Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain graphite electrode systems originating in India
Date: 2004-08-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: India, anti-subsidy proceeding, carbon, electrical equipment, import, originating product

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 26.08.2004 
COM(2004) 570 final 

. 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional 
duty imposed on imports of certain graphite electrode systems originating in India 

. 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

On  21  August  2003,  the  Commission  initiated  an  anti-subsidy  investigation  with  regard  to 
imports into the Community of certain graphite electrode systems originating in India. 

On 19 May 2004, the Commission imposed a provisional countervailing duty on imports into 
the Community of certain graphite electrode systems originating in India. 

The  attached  proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  is  based  on  the  definitive  findings  which 
confirmed  the  existence  of  subsidy  and  injury,  and  of  a  causal  link  between  subsidy  and 
injury. The examination of all interests involved, in particular that of the Community industry, 
of  unrelated  importers  and  of  users,  confirmed  the  conclusion  that  it  is  not  against  the 
Community interest to take definitive measures. 

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 20 September 2004. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional 
duty imposed on imports of certain graphite electrode systems originating in India 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 

Having  regard  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2026/97  of  6  October  1997  on  protection 
against  subsidised  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European  Community1 
(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 15 thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

A. 

PROVISIONAL MEASURES 

On  19  May,  the  Commission,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1008/20043  (‘the  provisional 
Regulation’),  imposed  a  provisional  countervailing  duty  on  imports  into  the 
Community of certain graphite electrode systems originating in India. 

B. 

SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE 

Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on  the basis of 
which it was decided to impose provisional countervailing measures, several interested 
parties  made  written  submissions  making  their  views  known  on  the  provisional 
findings. The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard.  

The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for 
the definitive findings.  

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 countervailing duty 
on imports of certain graphite electrode systems originating in India and the definitive 
collection  of  the  amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  duty.  They  were  also 
granted a period within which to make representations subsequent to the disclosure of 
the essential facts and considerations.  

1 

2 
3 

OJ  L  288,  21.10.1997,  p.  1,  as 
(OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 12.). 
OJ C […] […], p. […] 
OJ L 183, 20.5.2004, p. 35. 

last  amended  by  Regulation 

(EC)  No  461/2004 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(5) 

The  oral  and  written  comments  submitted  by  the  interested  parties  were  considered 
and, where appropriate, the findings have been modified accordingly. 

C. 

PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

(6) 

Since no new comments were received regarding the product concerned and the like 
product, recitals (12) to (16) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

D. 

SUBSIDISATION 

1.  Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (‘DEPB’) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

Following  disclosure  after  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures  and  subsequent  to 
final disclosure, a number of comments were received from the Government of India 
(the ‘GOI’) and from the exporting producers. It was firstly claimed that the DEPB on 
post-export basis is a drawback scheme and, as a consequence, any benefit under the 
scheme  should  be  restricted  to  any  excess  remission  of  import  duties  that  may  have 
been  given.  It  was  further  claimed  that  the  quantification  of  any  benefit  should  be 
based  on  the  date  of  receipt  of  the  DEPB  licences  and  not  on  the  date  of  their 
utilisation  or  sale,  as  was  taken  by  the  Commission.  Finally,  it  was  claimed  that  the 
amount  of  benefit  should  be  reduced  as  it  was  alleged  that  the  DEPB  rate  for  the 
product concerned was reduced from 19% to 11% in February 2004, i.e. after the IP. 

In response to the first claim, it is noted in recital (33) of the provisional Regulation 
that  ‘the  basic  Regulation  provides  for  an  exception  for,  inter  alia,  drawback  and 
substitution drawback schemes which conform to the strict rules laid down in Annex I 
item  (i),  Annex  II  (definition  and  rules  for  drawback)  and  Annex  III  (definition  and 
rules for substitution drawback).’  

In  this  context,  it  must  be  noted  that  the  GOI  did  not  apply  an  effective  verification 
system or procedure to confirm whether and in what amounts inputs were consumed in 
the production of the exported product (Annex II(II)(4) of the basic Regulation and, in 
the case of substitution drawback schemes, Annex III(II)(2) of the basic Regulation). 
Additionally,  the  GOI  did  not  carry  out  a  post-export  examination  based  on  actual 
inputs  involved  to  determine  whether  an  excess  payment  occurred,  although  this 
would  normally  be  required  in  the  absence  of  an  effectively  applied  verification 
system (Annex II(II)(5) and Annex III(II)(3) to the basic Regulation). Furthermore in 
recital  (37)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  it  was  considered  that  ‘the  DEPB  on  post-
export  basis  cannot  be  considered  as  a  permitted  drawback  or  substitution  drawback 
scheme  (Annex  III)  under  Article  2(1)(a)(ii)  of  the  basic  Regulation’.  For  these 
reasons,  the  conclusion  in  recital  (38)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  that  ‘the 
countervailable  benefit  is  the  remission  of  total  import  duties  normally  due  on  all 
imports’ is hereby confirmed. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
(10)  To  be  eligible  for  benefits  under  this  scheme,  a  company  must  export  goods.  At  the 
point in time of the export transaction, a declaration must be made by the exporter to 
the  authorities  in  India  indicating  that  the  export  is  taking  place  under  the  DEPB 
scheme. In order for the goods to be exported, the Indian customs authorities issue, in 
advance of the goods being exported, an export shipping bill which shows, inter alia, 
the amount of DEPB credit which is to be granted for that export transaction. At this 
point  in  time  of  export,  the  company  knows  the  benefit  it  will  receive.  Once  the 
customs authorities issue an export shipping bill, the GOI has no discretion over the 
granting  of  a  DEPB  credit.  It  was  also  verified  that  any  change  to  the  DEPB  rates 
between the actual export and the issuance of a DEPB licence will not affect the level 
of benefit granted. The relevant DEPB rate is that which applied at the time the export 
declaration is made. Therefore, there is no possibility for a retroactive amendment to 
the level of the benefit. Accordingly, the moment the export transaction is made, the 
GOI is liable to forego the customs duties, which constitutes a financial contribution 
within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(i) of the basic Regulation.  

(11)  Article  1(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation  provides  that  a  ‘countervailing  duty  may  be 
imposed for the purpose of offsetting any subsidy granted […] whose release for free 
circulation in the Community causes injury’. The rationale for imposing such a duty is 
that the prices of the imported goods are lower as a result of having received subsidies 
and  that  such  lower  prices  cause  injury.  In  this  case,  when  exporters  of  graphite 
electrode systems are negotiating prices for an export sale, they are aware that that sale 
benefits  from  a  subsidy  under  the  DEPB  scheme.  By  virtue  of  the  fact  that  the 
exporters  are  aware  that  they  will  receive  such  subsidy,  and  indeed  benefits  under 
other  schemes,  these  companies  are  already  in  a  competitively  more  advantageous 
position at the point in time when they are negotiating prices, i.e. they can reflect the 
subsidies through offering lower prices. 

(12)  The  Indian  accounting  standards  provide  for  booking  credits,  such  as  those  received 
under  the  DEPB  scheme,  on  an  accrual  basis  as  income  once  (i)  such  benefits  have 
been earned; and (ii) it is reasonably certain that the ultimate collection of the proceeds 
of  the  export  transaction  will  be  made.  What  is  relevant  here  is  the  point  at  which 
‘benefits  have  been  earned’.  As  stated  in  recital  (10)  above,  once  the  customs 
authorities issue an export shipping bill which shows, inter alia, the amount of DEPB 
credit which is to be granted for that export transaction, the GOI has no discretion as 
to whether or not to grant the subsidy and it has no discretion as to the amount of the 
subsidy.  Also,  as  stated  above  in  the  same  recital,  any  change  to  the  DEPB  rates 
between the actual export and the issuance of a DEPB licence has no retroactive effect 
on  the  level  of  benefit  granted.  Finally,  as  stated  in  recital  (11)  above,  the  prices  of 
export  transactions  are  considered  to  reflect  the  subsidies  (i.e.  through  lower  prices) 
from which they can benefit. In these circumstances, it is considered that benefits are 
earned when the export transaction is made. On this basis, companies can, in line with 
Indian  accounting  standards,  book  the  DEPB  credit  as  income  at  the  stage  of  export 
transaction. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
(13) 

In  accordance  with  Articles  2(2)  and  5  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  amount  of 
countervailable  subsidies  shall  be  calculated  in  terms  of  the  benefit  conferred  on  the 
recipient, which is found to exist during the investigation period. In light of the above, 
it is considered appropriate to assess the benefit under this scheme as being the sum of 
the  credits  earned  on  all  export  transactions  made  under  this  scheme  during  the 
investigation  period.  This  differs  from  the  approach  followed  in  the  provisional 
Regulation  where  the  sum  of  the  credits  utilised  was  assessed.  In  accordance  with 
Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation, fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy 
were deducted. 

(14) 

In respect of the final argument relating to the alleged reduction of the DEPB rate, it is 
accepted that prima facie evidence has been submitted to show that the DEPB rate for 
the  product  concerned  was  reduced  to  11%  with  effect  from  9  February  2004. 
However,  as  the  amount  of  benefit  is  assessed  on  the  basis  of  the  amount  of  benefit 
earned on all export transactions made during the IP, the reduction in the DEPB rate 
after this period will have no effect on the level of subsidy determined. 

(15)  On the basis of these changes, the benefit under this scheme for the two co-operating 

companies was revised to 16,6% and 14,4% respectively. 

2. 

Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (‘EPCG’) 

(16) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  from  interested  parties,  the  conclusions  outlined  in 
recitals (56) to (58) of the provisional Regulation, are hereby confirmed. 

3.  Advance Licence Scheme (‘ALS’) 

(17)  At the provisional stage, one exporting producer in India was deemed to have received 
a  countervailable  benefit  under  this  scheme.  The  representatives  of  this  exporter 
claimed  both  that  (i)  the  scheme  was  not  countervailable;  and  (ii)  in  any  case,  any 
benefit  received  was  only  granted  to  a  business  unit  of  the  company  which  did  not 
manufacture  the  product  concerned  and  which  had  been  sold  off  by  the  company 
subsequent  to  the  IP.  Accordingly,  it  was  claimed  that  no  benefit  under  the  ALS 
should be attributed to the exporter. 

(18) 

In respect of the first claim, no new evidence was provided to show that the ALS was 
not a countervailable export subsidy. In this context, it is recalled that the GOI did not 
apply  an  effective  verification  system  or  procedure  to  confirm  whether  and  in  what 
amounts  inputs  were  consumed  in  the  production  of  the  exported  product  (Annex 
II(II)(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation  and,  in  the  case  of  substitution  drawback  schemes, 
Annex  III(II)(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation).  Additionally,  the  GOI  did  not  carry  out  a 
post-export  examination  based  on  actual  inputs  involved  to  determine  whether  an 
excess payment occurred, although this would normally be required in the absence of 
an effectively applied verification system (Annex II(II)(5) and Annex III(II)(3) to the 
basic  Regulation).  For  these  reasons,  the  conclusions  in  recitals  (64)  to  (70)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
(19) 

In respect of the second claim, it was found that during the IP the exporter concerned 
had benefited from the scheme and had, as a result, received a countervailable benefit. 
Furthermore,  the  fact  that  the  business  unit  producing  this  product  was  sold 
subsequent to the IP, is not relevant for determining whether the company benefited of 
a subsidy during the IP. In addition, it is not considered to be relevant when assessing 
the level of the subsidisation of the company as a whole, whether the subsidy scheme 
was  targeted  at  a  unit  of  the  company  that  did  not  itself  produce  the  product 
concerned.  Indeed,  it  is  the  company  as  a  whole  which  is  examined,  and  thus  any 
benefit  to  one  of  the  units  is  considered  to  represent  a  benefit  for  the  company  as  a 
whole.  To  that  end,  it  is  confirmed  that  during  the  IP,  the  business  unit  which 
benefited  from  the  ALS  scheme  and  the  business  units  which  manufactured  the 
product  concerned,  formed  one  legal  economic  entity.  Therefore,  the  conclusion 
outlined in recital (71) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

4. 

Export Processing Zones (‘EPZ’) / Export Oriented Unit (‘EOU’) 

(20) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  from  interested  parties,  the  conclusion  outlined  in 
recital (72) of the provisional Regulation, is hereby confirmed. 

5. 

Income Tax Exemption 

(21) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  from  interested  parties,  the  conclusion  outlined  in 
recital (74) of the provisional Regulation, is hereby confirmed. 

6.  Amount of countervailable subsidies 

(22) 

In light of the conclusions outlined above, the amount of countervailable subsidies is 
definitively confirmed, as follows: 

Type of subsidy 

DEPB 

EPCGS

ALS 

EPZ/EOU 

ITE 

TOTAL 

Graphite India Limited 
(GIL) 

Hindustan Electro 
Graphite (HEG) Limited 

All others 

16,6% 

0,1% 

14,4% 

0,3% 

0,2% 

E. 

COMMUNITY INDUSTRY 

16,7% 

14,9% 

16,7% 

(23) 

In  the  absence  of  any  substantially  new  information  or  argument  in  this  particular 
respect, recitals (76) to (79) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

F. 

INJURY 

(24)  Following the provisional disclosure, the Indian exporters pointed to the divergence in 
the undercutting margin of one particular type of the product concerned, as compared 
with the undercutting margins of similar types. The claim was properly examined and 
it was found that the discrepancy was due to a mistake in the reporting of a number of 
credit  notes  and  discounts  of  one  particular  Community  producer.  The  claim  was 
therefore  accepted  and  the  undercutting  margin  of  this  particular  type  and,  where 
applicable, of other types were corrected accordingly.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(25) 

It was further found that a number of sale transactions of the Community industry used 
for  the  undercutting  calculations  were  double-counted.  In  view  of  this,  the  double-
counted transactions had to be eliminated and the undercutting calculations had to be 
modified  accordingly.  However,  this  double-counting  had  not  taken  place  when 
establishing the figures used for assessing the injury indicators. Therefore, the injury 
indicators did not need to be modified. 

(26)  As  a  result,  the  comparison  showed  that  during  the  IP  the  prices  of  the  product 
concerned  originating  in  India  and  sold  in  the  Community  undercut  the  Community 
industry’s prices by between 3% and 11%. 

(27) 

In  the  absence  of  any  substantially  new  information  or  argument  in  this  particular 
respect, recitals (80) to (116) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed, with 
the exception of recital (86) (see recitals (24) to (26) above). 

G. 

CAUSATION 

1.  Return  to  normal  competition  conditions  after  the  dismantling  of  the 

cartel 

(28)  The Indian exporters re-iterated their argument that the establishment of a causal link 
between the subsidised imports and the injury suffered by the Community industry is 
based on data which would be unreliable because of the existence of a cartel up until 
the  beginning  of  1998.  However,  the  Indian  exporters  did  not  provide  any  new 
information within the deadline set for submitting comments in this particular respect. 

(29) 

In  the  absence  of  any  substantially  new  information  or  argument,  recitals  (117)  to 
(137) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

H. 

COMMUNITY INTEREST 

(30)  An association representing users and a user company re-iterated their main concern 
that, by excluding Indian suppliers from the Community market, the imposition of any 
measure  would  reduce  overall  competition  on  the  Community  market  for  this 
particular  product  and  inevitably  lead  to  an  increase  in  prices.  However,  as  assessed 
under  recital  (147)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the  impact  of  any  increase  in  the 
price  of  the  like  product  for  final  customers  is  likely  to  be  minimal.  It  is  further 
recalled that the purpose of any countervailing measure is by no means to stop access 
into the Community of products from India, but rather to restore a level playing field 
that had been distorted by unfair trade practices. Finally, it is considered that the level 
of  the  measures  is  not  such  as  to  exclude the Indian producers from the Community 
market. 

(31) 

In  the  absence  of  any  substantially  new  information  or  argument  in  this  particular 
respect, recitals (138) to (151) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
I. 

INJURY ELIMINATION LEVEL 

(32)  Further to disclosure of provisional findings, several interested parties claimed that the 
profit  level  of  9,4%  deemed  to  represent  the  financial  situation  of  the  Community 
industry  in  the  absence  of  injurious  subsidisation  from  India  was  too  high.  It  was 
alleged  that  the  normal  practice  was  to  set  a  5%  profit  ratio  for  commodity  goods 
sectors such as steel, textiles and base chemicals. The same parties further claimed that 
the methodology to arrive to this figure should be fully disclosed.  

(33)  As explained under recital (154) of the provisional Regulation, the profit of 9,4% was 
the result of a reasoned assessment established on the basis of a number of elements, 
amongst which (i) the profit achieved by the Community industry in 1999, when the 
market share of the dumped imports was at its lowest; (ii) the market conditions at that 
time; and (iii) the output drawn from a database on company accounts. As regards this 
database,  it  consists  of  company  accounts  data,  which  are  first  collected  by  national 
central banks of the largest industrialised countries, i.e. most of the member countries 
of  the  European  Union,  the  USA  and  Japan,  and  then  aggregated,  by  sectors,  by  the 
European  Committee  of  Central  Balance  Sheet  Data  Offices  and  the  European 
Commission.  The  database  has  been  updated  between  provisional  and  definitive 
determination. An analysis of the updated data referring to the EU member countries, 
plus the USA and Japan shows that the average profit before extraordinary items for 
companies  belonging  to  the  nearest  available  business  sector  was  of  7,5%  in  2002, 
which is the last year available in the database. 

(34)  However,  it  is  further  considered  that,  when  setting  the  profit  that  could  have  been 
achieved  in  the  absence  of  subsidisation,  due  consideration  has  to  be  paid  to  all 
qualitative and quantitative elements relevant for this purpose. In particular, as this has 
been done under recital (154) of the provisional Regulation, a proper examination was 
made  of  Community  industry’s  profit  levels  when  the  market  share  of  subsidised 
imports was at its lowest (i.e. 1999), and of any other causes and circumstances that 
might affect the representativity of the latter period. Finally, it is noted that the product 
concerned  is  used  in  demanding  applications  and  has  to  strictly  match  certain 
parameters, notably in terms of electrical resistance. This entails both a highly capital 
intensive  manufacturing  process  and  a  not  negligible  amount  of  Research  and 
Development  costs.  The  fact  that  only  a  limited  number  of  producers  in  the  world 
master  this  technology  is  a  further  indication  that  this  product  can  certainly  not  be 
considered as a basic commodity.  

(35)  Taking all these circumstances and elements into account, it is definitively concluded 
that  the  profit  margin  that  can  reasonably  be  deemed  to  represent  the  financial 
situation  of  the  Community  industry  in  the  absence  of  injurious  subsidisation  from 
India should be set at 8% for the purpose of the calculation of the injury margin. 

(36)  As a consequence of the above and of the finding regarding undercutting (see recitals 

(24) to (26) above), the injury margins were revised as follows. 

Graphite India Limited (GIL) 

Hindustan Electro Graphite (HEG) Limited 

15,7% 

7,0% 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
J. 

DEFINITIVE MEASURES 

(37) 

(38) 

In view of the conclusions reached with regard to subsidisation, injury, causation and 
Community  interest,  it  is  considered  that  a  definitive  countervailing  duty  should  be 
imposed in order to prevent further injury being caused to the Community industry by 
the subsidised imports. The definitive measures should be imposed at the level of the 
subsidy  margin  found,  but  should  not  be  higher  than  the  injury  margin  calculated 
above in accordance with Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation. Given that the level of 
the overall co-operation for India was high, the residual subsidy margin for all other 
companies was set at the level for the company with the highest individual margin, i.e. 
16,7%. 

K. 

DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTY 

In view of the magnitude of the subsidy margins found for the exporting producers in 
India  and  given  the  level  of  the  injury  caused  to  the  Community  industry,  it  is 
considered  necessary  that  the  amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  countervailing 
duty  imposed  by  the  provisional  Regulation  should  be  definitively  collected  to  the 
extent  of  the  amount  of  definitive  duties  imposed.  As  the  definitive  countervailing 
duty  for  Graphite  India  Limited  (GIL)  is  higher  than  the  provisional  countervailing 
duty, the amounts secured by way of provisional countervailing duty imposed by the 
provisional  Regulation  shall  be  definitively  collected.  Conversely,  as  the  definitive 
countervailing duty for Hindustan Electro Graphite (HEG) Limited is lower than the 
provisional  countervailing  duty,  amounts  provisionally  secured  in  excess  of  the 
definitive rate of countervailing duties shall be released.  

(39)  The individual countervailing 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  country-wide  duty  applicable  to  ‘all  others’)  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 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 others’. 

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

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
L. 

UNDERTAKINGS 

(41)  During the course of the investigation the two exporting producers in India, Graphite 
India  Limited  and  Hindustan  Electro  Graphite  Limited  offered  price  undertakings  in 
accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation.However, significant differences 
were observed between the investigation period and the present time for raw material 
costs, this being due to the general volatility of this particular market. It follows that if 
undertakings  were  accepted  in  this  case,  on  the  basis  of  minimum  import  prices 
established solely on the data collected relating to the investigation period, as currently 
offered,  this  would  have  negative  consequences  on  the  effectiveness  of  the  said 
undertakings  in  removing  injurious  subsidisation.  In  addition,  one  of  the  exporting 
producers concerned, subsequent to its undertaking offer, acquired a graphite electrode 
production company situated in the Community which raises the risk of circumvention 
of its undertaking offer. In view of both of these developments it was not possible to 
finalise workable, and therefore acceptable, undertakings within the time limits of the 
present investigation, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 

2. 

A definitive countervailing duty is hereby imposed on imports of graphite electrodes 
of a kind used for electric furnaces, with an apparent density of 1,65 g/cm³ or more 
and an electrical resistance of 6.0 µΩ.m or less, falling within CN code ex 8545 11 
00 (TARIC code 8545 11 00 10) and nipples used for such electrodes, falling within 
CN code ex 8545 90 90 (TARIC code 8545 90 90 10) whether imported together or 
separately originating in India. 

The  rate  of  the  definitive  countervailing  duty  applicable  to  the  net  free-at-
Community-frontier  price,  before  duty,  for  products  produced  by  the  companies 
listed below shall be as follows:  

Company 

Definitive duty 

TARIC additional code 

India  Limited 

Graphite 
(GIL),  31 
Chowringhee Road, Kolkatta – 700016, 
West Bengal 

Hindustan  Electro  Graphite 
(HEG) 
Limited,  Bhilwara  Towers,  A-12, 
Sector-1,  Noida  –  201301,  Uttar 
Pradesh 

15,7% 

A530 

7,0% 

A531 

All others 

15,7% 

A999 

3. 

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

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
Article 2 

The  amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  countervailing  duties  pursuant  to  Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 1008/2004 on imports of graphite electrodes of a kind used for electric 
furnaces, with  an  apparent density of  1,65 g/cm³ or  more  and  an  electrical  resistance  of  6.0 
µΩ.m or less, falling within CN code ex 8545 11 00 (TARIC code 8545 11 00 10) and nipples 
used for such electrodes, falling within CN code ex 8545 90 90 (TARIC code 8545 90 90 10) 
whether imported together or separately originating in India shall be definitively collected as 
follows. 

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

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 

EN 

12 

   EN