Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of furfuryl alcohol originating in the People's Republic of China
Date: 2003-10-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, chemical alcohol, common commercial policy, common tariff policy, import (EU)

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 10.10.2003
COM(2003) 597 final

Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION

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

(presented by the Commission)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

On  9  August  2002,  the  Commission  opened  an  anti-dumping  investigation  with  regard  to
imports into the Community of furfuryl alcohol ("FA") originating in the People’s Republic of
China1 ("China").

The  Commission,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  781/20032,  imposed  a  provisional  anti-dumping
duty on imports of FA originating in China, falling within CN code ex 2932 13 00.

After  the  imposition  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  the  Commission  services  deepened
the dumping and injury analysis. The attached proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a
definitive anti-dumping duty is based on the definitive findings on dumping, injury, causation
and Community interest.

It is proposed  to  impose  definitive  anti-dumping  duties  on  imports  of  FA  originating  in  the
People’s Republic of China expressed as a specific duty amount ranging between EURO 84
and  250  per  metric  tonne  ("MT")  corresponding  to  the  injury  margins.  It  is  considered
appropriate to impose the duty in the form of a specific amount of EURO per MT, in order to
minimise the risk of the duties being evaded by price manipulation, which has been observed
in some previous proceedings involving the same general category of product.

It is further proposed to impose definitive measures on the basis of the injury margins found,
as these are lower than the revised dumping margins.

In order to further minimise the risks of circumvention, it is considered that special provisions
are  needed  to  ensure  the  proper  application  of  the  anti-dumping  duties.  These  special
provisions include the presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid
commercial  invoice.  Only  imports  accompanied  by  such  an  invoice  shall  be  declared  under
the applicable TARIC additional codes of the producer in question. Imports not accompanied
by such an invoice shall be made subject to the residual anti-dumping duty applicable to all
other exporters. The companies should be invited to submit regular reports to the Commission
in order to ensure a proper follow up of their sales of FA to the Community. In cases where
reports are not submitted, or where the reports disclose that the measures are not adequate to
eliminate the effects of injurious dumping, it may be necessary to initiate an interim review in
accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopts the attached proposal in view of its adoption
and publication in the Official Journal no later than 8 November 2003.

1

2

OJ C 189, 9.8.2002, p. 30.
OJ L 114, 8.5.2003, p. 16.

2

                                                
Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION

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

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

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 Community3 (the “basic
Regulation”), and in particular Article 9 thereof,

Having  regard  to  the  proposal  submitted  by  the  Commission  after  consulting  the  Advisory
Committee4,

Whereas:

A. Procedure

1. Provisional measures

(1) 

The  Commission,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  781/20035  (“provisional  Regulation”)
imposed  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  on  imports  of  furfuryl  alcohol  ("FA")
originating in the People’s Republic of China ("China"), expressed as a specific duty
amount  ranging  between  EURO  21  and  181  per  metric  tonne,  corresponding  to  the
injury margins.

2. Subsequent procedure

(2) 

Following  the  imposition  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duties,  parties  received
disclosure of facts and considerations on which the provisional Regulation was based.
Some parties submitted comments in writing. All interested parties who so requested
were granted an opportunity to be heard by the Commission. All parties were informed
of  the  essential  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 to make representations subsequent to this disclosure.

(3) 

The  oral  and  written  comments  submitted  by  the  interested  parties  were  considered
and, where appropriate, taken into account for the definitive findings.

3

4

5

OJ  L  56,  6.3.1996,  p.1.  as  last  amended  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1972/2002,  OJ  L  305,
7.11.2002, p.1.
OJ C […] […], p. […]
OJ L 114, 8.5.2003, p. 16.

3

                                                
(4) 

The  Commission  continued  to  seek  all  information  it  deemed  necessary  for  the
purpose of its definitive findings. In addition to the verification visits undertaken at the
premises  of  the  companies  mentioned  in  recitals  10  and  11  of  the  provisional
Regulation, it should be noted that after the imposition of provisional measures, an on-
spot visit was carried out at the premises of the following Community user:

– 

- Bakelite AG, Iserlohn-Lethmate, Germany.

B. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE PRODUCT

(5) 

Since no comments were received regarding the product under consideration and like
product, the contents and provisional conclusions of recitals 12 to 17 of the provisional
Regulation are hereby confirmed.

C. DUMPING

1. Market Economy Treatment ("MET")

(6) 

No further evidence was provided regarding the decision not to grant MET to the four
co-operating  Chinese  exporters.  The  findings  set  out  in  recital  20  of  the  provisional
Regulation are, therefore, confirmed.

2. Individual Treatment ("IT")

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

In  the  provisional  Regulation  IT  was  granted  to  three  co-operating  producers  and
refused to one. The reasons for granting or not granting IT reflected the conditions set
out  in  Article  9(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  It  was  questioned  by  the  Community
industry  ("CI")  whether  the  Commission  could  rely  on  this  Article  as  it  came  into
force only after the initiation of the current proceeding.

The determination on the question of IT was based upon the criteria applying when the
current proceeding was initiated. These criteria are identical to those set out in Article
9(5) of the basic Regulation, and have been used over  a number of  years. Therefore,
the  provisional  Regulation  referred  to  Article  9(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation
substantiating a long-standing practice.

In  its  provisional  determination,  the  Commission  refused  IT  to  one  co-operating
Chinese  exporting  producer,  i.e.  Henan  Huilong  Chemical  Industry  Co.  Ltd
("Huilong"), which acted both as a producer and as a trader of FA, on the basis that it
was not possible to determine the level of State interference in the business activities
performed  by  Huilong.  Nevertheless,  it  was  foreseen  at  recital  29  of  the  provisional
Regulation that this issue would be further considered at the definitive stage.

(10)  The exporter concerned contends that the provisional determination was incorrect and
that it should indeed be granted IT. In support of its argument, the company points out
that there was no evidence found of any direct State interference in the company itself,
and that the traded volume of FA represented less than 5% of its production during the
IP.  Moreover,  some  of  this  traded  product  was  purchased  from  another  co-operating
exporter to which IT has already been granted.

(11)  Following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  no  further  information  has  been
found  that  would  point  to  State  interference  in  the  business  activities  carried  out  by

4

Huilong. Huilong has agreed to cease its trading activity in FA were it to be granted
IT.

(12)  Accordingly,  it  is  now  concluded  that  the  level  of  State  interference  in  the  business
dealings of Huilong, if any, cannot be significant and would in any case not be such as
to  permit  circumvention  of  the  measures.  On  this  basis,  it  was  decided  to  revise  the
provisional determination, and to grant IT to Huilong.

3. Analogue Country

(13)  The exporting producers have objected to the choice of the United States of America
as the analogue  country and  repeated  their  assertion  that  Thailand  would  represent  a
better alternative. This claim is based on the arguments that (i) the production costs are
lower in  Thailand;  (ii)  Thailand  is  the  principal  source  of  FA  imported  into  the  EU;
and (iii) the complainants accept that there is no evidence that imports from Thailand
are being made at dumped prices.

(14)  As  outlined  in  recital  33  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  only  one  producer,  in  the
United  States  of  America,  was  prepared  to  co-operate  in  the  investigation.
Furthermore,  it  was  provisionally  established  that  the  United  States  of  America
fulfilled the necessary criteria to constitute an appropriate analogue country.

(15)  There  are  no  indications  that  Thailand,  nor  indeed  South  Africa,  would  constitute  a
better  alternative  as  analogue  country.  No  evidence  was  submitted  by  the  exporting
producers as to the production costs of the FA producers in Thailand or South Africa,
other than by making an extrapolation from the export prices reported in the complaint
and  on  EUROSTAT.  Moreover,  the  Thai  producer  refused  to  co-operate  in  the
proceedings. Therefore, it was considered that these countries could not reasonably be
used to construct a normal value due to the lack of any reliable and verifiable evidence
upon which to base any findings.

(16)  Accordingly, and in the absence of any new evidence to the contrary, the provisional

conclusion reached in recital 33 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.

4. Dumping

4.1 Normal Value

(17)  The exporting producers  asserted  that  the  constructed normal value  is too high to  be
considered  reasonable.  In  support  of  this  claim  they  point  to  the  lower  prices  of  FA
from  Thailand,  which  are  not  alleged  to  be  dumped,  as  well  as  to  the  lower  normal
value presented by the complainants prior to initiation of the proceeding.

(18) 

In this respect it should be noted that the normal value was established in accordance
with  Article  2(7)a  of  the  basic  Regulation  ,  namely  on  the  basis  of  the  information
obtained in the analogue country, i.e. the United States of America.  It is furthermore
confirmed  that  the  constructed  normal  value  was  calculated  on  the  basis  of  actual
prices and costs duly verified during an on-spot investigation at the premises of the co-
operating FA producer in the United States of America.

(19)  Therefore,  it  is  considered  that  in  the  absence  of  verified  information  in  respect  of
either South Africa or Thailand, the data available from the FA producer in the United
States of America represents the best information available for the construction of the

5

normal  value.  The  findings  of  recital  34  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  thus
confirmed.

4.2 Export Price

(20)  The export prices have been adjusted slightly, following comments, duly supported by

evidence, on the freight charges used.

(21)  The exporting producers also objected to the methodology used to calculate the export
price  for  non-cooperating  companies  as  outlined  in  recital  36  of  the  provisional
Regulation.

(22) 

In this regard, it should be recalled that the level of co-operation in this case was low,
and that the  export prices therefore  had to be based on  facts available  in  accordance
with Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation. For the provisional Regulation, prices and
volumes of the co-operating producer to which IT was not granted, i.e. Huilong, were
used.

(23)  This  producer  has  now  been  granted  IT,  and  has  had  its  own  dumping  margin
calculated  on  the  basis of its own sales  to  the EU during the  IP.  In view  of  this, the
value of the exports for non-cooperating companies had to be recalculated. This new
calculation  is  based  on  a  representative  volume  of  the  EU  sales  of  the  four  co-
operating exporters. In order to ensure that the transactions used could be considered
reliable, a sample of 25% by volume was used. This sample comprised those invoices
of the four co-operating  producers with the  lowest average transaction prices.  It  was
considered appropriate to use the lowest transaction prices, as there was no reason to
believe that the sales made by non-cooperating companies would have been at prices
higher than those made by the co-operating producers. The average price so calculated
was then used to determine the residual dumping and injury margins.

4.3 Comparison

(24) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments,  the  provisional  conclusion  of  recital  37  of  the
provisional Regulation is confirmed.

4.4 Dumping Margin

(25)  The dumping margins, which were reviewed in light of the issues outlined above, are
now as follows (expressed as a percentage on the CIF import price at the Community
border):

Company

Gaoping

Huilong

Linzi

Zhucheng

All others

Margin

93%

90%

78%

80%

112%

6

D. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY

(26)  The four co-operating exporters claimed that Transfurans Chemicals BVBA (“TFC”),
Belgium  and  International  Furan  Chemicals  BV,  the  Netherlands  ("IFC")  do  not
constitute the "Community industry" within the meaning of Articles 5(4) and 4(1) of
the basic Regulation, because these companies are very small in view of the number of
employees and are owned by a privately held company in the Dominican Republic, i.e.
Central Romana Corporation (“CRC”).

(27)  These arguments could not be accepted. First, small and medium sized companies are
clearly entitled to lodge a complaint and can constitute the CI  within the meaning of
Articles 5(4) and 4(1) of the basic Regulation.

(28)  Second,  the  investigation  has  shown,  as  referred  to  in  recital  43  of  the  provisional
Regulation,  that  FA  produced  by  TFC  is  of  Community  origin  and  that  the
the
manufacturing  operations, 
manufacturing  operations  and  the  sales  operations  take  place  in  the  Community.
Furthermore, the fact that TFC, IFC and CRC are related through common ownership,
as  established  under  recital  42  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  does  not  exclude  the
application of Articles 5(4) and 4(1) of the basic Regulation.

technological  and  capital 

investment  for 

the 

(29)  Therefore, the arguments raised by the Chinese exporting producers were rejected and

the findings set out in recital 44 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

E. INJURY

1. Consumption of FA in the Community

(30) 

In  the  absence  of  any  new  information  on  consumption,  the  provisional  findings  as
described in recitals 46 to 48 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

2. Imports of FA into the Community

(31) 

In  the  absence  of  any  new  information  on  imports  of  FA  into  the  Community,  the
provisional findings as described in recitals 49 to 63 of the provisional Regulation are
confirmed.

3. Economic situation of the Community industry

(32)  The  four  Chinese  exporting  producers  claimed,  that  the  CI  did  not  suffer  injury  as
most  of  the  injury  indicators  (in  particular  sales  volume,  sales  prices,  stocks,
profitability, cash flow and investments) established by the Commission could not be
reconciled with the published audited accounts of IFC and/or TFC. They argued that
some  indicators,  such  as  profitability,  stocks  and  cash  flow  contained  in  the  audited
accounts of IFC and/or TFC showed either increasing or stable trends.

(33) 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  published  audited  accounts  of  IFC  and  TFC  include  also
activities other than the production of the product concerned. Moreover, the published
audited accounts of IFC and  TFC cover the period  from October 2001 to September
2002  while  the  investigation  period  ("IP")  referred  to  in  recital  4  of  the  provisional
Regulation  covered  the  period  from  1  July  2001  to  30  June  2002.  Furthermore,  as
mentioned in recitals 41 and 44 of the provisional Regulation, it was found that TFC is

7

part of a single economic entity consisting of TFC, IFC and CRC. Therefore, in order
to make a meaningful assessment of certain injury indicators, it was necessary to also
take  into  account  some  data  from  CRC.  In  addition,  it  is  recalled  that  IFC's  own
trading activity in the Community mentioned in recitals 105 and 106 of the provisional
Regulation  falls  outside  the  scope  of  the  investigation,  but  forms  part  of  the  audited
accounts of IFC. Furthermore, the export sales of IFC mentioned under recitals 101 to
104  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  included  in  the  audited  accounts,  whilst  the
investigation  exclusively  covered  the  economic  situation  of  the  CI  as  regards  the
Community market.

(34)  These  facts  prevent  the  injury  indicators  from  being  adduced  from  the  published
accounts of IFC and TFC as the four Chinese exporting producers have proposed. It is
also recalled that the Commission findings are in line with the information contained
in the files for the inspection by interested parties.

(35)  Therefore, the arguments raised by the Chinese exporting producers were rejected and
the  findings  and  the  conclusion  set  out  in  recitals  86  to  91  of  the  provisional
Regulation are confirmed.

F. CAUSATION

(36)  The four Chinese exporting producers argued that, due to the lack of injury, there was
no  causation.  If  there  is  injury,  it  is  not  the  Chinese  imports  but  the  imports  from
Thailand that contributed to the economic situation of the CI.

(37)  The Chinese exporting producers did not provide any new evidence in support of this
claim.  It  is  recalled  that  in  recitals  107  to  111  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  and  in
accordance  with  Article  3(7)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  Commission  analysed  the
total imports of FA into the Community from other third countries as a known factor
other  than the dumped imports. This analysis also covered imports from Thailand  in
respect of volumes and prices.

(38)  The Thai imports represent around 96% of the imports of FA from third countries. The
import  volumes  of FA into  the Community  from Thailand  increased in line  with  the
developments  described  in  recital  109  of  the  provisional  Regulation.  Furthermore,  it
was  found,  that  import  prices  from  Thailand  were  far  above  the  level  of  those  of
Chinese exporting producers (above 24% during the  IP) and even above those of the
CI (above 6% during the IP).

(39)  Therefore, the arguments raised by the Chinese exporting producers were rejected and
the findings and conclusions set out in recitals 92 to 113 of the provisional Regulation
are confirmed.

G. COMMUNITY INTEREST

(40)  The  Chinese  exporting  producers  and  one  association  claimed  that  the  provisional
measures have a larger impact on users and the foundry industry than the Commission
findings  suggested.  In  particular  it  was  argued  that  the  interest  of  the  users  should
prevail given the low employment in the CI compared to the high employment in the
foundry industry.

(41)  With regard to the claim submitted by the Chinese exporting  producers,  it should be
noted that these producers did not provide any new evidence, which could have been

8

relevant  for  the  examination  of  the  Community  interest.  In  any  event,  the  Chinese
exporting  producers  may  not  qualify  as  an  interested  party  for  the  purpose  of  the
determination of the Community interest.

(42)  As  regards  the  claim  of  the  association,  it  should  be  noted  that  this  was  examined,
although  the  association  did  not  co-operate  during  the  investigation  and  did  not
provide new evidence in support of its arguments. To this end, the Commission carried
out  an  additional  on-spot  verification  visit  at  the  premises  of  a  German  user.  This
deepened investigation confirmed the result of the analysis made at provisional stage
as set out in recital 126 of the provisional Regulation and that the overall impact of the
proposed definitive measures will be negligible.

(43)  Therefore,  the  arguments  raised  by  the  Chinese  exporting  producers  and  the
association  were  rejected  and  the  findings  and  conclusions  set  out  in  recitals  114  to
133 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

H. DEFINITIVE MEASURES

(44) 

In  view  of  the  conclusions  reached  regarding  dumping,  injury,  causation  and
Community interest, it is considered that definitive anti-dumping measures should be
imposed in order to prevent further injury being caused to the CI by dumped imports
from China.

1. Injury elimination level

(45) 

It  is  recalled  that  it  was  provisionally  found  that  a  profit  margin  of  10%  on  total
turnover  of  FA  could  be  regarded  as  an  appropriate  minimum  which  the  CI  could
reasonably  expect  to  obtain  in  the  absence  of  injurious  dumping.  This  profit  margin
would also allow the CI to make the necessary long-term investments.

(46)  The  CI  claimed  that  the  profit  margin  of  10%  as  set  out  in  recital  136  of  the
provisional  Regulation  did  not  reflect  a  return  that  it  could  reasonably  expect  to
achieve in the absence of injurious dumping, and asked for a profit margin of at least
23.15% on turnover, based on its performance in the previous years.

(47) 

In  order  to  examine  this  claim,  a  further  in  depth  analysis  was  made  of  all  the
information available on the profit margin which could be regarded as an appropriate
minimum which the CI could reasonably expect to obtain in the absence of injurious
dumping. The profits  realised  in  the  years  preceding  the  IP  were  re-analysed.  It  was
found that in the previous years the profit rates indeed were much higher than 10%. It
was therefore  concluded  that  a  profit  margin  of  15,17%  based  on  the  average  actual
profit  achieved  in  the  three  years  preceding  the  IP  could  be  reasonably  expected  in
view of the development of profitability of the CI and the presence of dumped imports
on the Community market. This approach is fully in line with existing jurisprudence,
in particular the ruling in the case of EFMA v Council6.

(48)  Consequently, the claim of the Community industry for a profit margin of 23,15% has
been rejected. In light of the above, the Commission's calculations have been reviewed
on the basis of the revised profit margin.

6

Judgement of the Court of First Instance of 28 October 1999 in Case T-210/95.

9

                                                
(49)  Apart from this change in the profit margin, the injury elimination level was calculated
using the same methodology as explained in recital 137 of the provisional Regulation.
On this basis, a non-injurious level of prices was determined which  would cover  the
CI's cost of production and allow a reasonable profit to be obtained in the absence of
dumped  imports  from  the  country  concerned. As a result  of  the  revised  calculations,
injury margins of 8.9% to 32.1% were found.

2. Form and level of the definitive duty

(50) 

In  accordance  with  Article  9(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  as  the  injury  margins  were
lower than the dumping margins found for all the exporting producers concerned, the
definitive duty should be set at the level of the injury margins.

(51)  The CI requested that the definitive measures take the form of a combined application
of a specific duty (fixed amount €/tonne) and a variable duty (equal to the difference
between the import price and a predetermined minimum price) or as a variable duty in
the form of a minimum  import  price.  Furthermore,  the  CI  argued  that  the  difference
between  the  amounts  of  duty  imposed  on  the  exporters  was  so  high,  that  additional
risks of circumvention, such as compensatory arrangements or absorption, could exist.

(52) 

In order to examine this claim, the different possible forms of measures were analysed
in depth. In view of the need to ensure the efficiency of measures, it was considered
that neither a  combined  application of  a  specific  duty  (fixed  amount  €/tonne)  with  a
variable duty nor a variable duty alone would be sufficient to remove the injury caused
by dumping. The former is only exceptionally used when the particular circumstances
of  a  case,  e.g.  clear  indications  of  price  manipulation  so  require,  whilst  the  latter
results  in  inherent  problems  of  enforcement.  As  laid  down  in  the  provisional
Regulation, the duty to be imposed should be in form of a specific amount of EURO
per metric tonne in order to ensure the efficiency of the measures and to minimise the
existing  risk  of  substituting  the  product  concerned  for  products  within  the  same
general  category  of  goods  (e.g.  furfural),  especially  as  price  manipulation  has  been
observed in some previous proceedings involving furfural7.

(53)  However, in order to further minimise the risks of circumvention due to the substantial
level  of  non-cooperation  (40%)  and  the  high  difference  in  the  amounts  of  duty,  it  is
considered  that  special  provisions  are  needed  in  this  case  to  ensure  the  proper
application  of  the  anti-dumping  duties.  These  special  provisions  include  the
presentation  to  the  customs  authorities  of  the  Member  States  of  a  valid  commercial
invoice,  which  shall  conform  to  the  requirements  set  out  in  the  Annex  to  this
Regulation. Only imports accompanied by such an invoice may be declared under the
applicable  TARIC  additional  codes  of  the  producer  in  question.  Imports  not
accompanied  by  such  an  invoice  shall  be  made  subject  to  the  residual  anti-dumping
duty applicable to all other exporters. The companies concerned have also been invited
to submit regular reports to the Commission in order to ensure a proper follow up of
their sales of FA to the Community. In cases where reports are not submitted, or where
the  reports  disclose  that  the  measures  are  not  adequate  to  eliminate  the  effects  of
injurious  dumping,  it  may  be  necessary  to  initiate  an  interim  review  in  accordance
with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.

7

OJ No L 328; 22.12.1999, p 1.

10

                                                
(54)  The  calculation  of  the  injury  threshold  related  to  CIF  import  price  results  in  duties

ranging between EURO 84 and 250 per metric tonne.

(55)  The  correction  made  to  the  dumping  and  injury  margins  had  no  effect  on  the
application  of  the  lesser  duty  rule.  Therefore,  the  methodology  used  for  establishing
the anti-dumping duty rates as described in recital 138 of the provisional Regulation is
hereby confirmed. The definitive duties will therefore be:

Company

Gaoping

Huilong

Linzi

Zhucheng

All others

Ad Valorem (%)

Specific Duty

18.3%

17.9%

8.9%

10.3%

32.1%

160 €/Tonne

156 €/Tonne

84 €/Tonne

97 €/Tonne

250 €/Tonne

I. DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTY

(56) 

In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found for the exporting producers in
China and in light  of  the  level  of  the  injury  caused  to  the  Community  industry,  it  is
considered  necessary  that  the  amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping
duty  imposed  by  the  provisional  Regulation,  i.e.  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No
781/2003,  should  be  definitively  collected  to  the  extent  of  the  amount  of  definitive
duties imposed. As the definitive duties are higher than the provisional duties, only the
amounts secured at the level of the provisional duties should be definitely collected.

(57)  Any claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty
rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of
new  production  or  sales  entities)  should  be  addressed  to  the  Commission  forthwith
with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company's activities
linked  to  production,  domestic  sales  and  export  sales  associated  with  e.g.  that  name
change  or  that  change  in  the  production  and  sales  entities.  If  appropriate,  the
Regulation will accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting
from individual duties.

11

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.
A  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  is  hereby  imposed  on  imports  of  furfuryl
alcohol currently classifiable within CN code ex 2932 13 00 (TARIC code 2932 13
00 90), originating in the People’s Republic of China.

The  rate  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  for  the  product

2.
originating in the People`s Republic of China shall be as follows:

Rate of anti-
dumping duty

(Euro per tonne)

TARIC
additional code

Companies

Gaoping  Chemical
Industry Co. Ltd

Linzi 
Chemical Inc.

Organic

Zhucheng  Huaxiang
Chemical Co. Ltd.

Henan 
Chemical 
Co. Ltd.

Huilong
Industry

160

84

97

156

A442

A440

A441

A484

A999

All other companies

250

3.
The  application  of  the  individual  duty  rates  specified  for  the  four  companies
mentioned  in  paragraph  2  shall  be  conditional  upon  presentation  to  the  customs
authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform
to  the  requirements  set  out  in  the  Annex  of  this  Regulation.  If  no  such  invoice  is
presented, the duty rate applicable to all other companies shall apply.

In  cases  where  goods  have  been  damaged  before  entry  into  free  circulation
4.
and, therefore, the price actually paid or payable is apportioned for the determination
of  the customs value pursuant to Article 145  of Commission Regulation (EEC)  No
2454/93  the  amount  of  anti-dumping  duty,  calculated  on  the  basis  of  paragraph  2
above, shall be reduced by a percentage which corresponds to the apportioning of the
price actually paid or payable.

Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties

5.
shall apply.

Article 2

The  amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  pursuant  to
Commission Regulation (EC) No 781/2003 on imports of furfuryl alcohol currently

12

classifiable within CN code ex 2932 13 00 (TARIC code 2932 13 00 90), originating
in the People’s Republic of China shall be definitively collected in accordance with
the rules set out below.

The amounts secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping duties shall be
released. Where the definitive duties are higher than the provisional duties, only the
amounts secured at the level of the provisional duties shall be definitively collected.

Article 3

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

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

Done at Brussels,

For the Council
The President

13

ANNEX

The  valid  commercial  invoice  referred  to  in  Article  1(3)  of  this  Regulation  must
include a declaration signed by an officer of the company, in the following format:

1.  The  name  and  function  of  the  official  of  the  company  which  has  issued  the
commercial invoice.

2. The following declaration: "I, the undersigned, certify that the [volume] of furfuryl
alcohol currently classifiable within CN code ex 2932 13 00 (TARIC code 2932 13
00  90)  sold  for  export  to  the  European  Community  covered  by  this  invoice  was
manufactured by [company name and address] in the People's Republic of China;  I
declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct."

3. Date and signature

14