Council Regulation (EC) No 2228/2003 of 22 December 2003 terminating the partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of urea originating in Russia
Date: 2003-12-22
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Russia, anti-dumping measure, chemical fertiliser, import, originating product

24.12.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 339/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2228/2003

of 22 December 2003

terminating the partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of urea
originating in Russia

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

3. Investigation

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

(4)

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), and in particular Article 11(3) thereof,

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

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

A. PROCEDURE

1. Measures in force

On 10 May 2001, the Council, pursuant to Regulation
(EC) No 901/2001 (2), imposed a definitive anti-dumping
duty on imports of urea originating in Russia. The duty
took the form of a variable duty on the basis of a
minimum import price (MIP).

2. Initiation

On 13 June 2002, the Commission announced by a
notice (3) published in the Official Journal of the European
Union (notice of initiation) the initiation of a partial
interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable
to imports into the Community of urea originating in
Russia, pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.

The review was initiated on the initiative of the Commis-
sion in order to examine the appropriateness of the form
of the measures in force, currently an MIP, as it does not
differentiate between sales made to related parties and
sales made to unrelated parties, or between first sales
and successive sales to the Community and it had
become apparent that this could lead to enforcement
problems. Consequently, the existing measures did not
appear sufficient to counteract the dumping which is
causing injury.

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

(EC) No 1972/2002 (OJ L 305, 7.11.2002, p. 1).

(2) OJ L 127, 9.5.2001, p. 11.
(3) OJ C 140, 13.6.2002, p. 5.

(5)

(6)

(7)

the
The Commission officially advised the importers,
users known to be concerned and their associations, the
representatives of the exporting country concerned and
the Community producers about the initiation of the
proceeding. Interested parties were given the opportu-
nity to make their views known in writing and to
request a hearing within the time limit set out in the
notice of initiation.

An association of Community producers, an association
of importers, two associations of users, one user and a
company representing 10 Italian importers, traders and
users made their views known in writing. All parties
which so requested within the time limit, and which
there were particular reasons why
demonstrated that
they should be heard, were granted the opportunity to
be heard.

The Commission sought and verified all the information
it deemed necessary for the purpose of determining the
appropriateness of the measures in force.

B. FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATION

The initiation of an interim review was motivated by the
necessity of limiting the risk of duty avoidance. Such
duty avoidance can occur in different circumstances.
When exporters, currently subject
to the measures
imposing an MIP, export to the Community, they could
be in a position to invoice at a price above the MIP, and
subsequently to compensate such a price after customs
declaration by an agreement with the importers. This
may render the MIP ineffective, as it would mean that
the product concerned is effectively still exported below
the MIP to the Community. Accordingly, this could lead
to subsequent resale prices in the Community which
prevent
to
remove the injurious effects of dumping, from being
achieved. The substantial risk of price manipulation
when duties take the form of an MIP was highlighted by
the findings of the European Court of Auditors in its
2000 Annual Report (4).
this
problem, it was envisaged to replace the MIP by an ad
valorem duty.

the intended effects of

the measure,

to address

In order

i.e.

(4) OJ C 359, 15.12.2001, p. 1, recitals 1.31 and 1.35.

L 339/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.12.2003

(8)

(9)

Although an ad valorem duty is, in general, considered to
be more appropriate to avoid the risk of price manipula-
tion, it was found that in the specific circumstances of
the current case the risk of price manipulation is very
low since, over a sustained period of time, import prices
in general have actually been above the MIP. Therefore,
exporters would not have any reason to manipulate
prices in the way set out in recital 7 in order to stay
competitive. This was also confirmed by the comments
made by interested parties which, with the exception of
the association of Community producers, considered that
the form of the measure should not be changed.

The association of Community producers considered
that a specific duty would have been more appropriate
to avoid the risk of price manipulation. It also consid-
ered that an ad valorem duty would be more effective
than an MIP. It was, however, established that in the
specific circumstances of the current case the risk of
price manipulation is very low. Nevertheless, should the
situation of the urea market change and evidence is
provided to the Commission that this change increases
the risk of price manipulation, appropriate action may
be taken. Meanwhile, the Commission will pay particular
attention to the import prices of urea originating in
Russia and the attention of the customs authorities is
drawn to this issue.

(10)

It is therefore concluded that, due to the particular and
very specific circumstances of the present case, there are
currently no reasons to change the form of the measure
concerning imports of urea originating in Russia and the
current partial
interim review should be terminated
without any amendment to the anti-dumping measures
imposed by Regulation (EC) No 901/2001,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

interim review of

the anti-dumping measures
The partial
initiated
applicable to imports of urea originating in Russia,
pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96,
is
hereby terminated without amending the anti-dumping duty in
force.

Article 2

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, 22 December 2003.

For the Council

The President

A. MATTEOLI