over the whole period from a profit
of 12,6 % in 1998 to a loss of 2,1 % in the IP. In 2000 increased sales prices, plus lower production
costs due to increased investments allowed for an improved return on sales. In 2001 profits fell due
to rising production costs, particularly in energy and consumable prices, not being reflected by a
comparable increase in sales prices which saw only a small rise. In fact average costs rose by
EUR 80 per tonne that year, whilst only EUR 40 per tonne could be passed on to their customers.
During the IP prices fell, sending the Community industry into a loss-making situation despite a
slight decrease in average cost of production.

TABLE 13

Cash flow

1998

1999

2000

2001

IP

EUR '000

17 005

8 962

15 028

5 876

Index
Y/Y trend

100

53
– 47 %

88
+ 68 %

35
– 61 %

6 070

36
+ 3 %

Source: verified questionnaire replies of the Community industry.

(60)

Cash flow deteriorated by 64 % during the period under consideration, and followed a similar trend
as that for profitability.

(g) Investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital

TABLE 14

Investments

1998

1999

2000

2001

IP

EUR '000

32 750

15 539

15 625

8 559

Index
Y/Y trend

100

47
– 53 %

48
+ 1 %

26
– 45 %

7 072

22
– 17 %

Source: verified questionnaire replies of the Community industry.

L 173/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.7.2003

(61)

The significant investments during the period 1998 to 2000 were primarily aimed at increasing
production capacity on the back of the favourable conditions in 1998 and on a positive develop-
ment of the Community silicon which the Community industry had expected at that time. Indeed
these expected improvements can be seen in the trend for Community consumption which
increased by 34 % in this period (1998 to 2000).

(62)

The investigation showed that the operating return on investments, including cumulated deprecia-
tion, during the period under consideration deteriorated in line with the development of profit-
ability.

TABLE 15

Return on investments and ability to raise capital

% age return

1998

39,1

1999

14,7

2000

20,4

2001

9,1

IP

– 5,7

Y/Y trend

– 24 %

+ 6 %

– 11 %

– 15 %

Source: verified questionnaire replies of the Community industry.

(63)

The companies which make up the Community industry are all part of larger groups. As such their
ability to raise capital is determined by the financial situation of these groups as a whole. These
larger groups reported no problems with raising capital during the period under consideration.
However, problems were reported with receiving funding for new projects in the silicon sector. This
is supported by verified data as seen in recital 61, where investments in the IP were only 22 % of
their level in 1998.

(h) Employment, productivity and wages

TABLE 16

Employment

Employees

1998

588

100

1999

634

108

+ 8 %

2000

673

114

+ 6 %

2001

682

116

+ 2 %

IP

685

116

+ 0 %

Index

Y/Y trend

Source: verified questionnaire replies of the Community industry.

(64)

The above table shows that employment increased by 16 % during the period under consideration,
due to the increased production capabilities, but did not grow further during the IP.

(65) Given that the percentage increase in production was greater than the percentage increase in
employment, productivity increased by 15 % over the same period, as shown in the table below:

TABLE 17

Productivity

Tonnes

1998

182

100

1999

204

112

+ 12 %

2000

213

117

+ 5 %

2001

217

119

+ 2 %

IP

210

115

– 4 %

Index

Y/Y trend

Source: verified questionnaire replies of the Community industry.

11.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 173/25

(66) During the period under consideration the average wages of the employees of the Community

industry increased by less than 1 % per annum i.e. by less than the rate of inflation.

TABLE 18

Wages

EUR/Employee

32 537

30 610

33 162

35 048

33 740

1998

1999

2000

2001

IP

Index

100

Y/Y trend

94

– 6 %

102

+ 8 %

108

+ 6 %

104

– 4 %

2.4. M a g ni tu de of du mp i ng ma r g i ns

(67)

The impact on the Community industry of the magnitude of the actual margin of dumping cannot
be considered to be negligible given the volume and the prices of the imports concerned. Indeed,
the investigation showed that overall the imports originating in Russia were sold at appreciably
dumped prices on the Community market during the IP. Price pressure on Community prices would
obviously have been lower or even non-existent without dumping.

2.5. G r ow t h

(68)

Between 1998 and the IP the growth of the Community market was largely positive. The Commu-
nity industry increased both sales volume and market share between 1998 and the IP. However, as
explained above, the increase was mainly the result of a strategic decision to source more silicon
from the Community rather than via third country. At the same time the imports from Russia signif-
icantly increased by around 8 200 MT and the increased market share of the low-priced dumped
imports was 1,1 percentage points. Between 1999 and the IP, Russia increased its imports by
11 700 MT and its market share by 2,9 percentage points. Between 2000 and the IP, in a shrinking
market, whilst Russian imports and market share continued to grow import price fell by 18 %.

2.6. R e cove r y fr om p a st du mp i n g

(69)

There is no evidence of any dumping activity on the Community market in the period prior to the
period under consideration. Therefore, recovery from past dumping is not considered to be a rele-
vant factor in the injury suffered by the Community industry.

2.7. Conc lu si on on i nj u r y

(70)

Improvements occurred in respect of production volumes (+34 %), capacity (+30 %), utilisation of
capacity (+3 percentage points), Community sales volume (+57 %), market share (+6,9 percentage
points), stocks (-29 %), employment (+16 %), and productivity (+15 %). Conversely, sales prices fell
(-16 %), profitability collapsed (-14,7 percentage points), cash flow was reduced (-64 %), investments
dried up (-78 %), return on investment became negative (-44,8 percentage points), and average
wages grew at less than the rate of inflation (<1 % per annum).

(71) However, on closer examination it can be seen that the main positive developments for the Commu-
nity industry took place between 1998 and 2000. From 2000 onwards, real improvements were
seen solely for stocks (-14 %). All other indicators either rose only slightly, remained stagnant, or
indeed fell over this period. It is during this period that the Commission considers that the material
injury suffered by the Community industry is mostly apparent.

L 173/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.7.2003

(72)

The improvements seen between 1998 and 2000 can be directly attributed to decisions taken by the
Community industry in 1998 to invest in additional Community production facilities (between
1998 and 2000 EU production capacity increased by 26 % from 125 000 tonnes to 158 000
tonnes). At that time, anti-dumping measures had been recently extended for a further five years on
imports of silicon from the People's Republic of China, following an expiry review (1). The Commu-
nity industry was also making good profits on its EU sales of silicon (see recital 58).

(73)

In light of the foregoing, in particular the decrease in profitability and sales prices suffered by the
Community industry over the whole period under consideration, and the trend for other injury indi-
cators from 2000 to the IP, it was provisionally concluded that the Community industry suffered
material injury within the meaning of Article 3 of the basic Regulation.

E. CAUSATION

1. Introduction

(74)

(75)

In order to reach its provisional conclusion as to whether there is a causal link between the dumped
imports and the injury suffered by the Community industry, the Commission first examined the
impact of the dumped imports from the country concerned on the situation in that industry.

Secondly, known factors other than dumped imports, such as increased production costs of the
Community industry, there alleged absence of competition between silicon originating in the EU
and that coming from Russia, the fact that the Community industry itself was alleged to import
silicon from Russia, the increased export activity of the Community industry, a decline in EU
consumption for silicon from 2001 onwards, alleged circumvention of Chinese anti-dumping
measures either via Russia or other third countries, and the imports into the Community from other
third countries, which could at the same time be injuring the Community industry, were also
analysed in order to ensure that possible injury caused by other factors was not attributed to the
dumped imports.

2. Effect of the dumped imports from the country concerned

(76) During the period under consideration, the volume of dumped imports of Russian silicon into the
Community increased by 67 % and their market share rose by 1,1 percentage points. Between 2000
and the IP, when the injury suffered by the Community industry was more acute, imports increased
by 27 %. At the same time Russian imports increased their market shares in each year, by 1,7
percentage points in 2000, 0,9 percentage points in 2001, and 2,4 percentage points in the IP (see
recital 39. The comparable figures for the Community industry are -0,9 percentage points in 2000,
0,0 percentage points in 2001, and 0.3 percentage points in the IP (see recital 55). Therefore
between 2000 and the IP, Russian imports increased their share of the market by 1,2 percentage
points, whilst the Community industry gained 2,4 percentage points.

(77)

Russian prices decreased overall by 11 % between 1998 and the IP. However between 1998 and
2000 the price of Russian imports actually rose by 8 %, due to increasing Community demand for
silicon. Again, it can be seen that the real problems came between 2000 and the IP, when Russian
prices slumped 18 % to finish at their lowest level seen over the whole period under consideration.
This development of prices should be seen in light of the nature of the product under investigation.
Silicon is a commodity product with transparent prices, where users are well aware of market devel-
opments, and where even small volumes of low-priced product can have a significant impact on the
whole market. In line with Russian prices, Community industry prices over the same period fell by
16 %, although they were on average 27 % more expensive than Russian prices. The price pressure
is further evidenced by the price undercutting practised by the Russian exporting producers and the
prices of the Community industry, which were depressed to a considerable extent during the IP.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2496/97 (OJ L 345, 16.12.1997, p. 1).

11.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 173/27

(78)

(79)

(80)

(81)

The above developments coincided with the significant declining trend of the main economic indica-
tors pertaining to the Community industry, particularly sales prices which decreased by 4 %, and
profitability which decreased considerably from a profit of 5 % to a loss of 2,1 %.

Finally, it should be noted that the exporting producers alleged that silicon produced in Russia and
exported to the EU is sold to different customers and in different markets to that produced and sold
by the Community industry. It was claimed that Russian silicon is sold predominantly to aluminium
producers, whilst it is chemical users which are of particular importance to the Community industry.
One exporting producer even claimed that Russian silicon is sold exclusively to secondary alumi-
nium producers.

This claim was not supported by the facts. It was found that Russian silicon was sold to all user
groups, i.e. to chemical users as well as to primary and secondary aluminium producers, and that
the Community industry does face competition in all market segments.

It is therefore provisionally concluded that there is competition between silicon produced and
exported by Russian producers and that produced by the Community industry; that these Russian
imports were made at dumped prices, and that they caused injury to the Community industry. It is
provisionally concluded that this argument is therefore unfounded.

3. Effect of other factors

3.1. Incr e a se d p r odu cti on costs of th e Commu ni t y i ndu st r y

(82)

The investigation showed that the average cost of production for silicon produced by the Commu-
nity industry developed as follows:

TABLE 19

Average cost of production

EUR/Tonne

1998

1 236

1999

1 163

2000

1 170

2001

1 250

IP

1 210

Index

100

94

95

101

98

Y/Y trend

– 6 %

+ 1 %

+ 7 %

– 3 %

Source: verified questionnaire replies of the Community industry.

(83) During the period under consideration the average cost of production for the Community industry
actually fell 2 % in real terms. The average cost fell from the EUR 1 250 per tonne level in 1998 to
the EUR 1 160 to EUR 1 170 level in 1999 and 2000 due to economies of scale resulting from the
increased capacity. This rose again to the EUR 1 200 to EUR 1 210 per tonne level in 2001 and
the IP due to increasing input costs particularly for energy as well as for consumables. However, had
sales prices merely remained at the level for the year 2000 (at EUR 1 231 per tonne), the Commu-
nity industry would have enjoyed a profit margin of 1,7 %. In reality this margin could be expected
to be even higher in a normal market had sales prices been able to respond to the dual pressures of
increasing input costs and normal inflation.

(84)

It is therefore provisionally considered that the development of average cost of production did not
contribute in any significant way to the material injury suffered by the Community industry.

L 173/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.7.2003

3.2. Commu ni ty i n du str y i mp or ts of R u ssi a n si li c on

(85)

Contrary to the claims made, no evidence of the Community industry having purchased and
imported Russian origin silicon was found. There were examples of companies related to the
Community industry buying Russian product for their own consumption. However, these purchases
were not in any way under the control or influence of the Community industry.

(86)

It is therefore provisionally considered that the material injury suffered by the Community industry
is not self-inflicted.

3.3. Commu ni ty i n du str y e x p or t a ct i vi ty

(87)

The investigation showed that the export activity of the Community industry developed as follows:

TABLE 20

Community industry exports

Tonnes

1998

6 446

1999

6 776

2000

5 803

2001

6 285

IP

3 209

Index

100

105

90

98

50

Y/Y trend

+ 5 %

– 14 %

+ 8 %

– 49 %

Source: verified questionnaire replies of the Community industry.

(88)

(89)

It is relevant to consider the export performance of the Community industry, as certain injury indi-
cators can be influenced by this indicator, e.g. production and capacity utilisation.

Community industry exports of silicon fell by half over the period under consideration, mainly in
the IP. This is a fall from less than 4,8 % of all sales in 2001 to less than 2,4 % during the IP. Whilst
reduced export sales may have had some effect on the overall impact on the economic situation of
the Community industry, the restricted volumes will make any influence equally restricted. It should
also be emphasised that the current assessment of injury focussed exclusively on the situation of the
Community industry on the Community market.

(90)

It is therefore provisionally considered that the material injury suffered by the Community industry
is not, in any significant way, a result of the export performance of the Community industry.

3.4. De cli ne i n EU c onsu mp t i on

(91)

Consumption actually increased by 81 000 tonnes (28 %) over the whole period under considera-
tion, although between 2000 and the IP there was a slight decrease of 17 000 tonnes (6 %). As the
injury suffered by the Community industry is particularly evidenced in terms of sales prices and
profitability resulting from low priced dumped imports from Russia, such a trend is not considered
to be a significant causal factor in the injury suffered by the Community industry.

3.5. Ci r c u mve nti on of Ch i ne se me a su r e s

(92)

It is alleged that injury to the Community industry is being caused by circumvention of the anti-
dumping measures currently in force against silicon originating in China. This circumvention is said
to occur by declaring Chinese product as originating in either Russia or other third countries in
order to evade anti-dumping duties.

11.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 173/29

(93) As far as Russia is concerned, no basis for the allegation was found. The sales volumes of Russian
origin silicon in the IP as declared by the cooperating exporters closely match, and indeed slightly
exceed, the tonnage as reported by Eurostat. Accordingly, there appears to be no silicon imported
from Russia that cannot be directly attributed to the cooperating exporters, which covered 100 % of
production during the IP.

(94)

(95)

It was found on the basis of the information available, that these imports were either at lower
volumes, at higher average prices, or at lower volumes and higher average prices than were Russian
imports during the IP.

It is therefore provisionally considered that the material injury suffered by the Community industry
is not a result of the circumvention, if any, of the anti-dumping measures currently in force against
silicon originating in China.

3.6. Imp or t s i n to th e Commu ni ty fr om oth e r t h i r d c ou ntr i e s

(96)

Import volumes of silicon into the Community from countries other than Russia, together with their
average prices, developed as follows:

TABLE 21

Imports into the Community from other third countries
(volume)

Brazil

China

Norway

Tonnes

1998

1999

2000

2001

IP

43 536

56 709

67 663

50 849

52 089

4 168

3 560

5 969

9 709

14 454

92 200

115 385

124 790

122 677

114 254

South Africa

12 234

6 225

5 539

6 203

2 674

Other third countries

41 029

22 495

37 236

39 385

33 643

Total

193 167

204 375

241 198

228 824

217 113

Source: Eurostat.

TABLE 22

Imports into the Community from other third countries
(average price)

1998

1 173

1 044

1 341

1 198

1 273

Total

1 273

1999

1 040

953

1 207

1 161

1 205

1 155

2000

1 158

964

1 197

1 241

1 165

1 176

2001

1 231

1 142

1 201

1 149

1 210

1 205

EUR/Tonne

IP

1 098

1 158

1 199

1 149

1 156

1 165

Brazil

China

Norway

South Africa

Other third countries

Source: Eurostat.

(97)

It has been argued that injury to the Community industry was caused by imports into the Commu-
nity from other third countries, in particular from Norway and Brazil, given their larger volumes
and market shares compared with imports from Russia.

L 173/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.7.2003

(98)

It is true that, over the period under consideration imports from both countries were several times
the level of Russian imports. However, between 2000 and the IP, the period when particular injury
was suffered by the Community industry, the imports from these countries actually declined. More
importantly, the average price of these imports was also significantly above the Russian prices
(+29 % for Norway and +18 % for Brazil). Whilst imports from a number of other third countries,
with the exception of Norway, undercut Community industry prices during the IP, these price differ-
ences are of a relatively minor nature and represent a normal premium that EU produced silicon
would expect to achieve in comparison with imported material.

(99)

It was further claimed that imports from South Africa and China also contributed to the injury
suffered. However, the data clearly shows that imports form these countries were at lower volumes
and at higher prices than Russian imports.

(100)

It is therefore considered that imports into the Community from other third countries did not in
any significant way contribute to the material injury suffered by the Community industry.

4. Conclusion on causation

(101) The dumped imports which increased during the period under consideration, especially between
2000 and the IP, as well as the price undercutting and the price depression found, had significant
negative consequences on the situation of the Community industry, notably in terms of sales prices
and profitability. The impact of the dumped imports on the situation of the Community industry, in
an open market with transparent prices, is such that they caused material injury.

(102) Given the above analysis which has properly distinguished and separated the effects of all known
factors on the situation of the Community industry from the injurious effects of the dumped
imports, it is provisionally confirmed that these other factors do not break the causal link between
the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Community industry.

F. COMMUNITY INTEREST

1. Preliminary remarks

(103)

In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was provisionally examined whether the
imposition of anti-dumping measures would be against the interest of the Community as a whole.
The determination of the Community interest was based on an appreciation of all the interests
involved, i.e. those of the Community industry, the unrelated importers/traders and the users of the
product concerned to the extent that the relevant parties submitted the information requested in this
respect.

(104)

In order to assess the likely impact of the imposition of measures, the Commission requested infor-
mation from all known interested parties. In particular questionnaires were sent to the Community
industry, as well as to importers and users of the product concerned and to their associations.

(105) On this basis it was examined whether, despite the conclusions on dumping, injury and causation,
compelling reasons exist which would lead to the conclusion that it is not in the Community
interest to impose anti-dumping measures in this particular case.

2. Interest of the Community industry

(106) The Community industry has been suffering as a result of low priced dumped imports of silicon
from Russia. In view of the nature of the injury suffered by the Community industry, which has lead,
inter alia, to an important decrease of their sales prices and affected their profitability, the Commis-
sion considers that, in the absence of anti-dumping measures, a further deterioration in the situation
of the Community industry is unavoidable. This will most likely entail further injury and in the
medium term, potentially the retraction of that industry, bearing in mind the scale of profit dete-
rioration during the period under consideration.

11.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 173/31

(107)

If, however, anti-dumping measures are taken, this would reinstate fair trading conditions. Under
these conditions the Community industry will be able to remain a viable silicon producer. This
ability, together with the commitment of the Community industry to the EU market, was amply
demonstrated in the years after 1997 by making investments in production facilities and reducing
reliance on imports. At that time the Council had taken action to maintain fair market conditions
by renewing the anti-dumping measures against silicon from the PRC. As a consequence the
Community industry was able to make good profits and was willing to invest in the EU by installing
new production facilities.

(108) The adoption of anti-dumping measures would therefore be in the interest of the Community

industry.

3. Interest of unrelated importers and users and possible impact on consumers

(109) The Commission sent questionnaires to two known unrelated importers and 12 users of silicon in
the Community, as well as one users' organisation. Neither unrelated importer cooperated with the
proceeding.

(110) Only five of the unrelated users and the users' association submitted replies. The information
provided by the five users represented 23 % of Community imports and 16 % of Community
consumption of silicon during the IP. However, the information provided in the replies was of poor
quality and did not allow a full evaluation of the impact of silicon on their costs.

3.1. Possi ble i mp a c t on i mp or te r s

(111)

it is provisionally
In light of the complete absence of cooperation from unrelated importers,
concluded that any negative impact from the proposed measures on importers is likely to be
minimal.

3.2. Possi ble i mp a c t on u se r s

(112) Users of the product under consideration are principally manufacturers of either silicon products or
aluminium. Of the five users which cooperated, one was a manufacturer of silicones, whilst the
other four were aluminium producers. A submission was also received from an association of alumi-
nium producers in the Community.

(113) From the sketchy information provided by the cooperating users, an extrapolation suggests that
silicon costs represented on average 10 % (varying between 8 % and 12 %) of their total turnover
during the IP. Little information was provided for the average profit margin achieved by these users.
However, it cannot be excluded that measures will have a negative impact on users. In the worst
case, i.e. were duties to be passed on in full and result in a similar price rise across the whole
market, the impact of the proposed measures on the costs of users could be in the order of 2,5 %.
However, limited reliance should be placed on this figure given the paucity of information available.

(114)

In view of the limited cooperation received from users, and bearing in mind the level of the
measures proposed, it is concluded that the possible negative effects on users cannot be considered
such as to outweigh the expected benefits for the Community industry.

3.3. Possi ble i mp a c t on c onsu me r s

(115) As the product concerned is an industrial commodity product, it appears unlikely that the proposed

measures will have any impact on individual consumers.

L 173/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.7.2003

4. Competition and trade distorting effects

(116) Some parties have alleged that the measures would reduce users' choice, and restrict availability of
silicon on the Community market. It is true that the Community industry is unable to supply
Community demand on its own. However, measures are designed to re-establish fair and effective
competition on the Community market by correcting the distorting effects of the injurious dumping
practised by the Russian exporting producers. Silicon originating in Russia will most likely still be
available on the Community market. Important volumes, which are imported from other third coun-
tries, will also continue to be available. Thus users will continue to exercise choice between the
competing products, albeit at non-dumped/non-injurious prices. Conversely, such freedom of choice
would most likely be affected if the Community industry continued to suffer further injury as a
result of non-imposition of anti-dumping measures and thus eventually vanish as a supplier of the
product concerned.

(117) Not imposing measures in the present case would maintain and amplify the distortion of competi-
tion, resulting in a further deterioration of the situation of the Community industry. A contraction
of the Community industry would lead to reduced competition and reduced choice for users on the
Community market.

5. Conclusion on Community interest

(118) On the basis of the above facts and considerations it is provisionally concluded that there are no

compelling reasons against the imposition of measures on imports of silicon originating in Russia.

G. PROVISIONAL MEASURES

1. Provisional injury elimination level

(119) Having established that the dumped imports under consideration have caused material injury to the
Community industry and that there are no compelling reasons against the imposition of measures,
the proposed duties should be imposed at a level sufficient to eliminate the injury caused without
exceeding the dumping margins found.

(120) When calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious dumping, it
was considered that any measures should allow the Community industry to cover its costs of
production and to obtain an overall pre-tax profit that could be achieved in the absence of dumped
imports on the sales of the like product in the Community. In assessing this likely profit, the
Commission looked at the profits earned by the Community industry between 1998 and 2000,
before the full impact of Russian imports had been felt.

(121) On this basis it was provisionally found that a profit margin of 6,5 % on total turnover could be
regarded as an appropriate minimum which the Community industry could reasonably expect to
obtain in the absence of injurious dumping.

(122)

It was argued that such a profit margin would be too high and that a margin of 2 % to 3 % would
be more appropriate for companies operating in this sector, based on average profits achieved in
recent years by companies operating in the chemical sector. It is noted that in 1998, prior to the
effect of the injuriously dumped imports from Russia, the Community industry managed to achieve
a healthy profit margin of 12,6 %. This suggests that silicon manufacturers are able to outperform
other companies in the chemical sector. However, in light of changes to the Community market for
silicon between 1998 and the IP, it is considered that the Community industry would not have been
able to achieve this level of profit even in the absence of dumped imports. However, a 6,5 % profit
margin is deemed to be reasonable in view of the development of profitability during the period
under consideration. This profit margin would also allow the Community industry to make the
necessary long-term investments.

11.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 173/33

(123) Accordingly, injury elimination levels were determined as the difference between the cost of produc-
tion of the Community industry, increased by the abovementioned profit margin on the one hand,
and the adjusted actual net sales price of the imported silicon on the other hand. This difference was
then expressed as a percentage of the cif import price at the Community frontier customs duty
unpaid. As a result of these calculations, injury margins of 25,6 % and 25,2 % were found.

2. Proposed provisional anti-dumping duty

(124)

In light of the foregoing, and in accordance with the lesser duty rule set out in Article 7(2) of the
basic Regulation, the provisional anti-dumping duty should be set at the level of the injury elimina-
tion level or of the dumping margin found, whichever is the lower. On this basis the following
duties should be imposed:

OJSC ‘Bratsk Aluminium Plant’ (RUSAL group)

SKU LLC, Sual-Kremny-Ural and ZAO Kremny (SUAL group)

24,0 %

25,2 %

H. FINAL PROVISION

(125)

In the interests of sound administration, a period should be fixed within which the interested parties
may make their views known in writing and request a hearing. Furthermore, it should be stated that
the findings concerning the imposition of duties made for the purposes of this Regulation are provi-
sional and may have to be reconsidered for the purposes of any definitive measures,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

A provisional anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of silicon with a silicon content less

1.
than 99,99 % by weight, falling within CN code 2804 69 00, originating in Russia.

The rate of the provisional duty applicable to the net free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty,

2.
for products produced by the following manufacturers shall be as follows:

Manufacturer

Rate of duty
%

TARIC additional
code

OJSC Bratsk Aluminium Plant, Bratsk, Irkutsk Region, Russia (belonging to the
RUSAL Holding Group)

SKU LLC, Sual-Kremny-Ural, Kamensk, Ural Region, Russia and ZAO Kremny,
Irkutsk, Irkutsk Region, Russia, both belonging to the SUAL Holding Group

All others

24,0

25,2

25,2

A464

A465

A999

3.

Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.

The release for free circulation in the Community of the product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be

4.
subject to the provisions of a security equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.

Article 2

1. Without prejudice to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, the interested parties may make their
views known in writing and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within one month of the date of
entry into force of this Regulation.

Pursuant to Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, the parties concerned may comment on the

2.
application of this Regulation within one month of its entry into force.

L 173/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.7.2003

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

Article 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of six months.

Article 3

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

Done at Brussels, 10 July 2003.

For the Commission

Pascal LAMY

Member of the Commission