Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of sodium cyclamate originating in the People's Republic of China and Indonesia
Date: 2004-02-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, Indonesia, anti-dumping duty, dumping, food additive, import, originating product

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 11.02.2004 
COM(2004) 88 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

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

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

On 19 December 2002, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to 
imports  into  the  Community  of  sodium  cyclamate  originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of 
China and Indonesia. 

The  investigation  revealed  the  existence  of  injurious  dumping,  and  consequently  the 
Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 1627/2003, imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on 
imports of sodium cyclamate from the People’s Republic of China and Indonesia. 

The  attached  proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  is  based  on  the  definitive  findings  on 
dumping,  injury,  causation  and  Community  interest  which  confirmed  or  modified  the 
provisional findings. 

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation which 
should be published in the Official Journal no later than 18 March 2004. 

2 

 
 
  
 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

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

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 Community1 (the “basic 
Regulation”), and in particular Article 9 thereof, 

Having  regard  to  the  proposal  submitted  by  the  Commission  after  consulting  the  Advisory 
Committee,2 

Whereas: 

A. PROCEDURE 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

On 18 September 2003, the Commission imposed, by Regulation (EC) No 1627/2003 
published  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union3  (the  “provisional 
Regulation”), a provisional anti-dumping duty on the imports into the Community of 
sodium  cyclamate  originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China  (“PRC”)  and 
Indonesia. 

It  is  recalled  that  the  investigation  period  of  dumping  and  injury  covered  the  period 
from 1 October 2001 to 30 September 2002 (“IP”). The examination of trends relevant 
for the injury analysis covered the period from 1 January 1999 to the end of the IP (the 
“period considered”).  

B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE 

Following  the  imposition  of  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  sodium 
cyclamate  originating  in  the  PRC  and  Indonesia,  some  interested  parties  submitted 
comments in writing. The parties who so requested were also granted an opportunity 
to be heard orally. 

(4) 

As explained under recital (5) of the provisional Regulation, the dumping verification 
visits to the PRC and Indonesia which normally take place before provisional findings 

1 

2 
3 

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). 
OJ C […] […], p. […] 
OJ L 232, 18.9.2003, p. 12. 

3 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
are  made,  were  cancelled  due  to  the  introduction  of  travel  restrictions  because  of 
SARS.  A  notice  concerning  the  consequences  of  SARS  on  anti-dumping  and  anti-
subsidy  investigations  was  published  previously  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the 
European Union4.  

(5) 

The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for 
its  definitive  findings.  After  the  travel  restrictions  relating  to  SARS  were  lifted, 
verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies: 

(a) 

Exporting producers and their related companies in PRC and Hong Kong 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Zhong Hua Fang Da (H.K.) Limited, Hong Kong 

Fang Da Food Additive (Shen Zhen) Limited, Shenzhen, PRC 

Shanghai Shumi Co. Ltd., Shanghai, PRC 

Rainbow Rich Industrial Ltd., Hong Kong 

Golden Time Enterprise (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd., Shenzhen, PRC 

(b) 

Exporting producer in Indonesia 

– 

PT. Golden Sari (Chemical Industry), Bandar Lampung, Indonesia 

(6) 

(7) 

Following  the  expiry  of  the  deadline  for  comments  on  the  provisional  findings  and 
well after the verification visits, another Indonesian company made itself known and 
requested the exporting producers’ questionnaire in order to reply. The company was 
informed  that  it  should  have  made  itself  known  and  request  the  questionnaire  at  the 
time  of  initiation  of  the  investigation.  It  was  further  informed  that  at  such  advanced 
stage  of  the  investigation  no  new  information  could  be  considered  and  that  findings 
would be based for it on facts available. It was, nevertheless, given an opportunity to 
comment  and  its  comments  were  considered,  but  they  have  not  changed  the  above 
conclusion. 

All  parties  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the  basis  of 
which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty 
and the definitive collection of amounts secured by way of the provisional duty. They 
were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent 
to  this  disclosure.  The  oral  and  written  comments  submitted  by  the  parties  were 
considered and, where appropriate, taken into account for the definitive findings. 

C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE PRODUCT 

(8) 

No  comments  regarding  the  product  concerned  and  like  product  were  received  and, 
therefore, the conclusions set out in recitals (7) to (13) of the provisional Regulation 
are hereby confirmed.  

4 

OJ C 191, 13.8.2003, p. 2. 

4 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
1. 

GENERAL METHODOLOGY 

D. DUMPING 

(9) 

This section explains the general methodology used to establish whether the imports 
into  the  Community  of  the  product  concerned  have  been  dumped.  Specific  issues 
raised by the investigation for each country concerned are described in recitals (23) to 
(49). 

1.1.  Normal value 

For co-operating exporting producers in Indonesia and exporting producers in the PRC for 
which market economy treatment (“MET”) has been granted 

1.1.1  Overall representativity of domestic sales 

(10) 

In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, it was first examined whether 
the domestic  sales of  sodium  cyclamate to independent customers by each exporting 
producer were representative, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales was at least 
5% of the total volume of its corresponding export sales to the Community.  

1.1.2.  Product type specific representativity  

(11)  Subsequently,  it  was  examined  whether  the  domestic  sales  of  the  exported  product 
types  could  be  considered  as  representative.  For  this  purpose,  the  comparable  types 
sold  on  the  domestic  market  had  to  be  identified  first.  The  investigation  considered 
those  product  types  of  sodium  cyclamate  sold  domestically  as  being  identical  or 
directly comparable with the types sold for export to the Community when they were 
of the same form as defined in recital (8) of the provisional Regulation. 

(12)  Domestic sales of a particular product type were considered sufficiently representative 
when  the  total  domestic  sales  volume  of  that  type  sold  to  independent  customers 
during  the  IP  represented  5%  or  more  of  the  total  sales  volume  of  the  comparable 
product type exported to the Community.  

1.1.3.  Ordinary course of trade test 

(13) 

It  was  examined  whether  the  domestic  sales  of  each  exporting  producer  could  be 
considered as being made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the 
basic Regulation. 

(14)  This  was  done  by  establishing  the  proportion  of  domestic  sales  to  independent 
customers,  of  each  exported  product  type,  not  sold  at  a  loss  on  the  domestic  market 
during the IP: 

(a)  For  those  product  types  where  more  than  80%  by  volume  of  sales  on  the 
domestic  market  were  not  below  unit  costs  and  where  the  weighted  average 
sales price was equal to or higher than the weighted average production cost, 
normal  value,  by  product  type,  was  calculated  as  the  weighted  average  of  all 
domestic sales prices during the IP, paid or payable by independent customers, 
of  the  type  in  question  irrespective  of  whether  these  sales  were  profitable  or 
not. 

5 

 
 
  
 
(b)  For  those  product  types  where  at  least  10%,  but  not  more  than  80%,  by 
volume,  of  sales  on  the  domestic  market  were  not  below  unit  costs,  normal 
value,  by  product  type,  was  calculated  as  the  weighted  average  of  domestic 
sales prices which were made at prices equal to or above unit costs only, of the 
type in question. 

1.1.4.  Normal value based on actual domestic price 

(15)  When the requirements set out in recitals (10) to (14)(b) were met, normal value was 
based  for  the  corresponding  product  type  on  the  actual  prices  paid  or  payable,  by 
independent customers in the domestic market of the exporting country during the IP, 
as provided for in Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation. 

Exporting producers in the PRC without MET 

(16)  Pursuant  to  Article  2(7)(a)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  normal  value  for  the  exporting 
producers that are not granted MET has to be established on the basis of the price or 
constructed  value  in  a  market  economy  third  country  (analogue  country)  for  the  like 
product. 

1.2.  Export price 

(17)  According to Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, the export price shall be the price 
actually  paid  or  payable  for  the  product  when  sold  for  export  from  the  exporting 
country to the Community. 

1.3.  Comparison 

(18) 

In  order  to  ensure  a  fair  comparison  between  the  normal  value  and  the  export  price, 
account  was  taken,  in  accordance  with  Article  2(10)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  of 
differences in factors which were claimed and demonstrated to affect prices and price 
comparability.  On  this  basis,  allowances  for  differences  in  transport  costs,  ocean 
freight  and  insurance  costs,  handling,  loading  and  ancillary  costs,  level  of  trade, 
packing  costs,  credit  costs,  commissions,  discounts  and  bank  charges  have  been 
granted where applicable and justified. 

(19)  The  comparison  between  normal  value  and  export  price  was  made  on  an  ex-factory 

basis and at the same level of trade. 

1.4.  Dumping margin 

Dumping margin for co-operating exporting producers in Indonesia and exporting producers 
in the PRC granted MET 

(20)  According  to  Article  2(11)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  adjusted  weighted  average 
normal value by product type, as determined under recitals (10) to (15), was compared 
with the adjusted weighted average export price, as determined under recital (17). 

Dumping margin for non-co-operating companies 

(21)  For those exporting producers which neither replied to the questionnaire nor otherwise 
made themselves known, the dumping margin was established on the basis of the facts 
available,  in  accordance  with  Article  18(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  The  above 

6 

 
 
  
 
approach  was  also  considered  necessary  in  respect  of  non-co-operating  exporting 
producers,  in  order  to  prevent  such  non-co-operating  exporting  producers  benefiting 
from their non-co-operation. 

(22)  Where the overall level of co-operation found was low, it was considered appropriate 
to set a country wide dumping margin for the non-co-operating companies at a higher 
level  than  the  highest  dumping  margin  established  for  a  co-operating  company. 
Indeed, there is reason to believe that the high level of non-co-operation results from 
the  non-co-operating  exporting  producers  in  the  country  concerned  generally  having 
dumped  at  a  higher  level  than  any  co-operating  exporting  producer  in  the  same 
country.  

2. 

ISSUES  RAISED  BY  THE 

SPECIFIC 
INVESTIGATION  WITH  REGARD  TO  THE 
ESTABLISHMENT  OF  THE  DUMPING  MARGIN  FOR  EACH  OF  THE  COUNTRIES 
CONCERNED 

2.1. 

Indonesia 

(23) 

In total, one exporting producer co-operated in the investigation. 

2.1.1.  Normal value 

(24) 

It  was  first  established  that  the  domestic  sales  of  sodium  cyclamate  of  the  sole  co-
operating  exporting  producer  were  representative  during  the  IP  (see  recital  (10) 
above). It was further established that the sole product type of sodium cyclamate sold 
on  the  domestic  market  by  the  co-operating  exporting  producer  was  identical  to  the 
sole type sold for export to the Community. 

(25)  For this product type, since more than 80% by volume was not sold at a loss on the 
domestic  market  and  its  weighted  average  sales  price  was  higher  than  its  weighted 
average  production  cost,  the  normal  value  was  calculated  as  the  weighted  average 
price  of  all  domestic  sales  made  during  the  IP,  paid  or  payable  by  independent 
customers, of the type in question, as set out in Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation. 

2.1.2.  Export price 

(26)  Exports were made only to unrelated customers in the Community and, therefore, the 
export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, 
on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable during the IP. 

2.1.3.  Comparison 

(27) 

In order to ensure a fair comparison, allowances were made for differences in transport 
costs, ocean freight and insurance costs, handling, loading and ancillary costs, level of 
trade, packing costs, credit costs and commissions, where applicable and justified.  

(28)  The  exporting  producer  claimed  an  adjustment  to  the  normal  value  for  an  amount 
corresponding  to  import  charges,  indirect  taxes  and  income  taxes  borne  by  the  like 
product  and  by  materials  physically  incorporated  therein,  when  intended  for 
consumption  in  Indonesia  and  not  collected  or  refunded  in  respect  of  the  product 
exported  to  the  Community.  However,  the  company  concerned  could  neither 
demonstrate that those taxes were actually not paid or refunded in respect of the export 

7 

 
 
  
 
 
 
sales to the Community nor that any such taxes not paid or refunded were included in 
the domestic prices. Therefore, the claim was rejected. 

(29)  Following the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which 
it  was  intended  to  recommend  the  imposition  of  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty,  the 
exporting producer concerned claimed an adjustment for certain advertising expenses 
and an adjustment for the expenses of certain representative offices involved in some 
domestic  sales.  However,  it  was  established  that  the  exporting  producer  had  already 
included  these  expenses  in  the  quantification  of  the  level  of  trade  adjustment  it  had 
claimed earlier. Furthermore, the level of trade adjustment granted covered any price 
difference  between  sales  through  different  channels  due  to  different  functions, 
including 
the  sales  representative  offices. 
Consequently, and in order to avoid duplication when making adjustments as provided 
for in Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, it was not considered appropriate to grant 
any further adjustment for such expenses. Therefore, the claim was rejected. 

those  concerning  advertising  and 

2.1.4.  Dumping margin 

(30)  The  definitive  dumping  margin  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  CIF  Community 

frontier price duty unpaid is for PT. Golden Sari (Chemical Industry) 16,3%. 

(31)  The residual definitive dumping margin for Indonesia was set at a higher level than the 
dumping margin established for the co-operating company as the overall level of co-
operation  in  Indonesia  was  low.  In  order  to  establish  the  overall  level  of  non-co-
operation,  the  volume  of  exports  to  the  Community  reported  by  the  co-operating 
exporting producer was compared with the equivalent Eurostat import statistics. This 
showed a level of non-co-operation of around 40% of the total volume of imports. 

(32) 

In  order  to  calculate  the  residual  definitive  dumping  margin,  and  since  the  co-
operating company only exported one product type, the average import price into the 
Community  for  Indonesia,  as  reported  in  the  Eurostat  statistics,  adjusted  for  ocean 
freight and insurance costs was compared to the normal value, as established for the 
co-operating exporting producer, adjusted for freight and packing costs. The residual 
definitive dumping margin thus established is 18,1%. 

2.2.  The People’s Republic of China 

(33) 

In total, three exporting producers co-operated in the investigation. 

2.2.1.  Market Economy Treatment (MET) 

(34)  As set out in recitals (21) to (25) of the provisional Regulation, MET was granted to 

all three exporting producers in the PRC who applied for it.  

2.2.2.  Normal value for exporting producers granted MET 

(35)  During the verification visit to Rainbow Rich Industrial Ltd., the mother company of 
Golden Time Enterprise (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd., it was found out that the production and 
sales of sodium cyclamate during the IP of another related producing company in the 
PRC,  San  Lian  Industrial,  situated  in  Nanjing5,  had  neither  been  reported  in  the 

5 

As of October 2002, the company is called Jintian Enterprises Nanjing Co. Ltd. 

8 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
questionnaire  responses  nor  subsequently  during  the  course  of  the  investigation. 
Neither  was  MET  requested  in  respect  of  this  related  company.  Therefore,  domestic 
sales information and cost of production of this company could not be verified during 
the  on-spot  verification.  It  was  found  that  these  non-reported  domestic  sales  were 
significant,  i.e.  around  45%  of  the  total  domestic  sales  of  the  related  companies  in 
question. 

(36)  According to Article 18 of the basic Regulation, provisional or final findings may be 
made  on  the  basis  of  facts  available  when  an  interested  party  refuses  access  to,  or 
otherwise  does  not  provide  necessary  information  within  the  time  limits  provided  in 
the  basic  Regulation.  It  is  noted  that  the  production  costs  and  the  domestic  sales 
information of San Lian Industrial are necessary information in order to establish the 
normal  value  to  be  compared  with  the  export  price  established  for  Golden  Time 
Enterprise (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. Since neither MET was granted to San Lian Industrial, 
nor information concerning its domestic sales and cost of production was provided and 
verified  during  the  investigation,  the  determination  of  the  normal  value  for  Golden 
Time  Enterprise  (Shenzhen)  Co.  Ltd.  shall  be  based  on  facts  available.  The  party 
concerned  was  informed  accordingly  of  the  consequences  of  this  partial  non-co-
operation  and  given  an  opportunity  to  comment.  The  comments  confirmed  that  San 
Lian  Industrial  produced  and  sold  in  the  domestic  market  during  the  IP  sodium 
cyclamate on behalf of its mother company Rainbow Rich Industrial Ltd. and that the 
details have never been reported. Therefore, the conclusion to establish normal value 
on the basis of the facts available is hereby confirmed.  

(37)  Since  the  normal  value  for  Golden  Time  Enterprise  (Shenzhen)  Co.  Ltd.  would 
normally include all domestic sales of the related companies and one related company 
is considered as not having co-operated and MET was not granted to it, an analogue 
country was selected as the best facts available for the establishment of normal value. 
In  this  respect,  it  is  noted  that  following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures  no 
comments were received concerning the selection of Indonesia as an analogue country 
as set out in recital (28) of the provisional Regulation. Therefore, prices in Indonesia 
were considered a reasonable surrogate for prices in the PRC. The average domestic 
prices  of  the  co-operating  Indonesian  exporting  producer,  as  verified  during  the  on-
spot  verification  visit,  have  therefore  been  used  to  establish  normal  value  for  the 
Chinese exporting producer Golden Time Enterprise (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. 

(38)  Following the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which 
it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty, the co-
operating Indonesian exporting producer and the Indonesian Government argued that 
normal value for Golden Time Enterprise (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. and for any other non-
co-operating Chinese exporting producer (see recital (49) below) should not be based 
on  data  from  the  sole  co-operating  Indonesian  exporting  producer,  but  on  data  from 
the complaint. They further argued that it would be discriminatory to use the data of 
the co-operating Indonesian exporting producer to calculate normal value for non-co-
operating  Chinese  exporting  producers,  because  the  dumping  margin  established  for 
one  Chinese  exporting  producer,  which  has  partially  co-operated  during  the 
investigation,  was  found  lower  than  that  for  the  co-operating  Indonesian  exporting 
producer. Firstly, it is noted that the dumping margin is the result of the comparison of 
a  normal  value  with  an  export  price.  Therefore,  the  level  of  the  dumping  margin 
depends on two parameters (normal value and export price) and conclusions, including 
the above mentioned discrimination, cannot be drawn by comparing only one of these 
parameters,  i.e.  the  normal  value.  Furthermore,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of 

9 

 
 
  
 
Article  18(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  if  determinations,  including  those  regarding 
normal  value,  are  based  on  the  facts  available,  any  such  facts,  including  the 
information supplied in the complaint, shall be checked by reference to official import 
statistics or information obtained from other interested parties during the investigation. 
Therefore, since there was on the record verified information concerning normal value 
obtained  from  the  sole  co-operating  Indonesian  exporting  producer,  it  was  not 
considered appropriate to disregard this information and use instead as facts available 
information supplied in the complaint. 

(39)  As regards the exporting producer Fang Da Food Additives situated in both Shenzhen 
and  Yang  Quan,  when  examining  whether  the  domestic  sales  were  made  in  the 
ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation, the selling, 
general  and  administrative  expenses  as  reported  by  Fang  Da  Food  Additives  and  its 
related companies for their domestic sales were adjusted in order to take into account 
expenses which were recorded in the accounting of the related company, Zhong Hua 
Fang  Da  Ltd.  in  Hong  Kong.  The  verification  confirmed  that  these  expenses  were 
closely linked to the operations in the domestic market and not to the export activities 
as initially claimed by the company. 

(40)  The examination whether the domestic sales were made in the ordinary course of trade 
was  then  carried  out  by  establishing  the proportion  of  domestic  sales  to  independent 
customers, of each of the two representative types, not sold at a loss on the domestic 
market during the IP. 

(41)  For those product types where more than 80%, by volume, of sales were not sold at a 
loss  on  the  domestic  market,  and  the  weighted  average  sales  price  was  equal  to  or 
higher than the weighted average production cost, normal value, by product type, was 
calculated  as  the  weighted  average  of  all  domestic  sales  prices,  paid  or  payable  by 
independent customers, of the type in question. 

(42)  For  those  product  types  where  at  least  10%,  but  not  more  than  80%,  by  volume,  of 
sales on the domestic market were not below unit costs, normal value, by product type, 
was calculated as the weighted average of domestic sales prices which were made at 
prices equal to or above unit costs, of the type in question. 

2.2.3.  Export prices for exporting producers granted MET 

(43)  All export sales to the Community by all co-operating exporting producers in the PRC 
were made to independent customers in the Community via related companies in Hong 
Kong.  The  investigation  established  that  in  all  cases  the  functions  relating  to  export 
sales  of  the  exporting  producers  in  the  PRC  were  carried  out  by  their  related 
companies  in  Hong  Kong.  Therefore,  the  export  price  was  established  pursuant  to 
Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation by reference to the prices actually paid or payable 
to the related companies in Hong Kong.  

2.2.4.  Comparison for exporting producers granted MET 

(44) 

In  order  to  ensure  a  fair  comparison,  allowances  were  made  for  differences  in 
transport,  insurance,  handling,  loading  and  ancillary  costs,  credit,  packing,  discounts 
and bank charges where applicable and justified. 

10 

 
 
  
 
(45)  Since  for  all  co-operating  exporting  producers  in  the  PRC  sales  to  the  Community 
were  made  via  related  companies  in  Hong  Kong,  the  export  prices  were  adjusted  as 
indicated in recital (44) above in order to bring them at ex-factory level in the PRC.  

(46)  The  co-operating  exporting  producers  and  their  related  domestic  sales  companies 
claimed an adjustment to the domestic sales prices (normal value) for credit costs. The 
claim was rejected because the companies could not show any written evidence about 
agreed  terms  of  payment  at  the  date  of  sale,  i.e.  in  their  domestic  sales  invoices  or 
other correspondence. 

2.2.5.  Dumping margin for exporting producers granted MET 

(47)  The  comparison  of  normal  value  and  export  price  as  indicated  in  recital  (19)  above 
showed  no  dumping  for  the  two  companies  of  Fang  Da  Food  Additive  situated  in 
Shenzhen and Yang Quan. The investigation should therefore be terminated for these 
companies without imposition of measures. 

(48)  As explained in recital (37), normal value for Golden Time Enterprise (Shenzhen) Co. 
Ltd. was established using prices in an analogue country, Indonesia. The comparison 
of normal value and export price as indicated in recital (19) showed a dumping margin 
of 6,9%. 

2.2.6.  Dumping margin for exporting producers without MET 

(49)  As set out in recital (34) of the provisional Regulation, there was significant non-co-
operation  from  the  PRC  (around  47%  of  total  imports  as  reported  in  Eurostat). 
Following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures  no  comments  were  received 
concerning this finding. Furthermore, given that the PRC is an economy in transition, 
prices  of  an  analogue  country  have  been  used  in  establishing  a  normal  value  for  the 
calculation of the country wide dumping margin. For the reasons set out in recital (37), 
Indonesia has been used as an appropriate analogue country for this purpose.  

(50)  The  definitive  country  wide  dumping  margin  applicable  to  all  companies  without 
MET in the PRC was set at 17,6%, corresponding to the difference between the export 
price  calculated  on  the  basis  of  facts  available;  i.e.  average  import  price  in  the 
Community,  as  reported  in  the  Eurostat  statistics  adjusted  for  ocean  freight  and 
insurance  costs,  and  the  normal  value  as  established  for  Indonesia  in  recital  (32) 
above.  

(51)  The  definitive  dumping  margins  for  the  PRC  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  CIF 

Community frontier price duty unpaid are summarised as follows: 

Exporting producers in the PRC 

Fang Da Food Additive (Shen Zhen) Limited. 

Fang Da Food Additive (Yang Quan) Limited. 

Golden Time Enterprise (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. 

All other companies 

11 

(%) 

0% 

0% 

6,9% 

17,6% 

 
 
  
 
 
E. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY 

(52)  No  comments  were  received  following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures 
concerning the composition of the Community industry. Therefore, the findings as set 
out in recital (37) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

F. INJURY 

(53)  Following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  no  comments  were  received 
concerning  the  analysis  of  Community  consumption  and,  therefore,  the  findings  set 
out in recitals (38) and (39) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

(54)  No  comments  were  also  received  following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures 
concerning  the  cumulative  assessment  of  the  effects  of  the  imports  concerned. 
Furthermore, the changes in the definitive dumping margins do not affect the findings 
set out in recitals (40) to (44) of the provisional Regulation. However, following the 
disclosure  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the  basis  of  which  it  was 
intended  to  recommend  the  imposition  of  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty,  the 
Indonesian  Government  claimed  that  there  was  no  justification  to  cumulate  exports 
from  Indonesia  with  those  form  the  PRC,  because  Indonesian  exports  declined 
substantially  during  the  IP  whilst  Chinese  imports  increased  substantially.  In  this 
respect,  the  investigation  established  that,  although  dumped  imports  from  Indonesia 
decreased slightly between 2001 and the IP, overall they increased during the period 
considered.  The  fact  that  Chinese  dumped  imports  increased  faster  than  Indonesian 
dumped  imports  during  the  period  considered  does  not  justify  the  non-cumulative 
assessment  of  the  effects  of  the  dumped  imports  from  the  two  countries  under 
investigation in accordance with the provisions of Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation. 
Therefore,  since  no  other  comment  was  raised  concerning  the  findings  as  set  out  in 
recitals  (40)  to  (44)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the  claim  is  rejected  and  these 
findings are hereby confirmed. 

(55)  However, given the no dumping finding for two related Chinese exporting producers 
(see recital (47) above), the volume and the market share of the dumped imports have 
been reassessed. Indeed, non-dumped imports have been deducted from the imports as 
established in recitals (45) and (46) of the provisional Regulation. The evolution of the 
volume  of  the  dumped  imports  from  the  PRC  and  Indonesia  and  their  market  share 
during the period considered is therefore as follows: 

Total dumped imports (tonnes) 

Index 

Market share of dumped imports 

Index 

1999 

100 

1999 

100 

2000 

65 

2000 

62 

2001 

147 

2001 

125 

IP 

315 

IP 

210 

(56)  Dumped imports increased during the period considered by 215%. A higher increase 
was noticed after the year 2000. Between 2001 and the IP dumped imports increased 
by 114%. 

(57)  The market share of the dumped imports also increased during the period considered 
by  110%.  Again,  the  increase  was  higher  after  the  year  2000.  A  68%  increase  was 

12 

 
 
  
 
 
noticed between 2001 and the IP. It should be noted that the market share of dumped 
imports during the IP was very substantial. For reasons of confidentiality the precise 
figures, however, cannot be given. 

(58)  Given that the export prices as reported by the co-operating exporting producers were 
overall in line with Eurostat import prices and no comment was received following the 
imposition  of  provisional  measures,  the  findings  as  set  out  in  recital  (47)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

(59)  For the determination of price undercutting during the IP the methodology set out in 
recital (48) of the provisional Regulation was followed. However, the average import 
price  of  the  co-operating  Indonesian  exporting  producer  has  now  been  used  in  the 
calculation.  For  the  non-co-operating  exporting  producers  in  the  PRC  and  Indonesia 
the  undercutting  was  calculated  using  the  Eurostat  import  prices  for  these  countries. 
These prices were at CIF level and an appropriate adjustment was made to include any 
customs duty normally paid on importation. 

(60)  On that basis, the existence of price undercutting was established for dumped imports 
from the PRC and Indonesia. The level of undercutting, expressed as a percentage of 
the Community industry's average selling price ranged from 11% to 15% for the PRC 
and it was found to be at around 20% for Indonesia.  

(61)  Following the imposition of provisional measures no written comments were received 
concerning  the  situation  of  the  Community  industry  and  the  conclusion  on  injury. 
However, one Chinese exporting producer argued in the course of a hearing  that the 
Community  industry  has  not  suffered  material  injury  because  during  the  period 
considered  its  production  and  prices  remained  relatively  stable  and  its  sales  in  the 
Community and the employment increased. 

(62) 

It is noted that this exporting producer has not provided any evidence indicating that 
the  relevant  findings  as  set  out  in  the  provisional  Regulation  were  not  accurate. 
According to these verified findings, the production and the prices of the Community 
industry  decreased  during  the  period  considered  by  10%  and  3%  respectively. 
Moreover,  this  has  to  be  put  into  context  with  the  development  of  consumption. 
Indeed, during the same period, despite the consumption in the Community increasing 
by  50%,  the  sales  of  the  Community  industry  increased  by  only  1%.  Thus,  the 
Community industry could clearly not benefit from the expanding market, and on the 
contrary lost market share. As regards employment, it is noted that it has increased by 
7%  between  1999  and  2000,  but  then  remained  stable  until  and  during  the  IP. 
Consequently,  there  was  no  increase  in  the  number  of  employees  which  could  have 
affected  the  situation  of  the  Community  industry  during  the  IP.  Furthermore,  the 
employment cost per employee has increased overall in line with inflation during the 
period considered. It is, therefore, concluded that these arguments do not show that the 
Community industry has not suffered material injury during the IP. 

(63)  Accordingly, the findings set out in recital (50) to (69) of the provisional Regulation 
that the Community industry suffered material injury mainly in the form of financial 
losses are hereby confirmed. 

13 

 
 
  
 
G. CAUSATION OF INJURY 

(64) 

In  accordance  with  Article  3(6)  and  3(7)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  it  was  examined 
whether  the  dumped  imports  of  sodium  cyclamate  originating  in  the  PRC  and 
Indonesia have caused injury to the Community industry to a degree that enables it to 
be classified as material. Known factors other than the dumped imports, which could 
at  the  same  time  be  injuring  the  Community  industry,  were  also  examined  to  ensure 
that  possible  injury  caused  by  these  other  factors  was  not  attributed  to  the  dumped 
imports. 

(65)  No written comments concerning the causation of injury were received following the 
imposition of provisional measures. However, one Chinese exporting producer argued 
during  the  course  of  a  hearing  that  imports  from  the  PRC  are  not  a  cause  of  injury, 
because  the  Community  industry  enjoyed  a  near-monopoly  situation  before  sodium 
cyclamate  was  exported  from  the  PRC  and  Indonesia,  the  prices  from  the  PRC 
increased during the period considered, the sales of the Community industry have not 
decreased  during  the  same  period  and  the  Community  industry  maintained  its 
dominant market share. 

(66)  These  arguments  have  no  factual  basis.  The  investigation  has  shown  that  at  the 
beginning  of  the  period  considered,  i.e.  1999,  imports  into  the  Community  held  a 
market share of more than 35%. Therefore, the Community industry was not enjoying 
a  near-monopoly  situation.  Furthermore,  as  set  out  in  recital  (47)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation,  the  prices  of  the  dumped  imports  decreased  by  8%  during  the  period 
considered.  As  regards  the  evolution  of  the  sales  of  the  Community  industry,  recital 
(62)  above  explained  that  they  increased  by  only  1%  during  a  period  when 
consumption  increased  by  50%.  As  set  out  in  recitals  (55)  and  (56)  above,  dumped 
imports  increased  during  the  same  period  by  215%.  Finally,  the  market  share  of 
dumped  imports  during  the  IP  was  found  to  be  higher  than  the  market  share  of  the 
Community  industry.  Consequently,  the  arguments  cannot  be  accepted  and  the 
conclusions set out in recitals (71) and (72) of the provisional Regulation are hereby 
confirmed. 

(67)  The  same  exporting  producer  further  argued  that  any  injury  was  caused  by  other 
factors,  i.e.  the  Community  industry  was  insufficiently  prepared  to  compete  on  its 
domestic  and  foreign  markets,  its  profitability  has  been  affected  by  its  own  business 
decisions on investments in order to maintain state of the art facilities and comply with 
its  legal  environment  (strict  environmental  regulations),  the  Community  industry  is 
present only in a high-end segment which only indirectly competes with the low-end 
segment  satisfied  by  imports  from  the  PRC  and  certain  Chinese  producers  enjoy 
comparative advantages that allow them to be more competitive than the Community 
industry. 

(68) 

It is noted that no evidence was provided to support the argument that the Community 
industry was not prepared to compete on its domestic and foreign markets. Moreover, 
the  investigation  did  not  show  any  such  reason.  Recital  (73)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation set out the reasons why the export performance of the Community industry 
could  not  have  contributed  significantly  to  the  injury  suffered.  To  the  contrary,  the 
significant price undercutting  by  the  dumped  imports (see  recital  (60) above)  clearly 
shows  that  the  imports  under  investigation  were  the  main  cause  of  injury  to  the 
Community industry and, therefore, the claim cannot be accepted. 

14 

 
 
  
 
(69)  As  to  the  investments,  it  is  noted  that  the  Community  industry  invested  when  its 
profitability  was  positive.  During  the  IP,  when  it  realised  losses,  investments  fell 
sharply by 13 times in comparison with the previous profitable year (see recital (57) of 
the  provisional  Regulation).  There  is  therefore  no  indication  that  investments, 
including  any  for  environmental  purposes,  have  contributed  to  the  injury  suffered 
during the IP and the claim is rejected. 

(70)  With regard to the lack of direct competition of the Community industry with imports 
from the PRC, the investigation established that both forms of sodium cyclamate were 
exported from the PRC to the Community and both forms were produced and sold in 
the  Community  market  by  the  Community  industry  during  the  IP.  Therefore,  direct 
competition  existed.  Furthermore,  given  the  existence  of  certain  substitutability 
between  the  two  forms,  indirect  competition  also  existed.  Consequently,  the  claim 
cannot be accepted. 

(71)  As  far  as  the  allegation  that  certain  Chinese  producers  enjoyed  comparative 
advantages which allow them to be more competitive than the Community industry, it 
is noted that no details of these alleged advantages were provided. It is also considered 
that the exporting producer concerned can benefit from any comparative advantages it 
may  be  enjoying  as  long  as  it  does  not  dump  the  product  concerned  within  the 
meaning of the basic Regulation. 

(72)  The investigation has further established that the non-dumped imports from the PRC 
were  not  undercutting  the  prices  of  the  Community  industry  during  the  IP  and, 
therefore,  could  not  have  contributed  significantly  to  the  injury  suffered  by  the 
Community industry. 

(73)  Consequently,  the  findings  and  conclusions  set  out  in  recitals  (73)  to  (77)  of  the 
provisional  Regulation  that  the  material  injury  suffered  by  the  Community  industry 
was mainly caused by the dumped imports are hereby confirmed. 

H. COMMUNITY INTEREST 

1. 

GENERAL REMARKS 

(74)  No  comments  were  received  following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures 
concerning  the  findings  on  Community  interest.  However,  shortly  before  the 
imposition of provisional measures one raw material supplier and two importers sent 
letters  claiming  that  it  would  not  be  in  the  Community  interest  to  impose  measures 
against the co-operating Indonesian exporting producer. The Commission re-examined 
whether,  despite  the  final  conclusion  on  the  existence  of  injurious  dumping, 
compelling  reasons  existed  that  could  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  it  is  not  in  the 
Community interest to adopt measures in this particular case. For this purpose, and in 
accordance with Article 21(1) of the basic Regulation, the impact of possible measures 
on  all  parties  involved  in  this  proceeding  and  also  the  consequences  of  not  taking 
measures were considered on the basis of all evidence submitted. 

2. 

INTERESTS OF COMMUNITY SUPPLIERS 

(75)  The  supplier  which  made  itself  known  shortly  before  the  imposition  of  provisional 
measures,  i.e.  a  supplier  other  than  those  mentioned  in  recitals  (83)  and  (84)  of  the 
provisional  Regulation,  alleged  that  it  is  mainly  selling  cyclohexylamine  (the  basic 

15 

 
 
  
 
raw  material  to  produce  sodium  cyclamate)  to  the  Far  East  and  in  particular  to 
Indonesia.  It  further  claimed  that  since  the  sole  co-operating  Indonesian  exporting 
producer is its main client, there is a risk of loosing significant sales volume if an anti-
dumping  duty  is  imposed.  This  would  also  have  some  knock-on  effects  on  other 
parties in the downstream supply chain.  

(76) 

It is noted that beyond a short letter which was submitted well outside the time limits 
set for that purpose in the notice of initiation, the supplier in question has not provided 
any  actual  evidence  which  could  substantiate  its  claims  as  provided  for  in  Article 
21(7)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  No  further  comments  were  submitted  after  the 
imposition  of  provisional  measures  and  the  disclosure  of  the  essential  facts  and 
considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a 
definitive  anti-dumping  duty.  Furthermore,  it  was  found  that  this  supplier  was  also 
providing cyclohexylamine to the Community industry. It is therefore concluded that 
the imposition of definitive measures could not have a significantly negative effect on 
its business. 

(77)  No other comments concerning the interest of suppliers were received and, therefore, 
the conclusions set out in recital (83) and (84) of the provisional Regulation are hereby 
confirmed. 

3. 

INTEREST OF IMPORTERS 

(78)  The  two  importers  which  made  themselves  known  shortly  before  the  imposition  of 
provisional  measures,  alleged  that  the  imposition  of  an  anti-dumping  duty  on 
Indonesia is not justified as their supplier, the sole co-operating Indonesian exporting 
producer, has shown a strong commitment to "hold the prices on a level economically 
justified". Furthermore, they claimed that the "pricing of the Indonesian producer have 
always been higher than the Chinese, resulting in reasonable market prices for the end-
users". 

(79)  However,  these  importers  have  not  made  themselves  known  and  have  not  provided 
necessary  information  within  the  time  limits  set  for  that  purpose  in  the  notice  of 
initiation.  Their  claims  were  not  supported  by  any  actual  evidence  that  could 
substantiate  them.  Furthermore,  no  relevant  information  which  could  support  such 
allegations existed on the record. On the contrary, the investigation established that the 
prices of the Indonesian exporting producer in question were lower than the Chinese 
prices (see recital (60) above). Thus, as the submissions were not supported by actual 
evidence, they shall not be taken into account in accordance with Article 21(7) of the 
basic Regulation. 

(80)  No further substantiated comments concerning the interest of importers were received 
and,  consequently,  the  conclusions  set  out  in  recitals  (85)  to  (87)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

4. 

INTEREST OF USERS 

(81)  No comments concerning the interest of users were received following the imposition 
of provisional measures and, therefore, the conclusions set out in recitals (88) to (92) 
of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

16 

 
 
  
 
5. 

INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY 

(82)  No  comments  concerning  the  interest  of  the  Community  industry  were  received 
following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures  and,  therefore,  the  conclusions  set 
out in recitals (93) to (95) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

6. 

COMPETITION AND TRADE DISTORTING EFFECTS 

(83)  No  written  comments  concerning  the  competition  and  trade  distorting  effects  were 
received  following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures.  However,  although  in 
accordance  with  Article  21  of  the  basic  Regulation  exporting  producers  are  not 
considered interested parties in the framework of the Community interest analysis, one 
Chinese  exporting  producer  argued  in  the  course  of  a  hearing  that  the  Community 
interest  does  not  warrant  measures  because  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures 
restricted the number of players/exporters in the Community market without reducing 
supply  from  the  countries  concerned,  the  Community  industry  cannot  satisfy  the 
market demand and the imposition of definitive measures will reinforce the dominant 
position of the Community industry. 

(84) 

It is noted that the aim of anti-dumping measures is not to eliminate exporters from the 
Community market, but to restore fair trading conditions. The fact that the Community 
industry's  production  cannot  meet,  at  present,  Community  demand  is  not  a  reason  to 
allow unfair trade practises to continue. It is further noted that the Community industry 
does not hold a dominant position since its market share was less than 50% during the 
IP. Moreover, while it is true that the only countries which produce sodium cyclamate 
outside  the  Community  are  Indonesia  and  the  PRC,  there  are  also  important  PRC 
producers  which  were  not  found  to  be  dumping  and  which  can  therefore  supply  the 
Community  market  as  before.  Therefore,  the  arguments  cannot  be  accepted  and  the 
conclusions  set  out  in  recital  (96)  to  (99)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  hereby 
confirmed.  

7. 

CONCLUSION ON COMMUNITY INTEREST 

(85)  On  the  basis  of  the  above,  it  is  concluded  that  the  imposition  of  definitive  anti-

dumping measures would not be against the Community interest. 

I. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 

1. 

INJURY ELIMINATION LEVEL 

(86)  Based  on  the  methodology  explained  in  recitals  (101)  to  (104)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation, an injury elimination level was calculated for the purposes of establishing 
the  level  of  measures  to  be  definitively  imposed.  Since  no  comments  on  the 
methodology  used  for  establishing  the  injury  elimination  level  were  received,  this 
methodology is hereby confirmed. However, the average import prices used have been 
revised as for the final undercutting calculations in recital (59) above. 

2. 

DEFINITIVE MEASURES 

(87)  As the injury elimination levels are higher than the dumping margins established for 

all parties concerned, the definitive measures should be based on the latter.  

17 

 
 
  
 
(88) 

It  is  noted  that  information  on  the  record  indicates  that  one  of  the  co-operating 
exporting  producers  may  intend  to  lower  its  prices  in  order  to  absorb  the  duty.  The 
attention  is  drawn  to  Article  12  of  the  basic  Regulation,  which  stipulates  that  the 
investigation  can  be  reopened  and  the  dumping  margins  recalculated  in  case  there  is 
sufficient  evidence  that  the  measures  have  not  led  to  a  sufficient  movement  in  the 
prices  in  the  Community.  It  is  the  intention  of  the  investigating  authority  to  swiftly 
proceed  with  a  reinvestigation  in  cases  where  sufficient  information  on  duty 
absorption  is  submitted  to  it.  Additionally,  in  order  to  ensure  the  efficiency  of  the 
measures and to discourage price manipulation, it is appropriate to impose the duty in 
the form of a specific amount per kilo. 

(89) 

It is further noted that according to Eurostat import statistics there are imports of the 
product concerned from countries (e.g. Hong Kong), where there is no production of 
sodium  cyclamate.  According  to  information  available  on  the  record,  production  of 
sodium  cyclamate  exists  only  in  Spain,  Indonesia  and  the  PRC.  Should  sufficient 
information  on  circumvention  of  the  measures  be  submitted,  the  investigating 
authority is prepared to swiftly initiate an investigation in accordance with Article 13 
of the basic Regulation. 

(90)  On the basis of the above, the rate of the duty shall be equal to the fixed amount per 

kilo of sodium cyclamate as shown below. 

The PRC: 

Dumping margin 

Fang Da Food Additive (Shen Zhen) Limited, Gong Le 
Industrial  Estate,  Xixian  County,  Bao  An,  Shenzhen, 
518102, PRC  

Fang Da Food Additive (Yang Quan) Limited, Da Lian 
Dong Lu, Economic and Technology Zone, Yangquan 
City, Shanxi 045000, PRC 

0% 

0% 

Rate  of  definitive 
duty 
(per kilo) 

EUR 0 

EUR 0 

Golden  Time  Enterprise 
(Shenzhen)  Co.  Ltd., 
Shanglilang,  Cha  Shan  Industrial  Area,  Buji  Town, 
Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, PRC 

6,9% 

EUR 0,11 

All other companies 

17,6% 

EUR 0,26 

Indonesia: 

PT.  Golden  Sari  (Chemical  Industry),  Mitra  Bahari 
Blok D1-D2, Jalan Pakin No. 1, Sunda Kelapa, Jakarta 
14440, Indonesia.  

16,3% 

EUR 0,24 

All other companies 

18,1% 

EUR 0,27 

(91)  The  individual  company  anti-dumping  duty  rates  specified  in  this  Regulation  were 
established  on  the  basis  of  the  findings  of  the  present  investigation.  Therefore,  they 
reflect  the  situation  found  during  that  investigation  with  respect  to  these  companies. 
These  duty  rates  (as  opposed  to  the  countrywide  duty  applicable  to  ‘all  other 
companies’) are  thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in  the 
country  concerned  and  produced  by  the  companies  and  thus  by  the  specific  legal 
entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically 

18 

 
 
  
 
 
 
mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with its name and address, including 
entities  related  to  those  specifically  mentioned,  cannot  benefit  from  these  rates  and 
shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’. 

(92)  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  Commission6  forthwith 
with  all  relevant  information,  in  particular  any  modification  in  the  company’s 
activities  linked  to  production,  domestic  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 duty rates. 

3. 

COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTY 

(93) 

In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and in the light of the level of 
the  injury  caused  to  the  Community  industry,  it  is  considered  necessary  that  the 
amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  duty  imposed  by  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1627/2003 be definitively collected to the extent of the amount of the duty definitively 
imposed by the present Regulation if this amount is equal or lower than the amount of 
the  provisional  duty.  Otherwise,  only  the  amount  of  the  provisional  duty  should  be 
definitively collected. Amounts secured in excess of the amount of the definitive anti-
dumping duty shall be released.  

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 

2. 

A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of sodium cyclamate, 
currently classifiable within CN code ex 2929 90 00 (TARIC code 2929 90 00 10), 
originating in the People's Republic of China and Indonesia. 

The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net free-at-Community-
frontier price, before duty, shall be as follows: 

6 

European  Commission  -  Directorate  General  for  Trade  -  Directorate  B  -  J-79  5/17  -  Rue  de  la 
Loi/Wetstraat 200 - B-1049 Brussels 

19 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
Rate of duty (EUR per 
kilo) 

TARIC additional code 

The People's Republic of China: 

Fang Da Food Additive (Shen Zhen) Limited, Gong Le 
Industrial  Estate,  Xixian  County,  Bao  An,  Shenzhen, 
518102, PRC 

Fang Da Food Additive (Yang Quan) Limited, Da Lian 
Dong Lu, Economic and Technology Zone, Yangquan 
City, Shanxi 045000, PRC 

Golden  Time  Enterprise 
(Shenzhen)  Co.  Ltd., 
Shanglilang,  Cha  Shan  Industrial  Area,  Buji  Town, 
Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, PRC 

All other companies 

Indonesia: 

PT.  Golden  Sari  (Chemical  Industry),  Mitra  Bahari 
Blok D1-D2, Jalan Pakin No. 1, Sunda Kelapa, Jakarta 
14440, Indonesia. 

All other companies 

0 

0 

0,11 

0,26 

0,24 

0,27 

A471 

A472 

A473 

A999 

A502 

A999 

3. 

In  cases  where  goods  have  been  damaged  before  entry  into  free  circulation  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  of  2  July  1993  laying  down  provisions  for  the  implementation  of  Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Common Customs Code7, 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.  

4. 

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

Article 2 

The  amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  pursuant  to  Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 1627/2003 on imports of sodium cyclamate, currently classifiable within 
CN code ex 2929 90 00 (TARIC code 2929 90 00 10), originating in the People's Republic of 
China and Indonesia shall be definitively collected in accordance with the rules set out below. 

7 

OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission regulation (EC) No 1335/2003 
(OJ L 187, 26.7.2003, p. 16). 

20 

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

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

Article 3 

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

21