Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in, inter alia, Romania in so far as it concerns imports into the European Community of products manufactured by Petrotub SA and Republica SA
Date: 2004-01-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Romania, anti-dumping duty, import, iron, originating product, piping, steel

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 21.1.2004
COM(2004) 27 final

Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION

amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties
on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in,
inter alia, Romania in so far as it concerns imports into the European Community of
products manufactured by Petrotub SA and Republica SA

(presented by the Commission)

EN

  EN

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

On 9 January 2003, the Court of Justice of the European Communities ("ECJ") annulled the
Council  Regulation  of  17  November  1997,  imposing  definitive  anti-dumping  duties  on
imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes originating in Romania in so far as it concerned
imports manufactured by Petrotub SA and Republica SA.

In cases where a proceeding consists of several administrative steps, the annulment of one of
these  steps  does  not  annul  the  complete  proceeding.  As  has  been  done  in  the  past,  the
Community institutions propose to remedy the aspects of the Contested Regulation which led
to its annulment, while leaving unchanged the uncontested parts.

The aspects of the Judgment that are addressed are the calculation of the dumping margin of
Petrotub SA and the determination of the normal value of Republica SA.

Petrotub’s dumping margin was calculated on the basis of the “asymmetrical method”, which
was considered necessary in order to take into account the pattern of Petrotub's export prices
and  to  reflect  the  full  degree  of  dumping  being  practised.  According  to  the  Judgment,  this
method  can  only  be  used  if  it  is  explained  why  both  symmetrical  methods  do  not  allow  to
correctly determine the dumping margin. However, in the Contested Regulation the Council
only  concluded  that  the  first  of  the  two  symmetrical  methods  (the  “average-to-average”
method)  did  not  reflect  the  full  degree  of  dumping  being  practised  without  addressing  the
second symmetrical method (the “transaction-to-transaction” method).

It  is  confirmed  that  the  use  of  the  second  symmetrical  method  for  the  determination  of  the
dumping margin of Petrotub SA is not warranted because the volume of domestic sales is not
sufficiently  representative  to  make  the  comparison.  Therefore,  this  method  cannot  take  into
account significant differences in the pattern of export prices, i.e. cannot reflect the full degree
of  dumping.  Accordingly,  as  neither  the  first  nor  the  second  symmetrical  methods  are
applicable, the asymmetrical method had to be applied.

Regarding the normal value of Republica SA, the ECJ found that the Council did not satisfy
the requirements of the obligation to state reasons when it merely stated that sales made using
compensation were made in the ordinary course of trade.

It was concluded that Republica’s payment by compensation did not fall under the concept of
compensatory agreement as described in Article 2(1) of the Basic Regulation, as it was found
that the compensatory agreements to which Republica was a party did not influence the sales
prices  quoted  and  therefore  that  sales  made  by  Republica  SA  under  compensatory
arrangements were made in the ordinary course of trade.

As  a  consequence,  the  dumping  margins  determined  in  the  framework  of  the  Contested
Regulation  are  confirmed.  The  present  Regulation  now  provides  the  necessary  statement  of
reasons. The previous price undertakings, offered by the two Romanian exporting producers
and accepted by the Commission, ceased to be valid on 9 January 2003 as a consequence of
the  Judgment.  As  the  findings  of  the  Contested  Regulation  are  confirmed  by  the  present
Regulation, the Commission considers it appropriate to accept the re-implementation of these
previous price undertakings.

2

 
Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION

amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties
on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in,
inter alia, Romania in so far as it concerns imports into the European Community of
products manufactured by Petrotub SA and Republica SA

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles
233 and 253 thereof,

Having  regard  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22  December  1995  on  protection
against dumped imports from countries not members of the EC (the “Basic Regulation”)1, in
particular Article 2(1) and (11) thereof,

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

Whereas:

A. Procedure

(1) 

On 9 January 2003, the Court of Justice of the European Communities ("ECJ") in its
judgment in case C-76/00P2 (“the Judgment”) set aside the previous judgment of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 15 December 1999 in joined
cases T-33/98 and T-34/98 (Petrotub and Republica v Council)3. By its Judgment, the
ECJ effectively annulled Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November 1997,
inter  alia,  imposing  definitive  anti-dumping  duties  on  imports  of  certain  seamless
pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the
Czech  Republic,  Romania  and  the  Slovak  Republic4  ("Definitive  Anti-Dumping
Regulation" or the “Contested Regulation”), in so far as it concerned imports into the
European Community manufactured by Petrotub SA and Republica SA.

(2) 

It  is  recognised  by  the  Courts5  that,  in  cases  where  a  proceeding  consists  of  several
administrative steps, the annulment of one of these steps does not annul the complete
proceeding.  The  anti-dumping  proceeding  is  an  example  of  such  a  multi-step
proceeding.  Consequently,  the  annulment  of  parts  of  the  Definitive  Anti-Dumping
Regulation does not imply the annulment of the entire procedure prior to the adoption

1

2

3

4

5

OJ  L  056,  06.3.1996,  p.1,  as  last  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1972/2002  (OJ  L  305,7.11.2002,
p.1).
Not published yet
[1999] ECR II-3837
OJ L 322, 25.11.1997, p.1
IPS v Council [1998] ECR II-03939

3

 
                                                
to 

implement 

of  the  Regulation  in  question.  The  Community  institutions  on  the  other  hand  are
obliged 
the  Community
institutions, in  so  implementing  the  Courts  judgment,  have  the  possibility  to  remedy
the  aspects  of  the  Contested  Regulation  which  led  to  its  annulment,  while  leaving
unchanged the uncontested parts which are not affected by the Judgment7.

judgments6.  Accordingly, 

the  Courts 

(3) 

(4) 

Following  the  Judgment,  a  notice  was  published  concerning  anti-dumping  measures
on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in
Romania 8 , announcing that Petrotub SA and Republica SA were no longer subject to
the anti-dumping measures imposed by the Definitive Anti-Dumping Regulation.

The present regulation seeks to correct, with respect to Petrotub SA and Republica SA,
the aspects of the Contested Regulation found to be inconsistent with Community law
in the Judgment, and which thus led to the annulment of the Contested Regulation. All
other findings made in the Contested Regulation, which were not contested within the
time limits for a challenge and thus were not considered by the Courts and did not lead
to the annulment of the Contested Regulation, remain valid.

B. Products under consideration

(5) 

The categories of products under consideration are the same as the ones considered in
the Definitive Anti-Dumping Regulation i.e.

(a)

(b)

(c)

seamless  pipes,  of  iron  or  non-alloy  steel,  of  a  kind  used  for  oil  and  gas
pipelines, of an external diameter not exceeding 406,4 mm; and

seamless tubes of circular cross-section, of iron or non-alloy steel, cold-drawn
or cold-rolled, other than precision tubes; and

other  tubes  of  circular  cross-section,  of  iron  or  non-alloy  steel,  other  than
threaded  or  threadable,  of  an  external  diameter  not  exceeding  406,4  mm
manufactured  by  Petrotub  SA  and  Republica  SA  and  currently  classifiable
within CN codes ex 7304 10 10, ex 7304 10 30, 7304 31 99, 7304 39 91 and
7304 39 93. These CN codes are given only for information.

C. New assessment of the findings based on the Judgment of the ECJ

1. Preliminary remark

(6) 

(7) 

In  the  present  regulation,  the  aspects  of  the  Judgment  that  are  addressed  are  the
calculation of the dumping margin of Petrotub SA and the determination of the normal
value of Republica SA.

Petrotub’s  dumping  margin  was,  as  described  in  recital  22  of  the  Definitive  Anti-
Dumping Regulation, calculated on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average
normal value established for Petrotub with the prices of all its individual exports. This
was considered necessary in order to reflect the full degree of dumping being practised

6

7

8

Article 233 of the EC Treaty
Case C-458/98P IPS v Council [2000] ECR I-08147
OJ C 30, 8.02.2003, p.14

4

 
                                                
and  because  a  pattern  of  Petrotub's  export  prices  which  differed  significantly  among
different purchasers, regions or time periods had been established.

According  to  the  Judgment,  this  method,  which  is  set  out  in  the  second  sentence  of
Article 2(11) of the Basic Regulation, can only be used if, in addition to a finding of
an  export  pattern  which  differs  significantly  among  different  purchasers,  regions  or
time periods, it is explained why the two first methods specified in the first sentence of
Article  2(11)  (which  are  also  called  “symmetrical  methods”)  do  not  allow  for  these
differences in the  pattern of  export prices to be taken  appropriately  into  account and
thus to reflect the full degree of dumping being practised. However, in the Definitive
Anti-Dumping Regulation the Council, duly having mentioned in recital (22) that there
was a pattern which differed significantly among different purchasers, regions or time
periods, only concluded that the first of the two symmetrical  methods (the “average-
to-average” method) did not reflect the full degree of dumping being practised in that
context,  without  addressing  the  second  symmetrical  method  (the  “transaction-to-
transaction” method). Thus, the present regulation re-assesses and corrects the results
of  the  investigation  leading  to  the  imposition  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  on
imports  from  Petrotub  SA  by  assessing  the  applicability  of  the  second  symmetrical
method  in  the  light  of  the  requirements  contained  in  the  Judgment.  This  second
symmetrical method foresees a comparison of individual normal values and individual
export prices to the Community on a transaction-to-transaction basis.

Secondly,  in  the  Definitive  Anti-Dumping  Regulation,  sales  made  by  Republica  SA
using debt compensation were considered as having been made in the ordinary course
of trade.  In paragraph 86 of its Judgment,  the ECJ held that this  conclusion  was  not
accompanied by an appropriate statement of reasons, as the mere statement in recital
19 of the Definitive Anti-Dumping Regulation, that it had been found that “sales made
using compensation were indeed made in the ordinary course of trade” did not contain
any explanatory element of such a kind as to enlighten the parties concerned about the
reasons  which  led  the  Council  to  come  to  its  conclusions.  The  present  regulation
therefore now provides the necessary statement of reasons, in accordance with Article
253 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.

Since  the  information,  necessary  in  order  to  remedy  the  shortcomings  found  by  the
ECJ in the Definitive  Anti-Dumping  Regulation and  which led  to  its  annulment  was
available  to  the  Commission  at  the  time  of  adopting  the  Definitive  Anti-Dumping
Regulation and still is so now, no further investigation was necessary with respect to
Petrotub SA, Republica SA or other parties. The required motivation can therefore be
based  on  the  existing  information,  collected  in  the  framework  of  the  investigation
which led to the imposition of definitive measures.

2. Dumping margin of Petrotub SA

(8) 

(9) 

(10)  According to Article  2  (11)  of  the  Basic  Regulation  the  second  symmetrical  method
bases  the  calculation  of  the  dumping  margin  on  a  comparison  of  individual  normal
values  of  the  different  types  of  the  product  concerned  with  the  corresponding
individual export prices on a transaction-to-transaction basis.

(11)  This method can only be applied if a number of conditions are met. A transaction by
transaction  comparison  excludes  by  definition  the  use  of  averages  (be  it  on  the
domestic  sales  side  or  on  the  export  sales  side).  To  be  comparable,  transactions  can
only be used if made on the same day, on both the domestic and the export side. Any

5

 
deviation from this principle by using prices of transactions not made on the same day
would  be  arbitrary.  Only  domestic  and  export  sales  relating  to  the  same  or  a
comparable  product  type  can  be  used  for  a  transaction  by  transaction  comparison,
otherwise the comparison cannot be valid. Domestic sales can only be used if they are
in the ordinary course of trade. Domestic sales must be made in the ordinary course of
trade in a quantity amounting to at least 5% of the volume of the export transactions,
in accordance with Article 2(2) of the Basic Regulation. The identification of sales not
made  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade  at  the  level  of  the  transaction  was  made  in
accordance with Article 2(2) of the  Basic Regulation. Under the second symmetrical
method, export prices cannot be compared to constructed normal values. Finally, it is
considered that this method can only be representative if a sufficiently large volume of
export transactions and domestic sales transactions are covered.

(12)  On this basis it was examined whether the transaction-to-transaction calculation could
be  applied.  It  was  found  that  the  volume  of  export  transactions,  which  could  be
compared, amounted to 66,6 %. However, only 9,5% of the volume of domestic sales,
which were made in the ordinary course of trade, could be used to determine normal
value.  In  other  words,  the  overwhelming  majority  of  domestic  sales  would  not  have
been taken into consideration in the dumping calculation. This low use of transaction
data is therefore not a sufficiently representative basis with regard to the determination
of  normal  value,  which  is  the  benchmark  for  any  dumping  analysis  of  export
transactions. On this basis the transaction-to-transaction method was not upheld as an
appropriate method to calculate the dumping margin in this case.

(13)  Therefore,  given  that  the  use  of  the  second  symmetrical  method  would  not  have
provided representative results, this method would also not have enabled to take into
account  the  significant  differences  in  the  pattern  of  export  prices.  Consequently,  the
third method, namely the comparison of weighted average normal values to individual
export  prices  (“asymmetrical  method”),  had  to  be  applied,  as  in  the  presence  of  a
pattern of export prices, it was found that neither the first nor the second symmetrical
method would have enabled these differences to be taken into account.

3. Normal value of Republica SA

(14)  As  explained  in  recital  8  above,  the  ECJ  found  that  the  Council  did  not  satisfy  the
requirements of the obligation to state reasons when in recital (19) paragraph 5 of the
Contested Regulation it merely stated that sales made using compensation were made
in the ordinary course of trade. This reasoning is therefore now set out below.

(15)  During  the  investigation,  which  led  to  the  imposition  of  definitive  anti-dumping
duties, Republica SA claimed that a substantial volume of its domestic sales was made
on the basis of debt compensatory arrangements. It was alleged that sales prices of the
product concerned delivered on the basis  of such  a  compensatory arrangement could
not  be  negotiated,  because  Republica  SA  was  forced  to  take  suppliers  in  the
compensatory  circuit  with  the  result  that  sales  prices  to  those  suppliers  were
considerably lower than normal prices and therefore not comparable to normal market
prices.  Republica  SA  argued  that  sales  on  the  basis  of  compensatory  arrangements
should therefore have been disregarded from the domestic sales for the calculation of
normal  value,  as  they  could  not  be  considered  to  have  been  made  in  the  ordinary
course of business.

6

 
(16) 

It should be underlined that the payment by compensatory agreement as described in
recital  (15)  of  the  present  regulation  should  be  distinguished  from  the  existence  of
compensatory  arrangements  in  the  sense  of  Article  2(1)  of  the  Basic  Regulation.
Whereas  payment  by  compensatory  arrangement,  as  described  by  Republica  in  its
submission and in recital (15) of the present regulation, was found to be effectively a
settlement of bills where receivables and payables were compensated without affecting
the  price  conditions  of  the  goods  delivered,  a  compensatory  arrangement,  within  the
meaning of Article 2(1) of the Basic Regulation, refers to an agreement, where goods
and/or services are swapped between supplier and client and where the invoiced price
is  based  on  the  difference  of  the  value  of  such  goods  and/or  services,  thus  not
reflecting the real value of the goods delivered.

(17)  During  the  on-site  investigation  at  Republica’s  premises  it  was  found  that  certain
domestic sales, which were wrongly reported as having been made subject to standard
cash  payment  terms,  were  found  in  fact  to  have  been  settled  by  means  of
compensation in a compensatory agreement. The form of compensation that took place
was  made  by  the  netting  of  receivables  and  payables  for  the  same  amounts  between
Republica SA and its client acting, as the case may be, at the same time as supplier of
some other goods or services. Sometimes one or more third parties were involved, e.g.
in the case where Republica SA sells to a client which uses the receivable it has on a
third  party  to  settle  its  debt  towards  Republica  SA.  This  type  of  settlement  of
transactions by compensatory agreement is common in economies with low liquidity
and the investigation showed that it did not influence the original price setting of the
transactions.  Moreover,  it  was  found  that  when  Republica  SA  insisted  on  cash
payments from its clients (e.g. when it needed cash in order to pay its personnel), sales
prices  were  actually  set  lower  than  in  the  case  of  payment  under  a  compensatory
agreement, in order to reward the client for this cash payment. It was concluded that
Republica’s payment by compensation did not fall under the concept of compensatory
agreement as described in Article 2(1) of the Basic Regulation, as it was found that the
compensatory agreements to which Republica was a party did not influence the sales
prices quoted.

(18) 

It can therefore be concluded that the argument raised by Republica in respect of sales
settled by means of compensation and the influence on domestic sales prices does not
reflect reality and therefore also that sales made by Republica SA under compensatory
arrangements were made in the ordinary course of trade.

4. Conclusion

(19)  The  use  of  the  second  symmetrical  method  for  the  determination  of  the  dumping
margin of Petrotub SA is not warranted because the volume of domestic sales, which
could be used to determine normal value, is not sufficiently representative to make the
comparison  under  this  method.  Therefore,  this  method  cannot  take  into  account
significant differences in the pattern of export prices, i.e. cannot reflect the full degree
of  dumping.  Accordingly,  as  neither  the  first  nor  the  second  symmetrical  method
would, albeit for different reasons, reflect the full degree of dumping being practised,
the  third  method  provided  for  in  article  2(11)  of  the  Basic  Regulation  had  to  be
applied. Consequently, its application and the results of  its  application  as  detailed  in
recitals (22) and (23) of the Contested Regulation are confirmed.

7

 
(20)  For the reasons outlined in recitals (16)  and  (17)  sales made by Republica SA  using

debt compensation were found to be made in the ordinary course of trade.

(21)  As a consequence, the dumping  margins  determined in  the  framework of  Regulation

(EC) No 2320/97 are hereby confirmed.

D. Disclosure

(22)  The  parties  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the  basis  of
which  it  was  intended  to  recommend  the  re-imposition  of  a  definitive  anti-dumping
duty. They were also granted a period within which they could make  representations
subsequent to this disclosure.

(23)  The oral and written arguments submitted by the parties were considered and, where

appropriate, were taken into account.

E. Undertakings

(24)  Two    Romanian  exporting  producers  have  offered  price  undertakings  in  accordance
with Article 8(1) of the Basic Regulation. The price undertakings offered contain the
same  stipulations  as  the  one  that  ceased  to  be  valid  on  9  January  2003  as  a
consequence  of  the  ECJ  Judgment.  The  Commission  considers  that  the  undertakings
offered  are  acceptable  and  sufficient  to  shield  the  Community  Industry  from  the
injurious effect of dumping.

(25)  The  companies  will  also  provide  the  Commission  with  regular  and  detailed
information concerning their exports to the Community, meaning that the undertakings
can be monitored effectively by the Commission.

(26) 

In order to ensure the effective respect and monitoring of the undertakings, when the
request for release for free circulation pursuant to the undertaking is presented to the
relevant  customs  authority,  exemption  from  the  duty  should  be  conditional  upon
presentation of a valid, original production certificate containing the information listed
in the Annex to this Regulation. This production certificate must be presented within
three months of its date of issue and the quantities presented to customs for import into
the  Community  free  of  anti-dumping  duty  shall  not  exceed  those  stipulated  on  the
certificate.  Where  no  such  production  certificate  is  presented,  when  it  does  not
correspond to the product concerned or when the quantities stipulated on the certificate
are exceeded, the appropriate amount of anti-dumping duty should instead be payable.

(27) 

In  the  event  of  suspected  breach,  actual  breach  or  withdrawal  of  the  undertaking  by
either party to it, an anti-dumping duty may be imposed, pursuant to Article 8(9) and
(10) of the Basic Regulation.

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

8

 
Article 1

1.
The conclusions of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November 1997 with
regard  to  the  Romanian  exporting  producers  Petrotrub  SA  and  Republica  SA  are  hereby
confirmed.  Definitive  anti-dumping  duties  are  hereby  imposed  on  the  following  imports
originating in Romania and manufactured by Petrotub SA and Republica SA:

(a)

(b)

(c)

seamless  pipes,  of  iron  or  non-alloy  steel,  of  a  kind  used  for  oil  and  gas
pipelines,  of  an  external  diameter  not  exceeding  406,4  mm  (currently  falling
within CN codes ex7304 10 10 and ex7304 10 30 – TARIC codes 7304 10 10
10 and 7304 10 30 10):

seamless tubes of circular cross-section, of iron or non-alloy steel, cold-drawn
or  cold-rolled,  other  than  precision  tubes  (currently  falling  within  CN  code
7304 31 99);

other  tubes  of  circular  cross-section,  of  iron  or  non-alloy  steel,  other  than
threaded  or  threadable,  of  an  external  diameter  not  exceeding  406,4  mm
(currently falling within CN codes 7304 39 91 and 7304 39 93).

The  rate  of  definitive  anti-dumping  duties  applicable  to  the  net  free-at-Community-

2.
frontier prices before duty, shall be as follows:

Country

Manufacturer

Rate of duty (%) Taric  additional

Romania

Petrotub SA

Republica SA

code

8468

8469

9,8%

9,8%

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

3.
apply.

Article 2

1.
Imports shall be exempt from the anti-dumping duties imposed by Article 1 provided
that  they  are  produced  and  sold  for  export  to  the  Community  by  the  companies  listed  in
paragraph 4 which have offered undertakings accepted by the Commission and provided that
the conditions of paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 are met.

When the declaration for release for free circulation is presented, exemption from the
2.
duty shall be conditional upon presentation to the competent Member States’ customs services
of a valid, original production certificate issued by one of the companies listed in paragraph 4.
The production certificate shall conform to the requirements for such certificates set out in the
undertaking  accepted  by  the  Commission,  the  essential  elements  of  which  are  listed  in  the
Annex.

9

 
The  production  certificate  referred  to  in  paragraph  2  must  be  presented  within  three
3.
months of its date of issue. The quantities presented to the Member States’ customs services
for import into the Community free of the anti-dumping duty shall not exceed those stipulated
on the certificate. When quantities stipulated on the certificate are exceeded, the excess shall
be  subject  to  the  duty,  and  be  declared  under  the  relevant  Taric  additional  code  of
Article 1(2).

Imports accompanied by a production certificate shall be declared under the following

4.
Taric additional code:

Country

Manufacturer

Taric 
code

additional

Romania

Petrotub SA

Republica SA

8514

8515

Article 3

Member States’ reports to the Commission pursuant to Article 14(6) of Regulation (EC)  No
384/96, shall indicate for each release for free circulation, the year and month of import, the
CN, Taric and Taric additional codes, the type of measure, the country of origin, the quantity,
the  value,  the  anti-dumping  duty,  the  Member  State  of  import  and,  where  appropriate,  the
serial number of the production certificate

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

Article 4

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

Done at Brussels,

For the Council
The President

10

 
Main elements of the production certificate (1) referred to in Article 2(2)

ANNEX

(a) The number of the certificate.

(b) Identification showing whether the certificate is an original.

(c) The date of expiry of the certificate.

(d) The following text:

“Production certificate issued by (the Company) pursuant to Article 2(2) of Council
Regulation (EC) No …./03 for the export to the European Community within Taric
additional code xxxx of certain seamless steel pipes and tubes.”

(e) The name and full address of the Company, and possible identification number such as
national registration number for incorporated companies.

(f) The name and full address of the customer of the Company in the Community importing
the goods or the name and full address of the unrelated trader outside of the Community
exporting the goods.

(g) The number of the Company invoice to which the production certificate relates.

(h) The exact description of the goods, including:

– 

– 

– 

a product description sufficient to identify the products, which will be identical
to the product description on the invoice,

CN code,

quantity (in metric tonnes).

(i) The name of the official of the Company responsible for the issue of the certificate and the
following signed declaration:

“I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for export to the European Community of the
goods covered by this certificate is being made within the scope and under the terms
of  the  undertaking  by  (the  Company),  and  within  the  permitted  volume  for  anti-
dumping duty-free imports into the Community set out in the  undertaking  accepted
by  the  Commission  pursuant  to  Decision  03/…/EC.  I  declare  that  the  information
provided in this certificate is complete and correct.”

(j) Space for use by the competent authorities of the Community.

(1) Under the undertaking offered and accepted by the Commission, each box on the certificate will be in four
languages, the language of the country of the producer, English, French and German.

11