Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of glyphosate originating in the People's Republic of China
Date: 2004-09-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, herbicide, originating product

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 8.9.2004 
COM(2004) 585 final 

. 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of glyphosate originating in 
the People’s Republic of China 

. 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

In  February  1998  an  anti-dumping  duty  of  24%  was  imposed  on  imports  of  glyphosate 
originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the PRC’).  

Following an anti-absorption investigation, the duty was increased to 48% in May 2000 and, 
in February 2002 following an anti-circumvention investigation, the 48% duty was extended 
to imports of glyphosate consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan. 

In  considering  a  request  made  by  the  Community  Industry  for  an  expiry  review,  the 
Commission also considered that it was necessary to examine the level of the measures and 
initiated both an expiry and an ex officio interim review of the measures on 15 February 2003.  

As  the  PRC  is  not  considered  a  market  economy  country,  Brazil  was  used  as  an  analogue 
country  for  determination  of  the  normal  value.  The  investigation  showed  that  exports 
originating in the PRC are still made at dumped prices. Dumping would, therefore, be likely 
to  continue  in  the  future.  Moreover,  the  volume  of  dumped  imports  was  found  likely  to 
increase significantly should measures expire.  

The  investigation  found  that  the  Community  industry  had  not  recovered  from  the  injurious 
effects of past dumping to the extent expected and that their economic situation continues to 
be weak as evidenced by their decreasing profitability and actual losses during the period of 
investigation. While the imports into the Community of glyphosate originating in the PRC has 
decreased, PRC exporters continue to maintain a clear presence on the market. Moreover, via 
their  sales,  mostly  under  inward  processing,  they  nevertheless  continue  to  exert  a  certain 
pressure on prices within the Community. 

It  was  concluded  that,  if  measures  were  removed,  PRC  exporters  would  be  in  a  position  to 
supply increased quantities to the Community market at dumped prices which would result in 
further  price  depression  in  the  Community,  thereby  increasing  injury  to  the  Community 
industry.  

After weighing the interests of the various parties involved, it was concluded that there are no 
compelling reasons of Community interest against the continuation of measures. 

The  measures  proposed  are  a  definitive  ad-valorem  duty  to  be  applied  on  imports  of 
glyphosate  originating  in  the  PRC  at  a  rate  of  29,9%.  The  duty  will  also  be  extended  to 
imports of glyphosate consigned from Malaysia or Taiwan. 

Member States were consulted and did not oppose the proposal. 

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of glyphosate originating in 
the People’s Republic of China 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 

Having  regard  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22  December  1995  on  protection 
against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community1 (‘the basic 
Regulation’), and in particular Articles 11(2) and 11(3) thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

A. 

PROCEDURE 

1.  Measures in Force 

(1) 

In  February  1998  the  Council,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  368/982,  imposed  definitive 
anti-dumping  measures  (‘the  original  measures’)  in  the  form  of  a  duty  of  24%  on 
imports of glyphosate originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the PRC’). That 
regulation was amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1086/20003 which increased 
the  duty  to  48%  following  an  anti-absorption  investigation  pursuant  to  Article  12  of 
the  basic  Regulation.  Subsequently,  following  an  anti-circumvention  investigation 
pursuant to Article 13 of the basic Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 163/20024 
extended  the  48%  duty  imposed  on  imports  of  glyphosate  originating  in  the  PRC  to 
imports  of  glyphosate  consigned  from  Malaysia  and  Taiwan  (whether  declared  as 
originating  in  Malaysia  or  Taiwan  or  not),  with  the  exception  of  those  produced  by 
one named company in each of these countries. 

1 
2 
3 
4 

OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 12). 
OJ L 47, 18.2.1998, p. 1. 
OJ L 124, 25.5.2000, p. 1. 
OJ L 30, 31.1.2002, p. 1. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

2. 

Initiation of expiry and interim review investigations 

Following  the  publication  of  the  Notice  of  impending  expiry  of  the  anti-dumping 
measures applicable to imports of glyphosate originating in the PRC5, the Commission 
received on 18 November 2002, a request to review these measures pursuant to Article 
11(2) of the basic Regulation. 

The  request  was 
the  European  Glyphosate  Association  (EGA) 
(‘the applicant’)  on behalf  of  producers representing a  major proportion, in  this  case 
more than 90%, of the total Community production of glyphosate. 

lodged  by 

The request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely 
to  result  in  the  continuation  or  recurrence  of  dumping  and  injury  to  the  Community 
industry.  Moreover,  on  the  basis  of  the  evidence  contained  in  the  request,  the 
Commission considered that the level of the measure was not sufficient to counteract 
the  injurious  dumping  practices,  which  justified  the  ex-officio  initiation  of  a  full 
interim  review  of  the  measures  encompassing  all  aspects  of  the  proceeding.  Having 
determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed 
for  the  initiation  of  an  expiry  and  an  interim  review  pursuant  to  Articles  11(2)  and 
11(3) of the basic Regulation, the Commission published a Notice of initiation of these 
reviews in the Official Journal of the European Union6. 

3. 

Parties concerned by the investigations 

The Commission officially advised the authorities of the PRC, the Chinese exporting 
producers, the producers, importers and users in the Community which were identified 
in the request as being concerned, as well as their associations, of the initiation of the 
investigations. Interested parties were given an opportunity to make their views known 
in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the Notice of initiation. 

In view of the apparent large number of exporting producers of the product concerned 
in  the  PRC,  known  from  the  request  and  from  the  previous  investigation,  the  use  of 
sampling techniques for the investigation of dumping was envisaged in the Notice of 
initiation.  Additionally,  the  Commission  sent  sampling  questionnaires  to  importers 
known to the Commission services. 

However,  only  a  limited  number  of  exporting  producers  from  the  PRC  made 
themselves  known  and  provided,  within  the  prescribed  time-limits,  the  information 
requested in the Notice of initiation. Therefore, the use of sampling techniques was not 
considered  necessary  insofar  as  exporting  producers  in  the  PRC  were  concerned. 
Additionally, only one importer reported imports of glyphosate originating in the PRC. 
Therefore,  the  use  of  sampling  techniques  was  not  considered  necessary  as  far  as 
importers were concerned. 

5 
6 

OJ C 120, 23.5.2002, p. 3. 
OJ C 36, 15.2.2003, p. 18. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(8) 

(9) 

The  Commission  sent  questionnaires  to  the  parties  known  to  be  concerned  and 
received  replies  from  four  Community  producers  and  two  Chinese  exporting 
producers.  One  importer  reported  imports  originating  in  the  PRC  and  subsequently 
submitted a reply to a full questionnaire. 

A number of exporting producers in the PRC, four producers and 13 suppliers located 
in the Community as well as an association of distributors and users, made their views 
known  in  writing.  All  parties  who  so  requested  within  the  prescribed  time  limit  and 
showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard were granted the 
opportunity to be heard. 

(10)  The  Commission  sought  and  verified  all  information  it  deemed  necessary  for  the 
determination  of  whether  there  was  a  likelihood  of  a  continuation  or  recurrence  of 
injurious  dumping  and  for  the  assessment  of  Community  interest.  Verification  visits 
were carried out at the premises of the following companies: 

Exporting producers in the PRC: 

– 

Zhejiang  Xinan  Industrial  Group  Ltd,  Xinanjiang,  Jiande  City,  Zhejiang 
Province, the PRC; 

Producers in the Community: 

– 

Cheminova Agro A/S, Lemvig, Denmark, (including also the related distributor 
Headland Agrochemicals Ltd, Great Chesterford, Essex, United Kingdom), 

– 

Herbex Produtos Químicos, S.A., Sintra, Portugal, 

–  Monsanto  Europe  S.A.,  Brussels  and  Antwerp,  Belgium,  (including  also  the 

related distributor Monsanto UK Ltd., Cambridge, United Kingdom), 

– 

Syngenta  UK,  Huddersfield,  United  Kingdom  (including  also  the  related 
companies:  Stauffer  Chemical  BV,  Seneffe,  Belgium  and  Syngenta  Supply 
AG, Basel, Switzerland, and the related distributor Syngenta Crop Protection, 
Whittlesford, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom); 

Producer in the market economy third country: 

–  Monsanto do Brasil, São Paulo, Brazil. 

(11)  The investigation into the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of dumping in the 
review investigations covered the period from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002 
(‘the IP’). The examination of trends in the context of the analysis of the likelihood of 
a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from January 1999 to the end 
of the IP (‘the analysis period’). 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
4.  Market economy treatment (MET) and individual treatment 

(12)  Pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, two Chinese companies, Zhejiang 
Xinan  Industrial  Group  Ltd  (‘Xinanchem’)  and  Zhenjiang  Jiagnan  Chemical  Factory 
(‘Zhenjiang’),  requested  MET  and  individual  treatment.  However,  it  was  found  that 
Zhenjiang had no exports of the product concerned into the Community during the IP. 
Therefore,  the  request  for  MET  and  individual  treatment  of  Zhenjiang  became 
irrelevant.  Xinanchem  was  required  to  complete  a  MET  claim  form  detailing  all  the 
relevant information required.  

(13)  Although the majority of the shares of the company were owned by private persons, 
due to the wide dispersion of the non state-owned shares, together with that fact that 
the State owned by far the biggest block of shares, the company was found to be under 
State  control.  Moreover,  the  board  of  directors  was  in  fact  appointed  by  the  State 
shareholders and the majority of the directors of the board were either State officials or 
officials  of  State  owned  enterprises.  Therefore,  it  was  determined  that  the  company 
was under a significant State control and influence.  

(14)  Moreover, it was established that the government of the PRC had entrusted the China 
Chamber  of  Commerce  Metals,  Minerals  &  Chemicals  Importers  and  Exporters 
(CCCMC) with the right of contract stamping and verifying export prices for customs 
clearance. This system included the setting of a minimum price for glyphosate exports 
and it allowed the CCCMC to veto exports that did not respect these prices. 

(15)  Consequently,  after  consulting  the  Advisory  Committee,  it  was  decided  not  to  grant 
MET to Xinanchem on the basis that the company did not meet all the criteria set in 
Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.  

(16)  As  Xinanchem  was  not  granted  market  economy  status,  the  company  applied  for 
individual  treatment,  i.e.  the  determination  of  an  individual  dumping  margin  on  the 
basis of its individual export prices. The Commission verified whether this company 
enjoyed, both in fact and in law, the necessary degree of independence from the State 
for setting its export price. 

(17) 

In  this  respect,  it  was  established  that  Xinanchem  was  subject  to  significant  State 
control with regard to setting of its export prices of the product concerned as explained 
in  recital  14  above.  It  was,  therefore,  concluded  that  Xinanchem  did  not  meet  the 
necessary  requirements  for  individual  treatment  as  set  in  Article  9(5)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. 

B. 

PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

1. 

Product concerned 

(18)  The product concerned is glyphosate originating in the PRC (‘the product concerned’), 
currently classifiable within CN codes ex 2931 00 95 (TARIC codes 2931 00 95 *81 
and 2931 00 95 *82) and ex 3808 30 27 (TARIC codes 3808 30 27 *11 and 3808 30 
27  *19).  The  product  concerned  is  the  same  as  in  the  investigation  leading  to  the 
imposition of the original measures (‘the original investigation’). 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
(19)  Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide which can exist in different grades or forms of 
concentration of which the main ones are acid, salt and formulated product. Acid is the 
basic  form  of  the  chemical  resulting  from  the  manufacture  process  and  is  usually 
found  as  a  dry  powder,  with  95%  glyphosate  content,  or  as  wet  cake,  with  84% 
glyphosate content, the difference being due only to the moisture content  remaining. 
Salt is a soluble form of glyphosate which is made from acid. It is a liquid, normally 
containing 62% IPA salt7 content which is equivalent to a glyphosate content of 43%. 
Formulated  glyphosate  is  generally  in  a  liquid  form  consisting  of  a  mixture  of 
glyphosate  salt,  water  and  other  chemicals,  such  as  surfactants  and  additives  which 
enable  the  herbicide  to  be  absorbed  into  the  plants  and  improve  effectiveness.  The 
typical standard form of formulated glyphosate contains 360 grams/litre of glyphosate. 

(20) 

In order to reduce the costs of transportation, importers normally purchase glyphosate 
in  a  concentrated  form  (usually  acid  or  wet  cake,  but  also  salt)  and  further  process 
(formulate)  it  by  adding  water  and  other  chemicals  in  order  to  obtain  formulated 
glyphosate, which is the only form that can be used as an end-product, i.e. as a non-
selective  herbicide.  In  view  of  this,  importers  and  formulators  were  treated  as  one 
group (‘importers/formulators’) for the purposes of the investigation. 

2. 

Like product 

(21)  Glyphosate  produced  and  sold  in  the  Community  by  the  Community  producers 
requesting  the  expiry  review  and  glyphosate  produced  in  the  PRC  and  sold  in  the 
Community  by  the  Chinese  exporting  producers  share  the  same  basic  physical, 
technical  and  chemical  characteristics  as  well  as  the  same  uses  and  are  therefore 
considered  to  be  like  products,  within  the  meaning  of  Article  1(4)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. It was also established that glyphosate produced and sold domestically in 
the market economy third country (‘the analogue country’), i.e. Brazil, had the same 
basic  physical,  technical  and  chemical  characteristics  as  well  as  the  same  uses  as 
glyphosate produced in the PRC and exported to the Community. Therefore, they were 
considered  to  be  like  products  within  the  meaning  of  Article  1(4)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. 

C. 

LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF DUMPING 

(22)  Two Chinese companies co-operated in the investigations. However, only one of them 
(Xinanchem)  had  exports  of  the  product  concerned  to  the  Community  during  the  IP 
(hereafter  the  Chinese  exporting  producer).  Consequently,  the  co-operation  of  the 
other  company  (Zhenjiang)  was  limited  to  the  expiry  review  investigation.  The  total 
quantity of glyphosate originating in the PRC imported during the IP is less than 50% 
of  the  quantity  imported  during  the  investigation  period  of  the  original  investigation 
(12 months to end August 1995). Since consumption was increasing, the market share 
held  by  imports  of  the  product  concerned  originating  in  the  PRC  decreased  more 
significantly  over  the  same  period.  From  11%  during  the  investigation  period  of  the 
original investigation, it deceased to below 3% at the start of the analysis period and to 
less than 2% in 2001, but subsequently increased during the IP while still remaining 
below 2%.  

7 

Salt of glyphosate acid and Isopropylamine. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1.  Analogue country 

(23)  Since the PRC is considered to be an economy  in transition,  the Commission had to 
determine in this case the normal value on the basis of data obtained from producers in 
a  market  economy  third  country,  in  accordance  with  Article  2(7)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. 

(24)  For  this  purpose,  the  Commission  suggested  Brazil  in  the  Notice  of  initiation  which 
was also the analogue country used in the investigation leading to the imposition of the 
measures.  

(25)  All  interested  parties  were  given  the  opportunity  to  comment  on  the  choice  of 

analogue country envisaged.  

(26)  The Chinese exporting producer argued that a country with a more appropriate level of 
economic  development  to  the  PRC  should  be  used  and  that  an  analogue  country 
situated  in  Asia  would  offer  a  better  point  of  comparison.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the 
same  level  of  economic  development  is,  as  such,  not  relevant  for  the  purpose  of 
establishing the normal value. Even though no substantiated proposals for an analogue 
country  other  than  Brazil  were  made,  the  Commission  inquired  from  Taiwanese  and 
Malaysian  known  producers  of  the  product  concerned  about  their  willingness  to 
provide the necessary information. However, these producers in Taiwan and Malaysia 
submitted that both of these markets were strongly influenced by low-priced imports 
of  glyphosate  originating  in  the  PRC  and  that  the  prices  in  these  countries  were  not 
representative. One producer in Taiwan considered that other countries, such as Brazil, 
were  more  suitable  for  this  purpose.  As  a  result  no  further  co-operation  of  these 
producers was achieved. 

(27)  The  Chinese  exporting  producer  in  the  PRC  submitted  also  that  information 
concerning Brazil would be provided by an affiliated related company of a member of 
the  applicant  and  that  the  Commission  should  rather  use  independent  and  properly 
verifiable  information for the purpose of establishing normal  value. However, it was 
considered that the fact that one company in the proposed analogue country is a related 
company of a member of the applicant did not preclude that the information obtained 
could be reliable and verifiable. Special attention was paid to the necessity to eliminate 
any possible effects of the relationship in determining the normal value. 

(28)  Since Brazil was considered a reasonable choice, with producers willing to co-operate 
and using a comparable production process, and particularly taking into account that 
Brazil was the analogue country used in the investigation leading to the imposition of 
the measures, Brazil was chosen as the analogue country. The Commission sought to 
obtain  the  necessary  information  from  the  two  known  producers  in  the  country,  i.e. 
Monsanto  do  Brasil  (‘Mobras’)  and  Nortox.  The  Commission  was  ultimately  able  to 
obtain information only from Mobras, which is a company related to a member of the 
applicant.  It  was  determined  that  the  domestic  sales  of  this  company  were 
representative in relation to the volume of the product concerned sold by the Chinese 
exporting producer to the Community. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
2.  Normal value 

(29)  Normal value was calculated for all forms of glyphosate produced and sold in Brazil, 

i.e. glyphosate acid and different formulations based on their concentration.  

(30) 

It was established that the product types sold on the domestic market of Brazil were 
not  comparable  to  the  product  types  sold  by  the  said  exporting  producer  to  the 
Community.  Therefore,  in  accordance  with  Article  2(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation, 
normal  value  was  constructed  on  the  basis  of  the  manufacturing  costs  plus  a 
reasonable amount for selling, general and administrative costs (SG&A) and for profit. 
The SG&A costs and profit were determined on the basis of Mobras’ domestic sales of 
the like product. In this regard it is noted that Mobras sourced the major part of its raw 
materials for glyphosate production from a related company in Brazil. The profit level 
of  the  related  company  was  adjusted  to  a  lower  level,  when  determining  the  cost  of 
acquisition of raw material used in the calculation of the manufacturing costs. 

(31)  The amounts for SG&A and for profits were based on actual data pertaining to sales, 

in the ordinary course of trade, of glyphosate, by Mobras.  

3. 

Export price 

(32)  All  export  sales  of  the  Chinese  exporting  producer  to  the  Community  were  made 
directly  to  independent  customers  in  the  Community  and  the  export  price  was 
established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation on the basis of the 
prices paid or payable. 

(33)  The  comparison  of  the  data  concerning  exports  to  the  Community  provided  by  the 
Chinese exporting producer and the total volume of imports originating in the PRC as 
determined  in  recital  (58)  below,  indicated  that  the  level  of  co-operation  was  low, 
since  these  exports  represented  less  than  26%  of  total  Community  imports  from  the 
PRC during the IP. 

4.  Comparison 

(34)  For the purposes of a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, 
due  allowance  in  the  form  of  adjustments  was  made  for  differences  which  were 
claimed  and  demonstrated  to  affect  price  comparability  in  accordance  with  Article 
2(10) of the basic Regulation. On this basis, adjustments were made where appropriate 
with  regard  to  indirect  taxes,  discounts,  transport,  insurance,  handling,  loading  and 
ancillary costs, packing, credit and commissions. The adjustments in the export price 
in  respect  of  inland  freight  in  the  exporting  country,  packing  costs  and  credit  costs 
were made based on the costs established in the analogue country.  

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

basis.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
5.  Dumping margins 

(36)  A  comparison  of  the  normal  value  and  the  export  price  of  the  Chinese  exporting 

producer showed a dumping margin of 28,7% during the IP. 

(37) 

In  the  absence  of  individual  treatment  being  granted  to  this  exporting  producer,  an 
overall dumping margin was calculated for the whole of the PRC. 

(38)  Since,  as  described  in  recital  (33),  the  level  of  co-operation  was  low,  for  the  export 
volumes of non-co-operating Chinese exporting producers, the level of dumping was 
determined on the basis of the highest margin established for a representative type of 
the  product  concerned,  of  the  co-operating  exporting  producer.  This  approach  was 
deemed  appropriate  since  no  indication  was  found  that  any  of  the  non-co-operating 
producers dumped the product at a lower level than that of the cooperating exporter. 
Therefore,  a  dumping  margin  of  30,2%  was  attributed  to  all  non-co-operating 
exporting producers and the co-operating exporting producer which had no exports to 
the Community during the IP. 

(39)  Finally, a country-wide average dumping margin was calculated using as a weighing 
factor,  the  CIF  value  of  each  group  of  exporters,  i.e.  co-operators  and  non  co-
operators. The established country-wide dumping margin was 29,9%. 

(40)  The country wide dumping margin established in the interim review investigation was 
lower  than  the  dumping  margin  established  in  the  original  investigation  and, 
furthermore, it was lower than the dumping margin established in the anti-absorption 
investigation  pursuant  to  Article  12  of  the  basic  Regulation.  It  is  to  be  recalled  that 
there has been a considerable reduction in the normal value of the product concerned 
since the IP of the original investigation. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that it 
is not likely that a higher dumping margin would recur if the measures were amended 
to reflect the dumping margin established in the interim review investigation. 

6.  Development of imports should measures be repealed  

a) 

PRC export sales to other countries (volume and prices) 

(41) 

It was found that glyphosate was sold to third countries at prices even lower than the 
dumped prices of the sales to the Community market as derived from the questionnaire 
responses  and  from  Eurostat  statistics.  Moreover,  as  derived  from  the  questionnaire 
responses the volumes of exports to third countries increased by more than 100% since 
the  imposition  of  the  definitive  measures.  Therefore,  if  the  measures  were  lifted,  the 
exporting  producers  in  the  PRC  could  also  divert  their  existing  exports  to  other 
markets to the Community market in significant quantities at dumped prices.  

(42) 

Information  provided  by  the  applicant  showed  that  more  than  80%  of  all  glyphosate 
production  in  the  PRC  is  exported.  In  respect  of  the  two  co-operating  exporting 
producers,  exports  accounted  for  a  major  proportion  of  their  total  production  of 
glyphosate. Therefore, it was established that most of the glyphosate production in the 
PRC was directed to export markets. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
b)  Unused production capacities in the PRC 

(43)  The two co-operating companies declared that their production capacity during the IP 
was  around  34  000  tonnes  of  glyphosate  expressed  in  95%  acid  equivalents.  Since 
1999 these two companies have increased their production capacity by more than 92% 
according  to  their  questionnaire  responses.  Information  provided  by  the  applicant 
estimated that the total glyphosate production capacity in the PRC amounted to 79 500 
tonnes.  Both  co-operating  companies  were  operating  close  to  full  capacity  levels. 
However, the information provided by the applicant showed that the average capacity 
utilisation rate of all producers in the PRC was around 83% in 2001 i.e. leaving a spare 
capacity of about 13 500 tonnes. 

(44)  Based  on  the  above,  it  was  concluded  that  the  exporting  producers  in  the  PRC  have 
available  capacity  to  increase  their  exports  to  the  Community  market  should  the 
measures be repealed. 

c) 

Circumvention/absorption practices in the past  

(45)  As  indicated  in  recital  (1),  following  the  imposition  of  definitive  duties  in  February 
1998, two other investigations were conducted pursuant to Article 12 and Article 13 of 
the basic Regulation. The findings of these investigations demonstrated the inability of 
the  PRC  exporters  to  compete  on  the  Community  market  at  non-dumped  levels, 
because  in  order  to  be  present  on  the  Community  market  they  had  to  resort  to 
circumvention practices by transhipping the product concerned to the Community via 
other  countries  at  significantly  dumped  prices  (anti-circumvention  investigation 
pursuant to Article 13) and to absorption practices. 

d) 

Imports under inward processing 

(46)  More than 90% of recent imports originating in the PRC have been made under inward 
processing arrangements.  During the analysis period, imports originating in the PRC 
made under inward processing regimes have steadily increased, at the expense of duty 
paid  imports,  from  around  60%  of  the  total  in  1999  to  more  than  90%  in  the  IP. 
PRC exports have clearly shifted to the inward processing regime in recent years. 

e) 

Conclusion on the likelihood of a continuation of dumping 

(47)  Since  the  PRC  has  unused  production  capacity  and  average  export  prices  to  non-EC 
countries  were,  during  the  investigation  period,  substantially  lower  than  those 
prevailing on the Community market, it could be expected that, should the measures 
be  repealed,  additional  production,  or  sales  currently  exported  to  non-EC  countries, 
would be redirected towards the Community market in significant quantities.  

(48)  The investigation showed that exports originating in the PRC are still made at dumped 
prices. Therefore, it is reasonable, in the absence of any indication to the contrary, that 
dumping  would  likely  continue  in  the  future.  Moreover,  the  volume  of  dumped 
imports,  which  is  currently  at  low  levels,  was  found  likely  to  increase  significantly 
should measures expire.  

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
7.  Undertaking 

(49)  The cooperating exporting producer in the PRC, Xinanchem, expressed its interest in 
offering  an  undertaking.  However,  it  is  recalled  that  Xinanchem  did  not  meet  the 
requirements  to  be  granted  individual  treatment  because  there  was  a  price-control 
system in place which was entrusted to the CCCMC by the State. Moreover, due to the 
low  level  of  cooperation  obtained  from  exporting  producers  in  the  PRC,  the 
Commission  was  not  in  a  position  to  consider  further  an  undertaking  proposed  by 
Xinanchem because of the high inherent risk of circumvention of such an undertaking. 
The  cooperating  exporting  producer  was  informed  accordingly.  Further  to  that  the 
Commission received no actual offer for an undertaking from Xinanchem. 

D. 

SITUATION ON THE COMMUNITY MARKET 

1.  General 

(50)  The four Community producers that co-operated in the investigation represented 100% 
of Community production of glyphosate during the IP. Therefore, they constitute the 
Community industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic 
Regulation.  

(51)  For  the  purposes  of  this  review,  and  as  in  the  original  investigation,  the  Community 
industry  is  considered  as  comprising  only  actual  producers  of  glyphosate,  i.e.  those 
that  manufacture  glyphosate  from  the  necessary  raw  materials  as  distinct  from 
formulators  that  only  transform  one  form  of  glyphosate  into  another.  One  Chinese 
exporting producer claimed that formulators, i.e. companies that buy glyphosate acid 
or  salt  and  process  it  into  formulated  glyphosate,  should  also  be  considered  as 
Community producers. However, the product concerned by this review is glyphosate 
in its various forms and it is clear that a formulator – by definition – only processes an 
existing  form  of  glyphosate  into  another  from.  It  is  therefore  not  accepted  that  a 
formulator is actually a producer of glyphosate. Furthermore, this distinction between 
producers  and  importers/formulators  is  consistent  with  the  approach  adopted  in  the 
original investigation. 

(52)  Concerning one producer, it was necessary to consider whether it could be defined as a 
Community  producer  due  to  the  corporate  structure  of  the  group  of  which  it  formed 
part.  It  was  found  that  this  producer  is  fully  integrated  in  a  single  economic  entity, 
which  consists  of  a  large  number  of  companies  and  operates  as  follows:  The  group 
headquarters,  located  outside  the  Community,  purchases  the  raw  materials.  A 
subsidiary in the Community (the producer in question) manufactures glyphosate acid 
under a toll arrangement with the group headquarters, which still retains ownership of 
the glyphosate. Subsequently, the glyphosate acid is sold by the group headquarters to 
a second subsidiary in the Community, where it is processed into salt and formulated 
product. The formulated product is then sold on to a network of related distributors in 
the Community within the group which finally sell it to independent customers. The 
investigation  has  shown  that  the  glyphosate  produced  by  this  company  is  of 
Community origin and that the manufacturing operations, the technological and capital 
investment for the manufacturing operations and the sales operations take place in the 
Community.  Based  on  the  above,  this  producer  is  a  Community  producer  within  the 
meaning of Articles 5(4) and 4(1) of the basic Regulation. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
(53)  A Community producer and an association representing distributors and users claimed 
that  one  company  that  was  considered  a  Community  producer  was  not,  in  fact, 
producing  glyphosate  acid  within  the  Community  but  merely  importing  acid  or  salt 
from  a  third  country  and  formulating  it  in  the  Community.  The  investigation  has 
shown  that,  while  the  company  does  import  certain  quantities  of  formulated 
glyphosate  from  third  countries,  nevertheless,  the  majority  of  the  products  it  sells  in 
the Community are made from glyphosate acid produced by the company itself in the 
Community.  The  company  was  therefore  considered  as  a  Community  producer,  and 
the claim had to be rejected. 

(54)  The  examination  of  the  impact  of  the  dumped  imports  on  the  Community  industry 
included  an  evaluation  of  all  economic  factors  and  indices  having  a  bearing  on  the 
state of the industry from 1999 to the IP. 

(55) 

In  general,  figures  concerning  volumes  of  glyphosate  are  inclusive  of  all  forms  of 
glyphosate, unless it is stated otherwise. For comparison purposes, volumes have been 
re-stated  on the  basis of a  95% glyphosate acid content. The figures for sales by the 
Community industry only include sales of glyphosate produced in the Community, and 
exclude  any  sales  of  glyphosate  imported  and  subsequently  resold  by  certain 
Community producers. 

2.  Community consumption 

(56)  The market for glyphosate within the Community, into which the Community industry 
sells,  covers  both  the  demand  for  formulated product which is ready to be used as a 
herbicide,  plus  the  demand  by  importers/formulators  for  glyphosate  in  either  salt  or 
acid form for further processing into formulated product and which may subsequently 
be sold either in the Community or exported. Both of these demands can be supplied 
either  by  the  Community  industry  itself  or  by  imports  from  third  countries.  The 
Community  consumption  has  therefore  been  assessed  at  the  level  of  sales  to 
distributors/users and importers/formulators. This has been calculated on the basis of 
the  total  volume  of  production  by  the  Community  industry,  adjusted  in  respect  of 
changes  in  stock  levels,  plus  the  total  imports  as  reported  by  Eurostat  and 
supplemented by information provided by the Community industry concerning certain 
volumes  which  received  specific  customs  treatment,  less  the  exported  volumes 
reported by the Community industry. 

(57)  On this basis, Community consumption was found to have increased steadily and by 
41%  between  1999  and  2002.  This  reflects  the  increasing  acceptance  and  use  of 
glyphosate  as  a  non-selective  herbicide.  Detailed  data,  expressed  in  tonnes,  is  as 
follows. 

Table 1: Consumption 

Consumption 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 (IP) 

Tonnes  (95%  acid 
equivalent) 

24 782 

29 280 

31 562 

35 021 

Index 

100 

118 

127 

141 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
3.  Volume of the imports originating in the PRC and market share 

(58)  The  volume  of  imports  of  the  product  concerned  was  established  on  the  basis  of 
statistical  information  provided  by  Eurostat  and  supplemented  by  information 
provided  by  the  Community  industry  concerning  certain  volumes  which  received 
specific customs treatment. In order to protect the confidentiality of this information, 
figures are expressed in indexed form. The total quantity of glyphosate originating in 
the PRC imported during the IP is less than 50% of the quantity imported during the 
investigation  period  of  the  original  investigation  (12  months  to  end  August  1995). 
Since  consumption  was  increasing,  the  market  share  held  by  imports  of  the  product 
concerned originating in the PRC decreased more significantly over the same period. 
From 11% during the investigation period of the original investigation, it decreased to 
below  3%  at  the  start  of  the  analysis  period  and  to  less  than  2%  in  2001,  but 
subsequently increased during the IP while still remaining below 2%. As explained in 
recital (46) above, more than 90% of recent imports originating in the PRC have been 
made under inward processing arrangements, demonstrating that the majority of PRC 
glyphosate imported is actually re-exported, reflecting the fact that the measures make 
it difficult to sell in the Community. During the analysis period, imports originating in 
the  PRC  made  under  inward  processing  regimes  have  steadily  increased,  at  the 
expense of duty paid imports, from around 60% of the total in 1999 to more than 90% 
in the IP. The market share of PRC exporters has clearly diminished as a result of the 
measures in force, but they nevertheless continue to maintain a clear presence on the 
Community  market.  The  development  of  imports  originating  in  the  PRC  and  the 
market share of the PRC during the analysis period is shown in the following table in 
indexed form, taking 1999 as a the basis. 

Table 2: Imports originating in the PRC 

Imports 
originating in the 
PRC  

Volumes 
(indexed) 

Market share 
(indexed) 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 (IP) 

100 

100 

95 

81 

76 

62 

100 

73 

4. 

a) 

Prices of the imports concerned 

Evolution of prices 

(59)  As imports of formulated glyphosate originating in the PRC into the Community have 
been  negligible  and  there  have  been  no  imports  of  glyphosate  salt  during  the  IP,  the 
development of prices was established by using prices for glyphosate acid only. This 
information is based on Eurostat figures. The prices of imports of glyphosate acid 95% 
originating  in  the  PRC,  expressed  in  EUR/kg  before  the  application  of  the  anti-
dumping  duty,  decreased  steadily  from  EUR  3,50  in  1999  to  EUR  2,80  in  the  IP,  a 
drop of 20% overall. Detailed data is as follows. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
Table 3: PRC Prices 

PRC Prices 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 (IP) 

EUR  per  kg  before 
anti-dumping 
duty 
(at 95% acid equivalent) 

3,50 

3,31 

3,04 

2,80 

Index  

100 

94 

87 

80 

b) 

Price undercutting 

(60)  For  the  reason  explained  in  recital  (59)  above,  the  assessment  of  price  undercutting 
was also made by using prices for glyphosate acid only. As acid imported originating 
in  the  PRC  is  in  95%  acid  form  and  that  sold  by  the  Community  producers  on  the 
Community market is in wet cake 84% form, in order to enable a correct comparison, 
prices  of  wet  cake  glyphosate  were  converted  to  a  95%  acid  content  basis,  which  is 
possible since essentially the only difference between the two products is the greater 
water content of the wet cake. Additionally, the price of Chinese glyphosate was based 
on  the  information  submitted  in  the  course  of  the  investigation  by  the  co-operating 
exporting producer. On the basis of Community frontier prices, inclusive of customs 
duties but before anti-dumping duties, during the IP, there was an undercutting margin 
of  20%  -  30%  indicating  that  without  the  measures,  the  prices  on  the  Community 
market  would  be  exposed  to  downward  pressure  by  the  lower  prices  of  the  PRC 
glyphosate.  Given  the  level  of  the  existing  anti-dumping  duties  (48%)  the  duty  paid 
price of glyphosate originating in the PRC exceeded the sales price of the Community 
industry  by  10%  -  20%.  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  an  underselling  margin  in 
excess of 80% was established in respect of sales during the IP of glyphosate of PRC 
origin on a duty unpaid basis, as explained in recitals (119) and (120).  

c) 

Imports originating in other third countries 

(61)  As  mentioned  in  recital  (71)  below,  one  Community  producer  imported  significant 
quantities of formulated glyphosate from related companies in third countries. These 
imports  relate  to  a  high-value  non-standard formulated  product.  Both  the  import  and 
resale  prices  for  this  product  are  significantly  higher  than  prices  of  the  main 
formulated products produced and sold by the Community industry in the Community. 
Therefore,  these  imports  did  not  contribute  to  price  depression  on  the  Community 
market. 

(62)  The  import  figures  given  below  include  also  glyphosate  imported  under  inward 
processing  but  exclude  glyphosate  imports  by  a  Community  producer  from  related 
companies in third countries. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
Table 4: Import volume from other third countries and market shares 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 (IP) 

95% acid 
equivalent 

Tons  Market 

share 

Price 
EUR/kg 

Tons 

Market 
share 

Price 
EUR/kg  

Tons  Market 

share 

Price 
EUR/kg 

Tons  Market 

share 

Price 
EUR/kg 

Malaysia 

1 884 

7,6% 

2,85 

1 622 

5,5% 

2,84 

1 239 

3,9% 

2,57 

78 

0,2% 

2,83 

Indexed 

100 

100 

86 

100 

66 

90 

4 

99 

Taiwan 

736 

3,0% 

3,87 

1 253 

4,3% 

3,87 

469 

1,5% 

3,46 

1 354 

3,9% 

3,24 

Indexed 

100 

100 

170 

100 

64 

90 

184 

84 

Others 

1 292 

5,2% 

3,94 

2 141 

7,3% 

3,82 

2 212 

7,0% 

3,40 

1 695 

4,8% 

3,19 

Indexed 

100 

100 

255 

100 

174 

89 

90 

84 

TOTAL 

3 912 

15,8% 

3,38 

5 016 

17,1% 

3,44 

3 920 

12,4% 

3,13 

3 127 

8,9% 

3,20 

Indexed 

100 

100 

128 

102 

100 

93 

80 

95 

(63)  To  give  a  meaningful  price  comparison  for  glyphosate  imports  from  third  countries, 
this comparison has been made on the basis of glyphosate acid, which accounted for 
more than 90% of glyphosate imports during the IP. 

(64) 

(65) 

Imports  of  glyphosate  by  companies  not  related  to  the  Community  producers  have 
decreased slightly from 3 912 tonnes in 1999 to 3 127 in the IP. The only significant 
imports during the IP from countries other than the PRC, apart from those imports by 
the Community producers from related companies outside the Community, come from 
Taiwan (see the table above). Following an anti-circumvention investigation, Council 
Regulation (EC) No 163/2002 extended the duty to imports of the product concerned 
consigned  from  Malaysia  or  Taiwan  (whether  declared  as  originating  in  Malaysia  or 
Taiwan or not), with the exception of those produced by one named company in each 
of those countries. Imports from Malaysia have decreased substantially following the 
extension of measures and during the IP they were not significant. 

In  the  case  of  Taiwan,  imports  decreased  during  2001  when  the  anti-circumvention 
investigation was under way but increased again during the IP to a level representing 
approximately  4%  of  Community  consumption.  While  the  level  of  imports  from 
Taiwan continues to be relatively high, it  must be  borne in mind that not all exports 
from Taiwan are subject to the extended duties resulting from the anti-circumvention 
review. It is also to be noted that during the analysis period the prices of imports from 
Taiwan,  were  10-20%  higher  than  imports  originating  in  the  PRC,  not  taking  into 
account the anti-dumping duties applicable to imports originating in the PRC, and that 
Taiwanese  prices  did  not  undercut  the  Community  industry  prices  during  the  IP. 
Imports  from  all  other  countries  are  made  at  prices  very  close  to  those  of  the 
Community industry. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5. 

Situation of the Community industry 

a)  General 

(66) 

In order to make a meaningful assessment of certain injury indicators, it was necessary 
to  exclude  data  in  respect  of  the  producer  referred  to  in  recital  (52)  above  in  those 
cases  where  this  data  may  have  been  influenced  by  companies  within  the  group 
structure  but  located  outside  the  Community.  Since  the  profitability  of  the  European 
operations  of  this  company  are  affected  by  the  results  achieved  by  its  whole  supply 
chain,  including  its  headquarters  located  outside  the  Community,  it  was  deemed 
appropriate to exclude the data from this company from the analysis of indicators in 
sections (f) profitability and (h) cash flow and ability to raise capital, as well as from 
the  analysis  of  “return  on  investment”  in  section  (g)  Investments  and  return  on 
investments. Furthermore, as this company resulted from the merger of two previously 
independent entities, it was not in a position to provide information for the whole of 
the analysis period in relation to sales prices and employment. For that reason, it was 
also necessary to exclude the available information from the analysis of the trends in 
sections  (e)  Sales  prices  and  costs  and  (i)  Employment,  productivity  and  wages.  As 
this  company  only  accounted  for  in  the  range  of  15%  to  25%  of  Community 
production of the product concerned, the findings set out below are considered to be 
representative. 

b) 

Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation 

(67)  Production of glyphosate by the Community industry increased from 48 334 tonnes in 
1999 to a peak of 54 575 tonnes in 2000 and then decreased to a quantity of 50 448 
tonnes in the IP. This represents an overall increase of 4% over the analysis period. 

(68)  Production  capacity  increased  from  around  63  000  tonnes  in  1999  to  almost  70  000 
tonnes  in  the  IP,  an  increase  of  11%.  The  increase  during  2000  and  2001  is  due  to 
additional  production  facilities  becoming  operational  combined  with  continued 
refinements in the production process. 

(69)  Capacity utilisation initially increased from 77% to 83% in 2000, but then decreased 
through  2001  to  a  level  of  72%  during  the  IP,  an  overall  decrease  of  5  percentage 
points  compared  with  1999.  The  economic  effect  of  the  existence  of  decreased 
capacity utilisation was examined and it was found that its impact on profitability was 
not significant. 

(70)  The  decreasing  capacity  utilisation,  in  the  light  of  increasing  sales  of  the  product 
concerned  in  the  Community,  is  negatively  affected  by  the  development  of  export 
sales of the Community industry to third countries. During the analysis period, export 
sales of the Community industry steadily decreased from 58% of its world-wide sales 
in 1999 to 38% of its world-wide sales in the IP. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
(71)  Both the production and capacity utilisation figures for 2001 and 2002 were affected 
by a decrease in production by one Community producer due to its decision to import 
certain  glyphosate  products  from  related  companies  in  third  countries  rather  than 
producing  them  in  the  Community.  The  products  in  question  are  newly  developed 
forms  which  require  additional  production  equipment,  currently  unavailable  in  the 
Community. The deterioration in these injury indicators in 2001 and 2002 should be 
considered in the light of this development which has been mentioned in recital (61) 
above. The detailed data is as follows: 

Table 5: Production 

Production 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 (IP) 

Production 
(tonnes at 95% 
acid equivalent) 

48 337 

54 575 

52 406 

50 448 

Index 

100 

113 

108 

104 

63 029 

65 720 

70 028 

69 930 

100 

77% 

104 

83% 

111 

75% 

111 

72% 

Production 
capacity (tonnes 
at 95% acid 
equivalent)  

Index 

Capacity 
utilisation 

c) 

Stocks 

(72)  Stocks of glyphosate increased over the analysis period from 9 149 tonnes in 1999 to 
14 554 tonnes in the IP, an increase of 59%. The main build up occurred in 2001 and 
2002. This reflects the efforts of the Community producers to maintain high capacity 
utilisation in order to cover the fixed costs of their plants, while at the same time the 
market was not able to absorb those quantities. Detailed data is shown below: 

Table 6: Stocks 

Stocks 

Tonnes 

Index 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 (IP) 

9 149 

9 902 

13 049 

14 554 

100 

108 

143 

159 

(73)  A  party  in  the  PRC  argued  that  the  build  up  of  stocks  by  the  Community  industry 
could not be attributed to the effect of imports from the PRC but that it just related to 
decreased sales by the Community industry on export markets. In this regard, it should 
be  noted  that  competition  from  PRC  glyphosate,  which  was  imported  under  inward 
processing  and  subsequently  exported,  also contributed  to  the  decreased  sales  by  the 
Community industry on the export market.  

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
d) 

Sales volume, market share and growth 

(74)  The  sales  on  the  Community  market  of  glyphosate  produced  by  the  Community 
industry increased steadily during the analysis period  from  19 945  tonnes  in 1999 to 
29 607  tonnes  in  the  IP,  an  overall  increase  of  48%.  Similarly,  the  Community 
industry increased its market share from 80% in 1999 to 85% in the IP, having reached 
a  level  of  89%  during  2001.  The  decrease  in  market  share  from  2001  to  2002  was 
affected by imports of glyphosate from third countries by a Community producer, as 
mentioned in recital (71) above. 

Table 7: Sales 

Sales 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 (IP) 

Community 
industry sales 
(tonnes) 

Index 

Community 
industry market 
share  

19 945 

24 323 

28 229 

29 607 

100 

80% 

122 

83% 

142 

89% 

148 

85% 

e) 

Sales prices and costs 

(75)  Prices were compared at the formulated stage, as this is the form of glyphosate that is 
used  by  the  final  consumer  as  a  herbicide.  Additionally,  formulated  glyphosate 
accounts  for  the  vast  majority  of  glyphosate  sales  both  in  terms  of  value  and  of 
volume.  In  order  to  ensure  a  fair  comparison  of  prices,  and  given  the  existence  of  a 
variety of types of formulated glyphosate on the market, the prices of which can vary 
considerably  both  according  to  the  concentration  of  the  product  and  the  type  of 
surfactant  used,  the  Commission  services  selected  the  most  common  formulation,  a 
standard  formulation  which  has  360g  of  glyphosate  content  per  litre.  This  so-called 
‘standard 360 formulation’ accounted for around 40% by volume of glyphosate sales 
in the Community by the Community industry during the analysis period and, because 
it is now outside of patent, is the typical formulation that is either imported from the 
PRC or made from imported acid or salt originating in the PRC. 

(76)  Additionally, for this comparison, formulated glyphosate produced by the Community 
industry  containing  special  surfactants  designed  to  make  the  product  less  hazardous, 
were  considered  separately.  Sales  of  this  non-hazardous  formulation  containing  also 
360g of glyphosate per litre accounted for around 20% by volume of glyphosate sales 
in the Community by the Community industry during the analysis period. Glyphosate 
acid normally accounted for around 18% by volume of the total glyphosate sales in the 
Community  by  the  Community  industry  during  the  analysis  period,  the  remainder 
consisting  of  glyphosate  salt  and  other  non-standard  formulations  containing  a 
different  glyphosate  content  per  litre  and/or  special  surfactants  to  improve  the 
effectiveness or hazard classification. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
(77)  Glyphosate  acid  is  the  main  element  in  the  cost  of  production  for  glyphosate 
formulation. For standard 360 formulation it accounts for around 55% of the total cost 
of production and for around 45% in the case of non-hazardous 360 formulation. 

(78)  The  sales  prices  of  standard  360  formulated  glyphosate,  expressed  per  kilogram  at 
95% acid equivalent (the equivalent of 2,64 litres of formulated product), fell steadily 
from  EUR 9,23  in  1999  to  EUR 7,28  in  2002,  an  overall  decrease  of  21%.  Cost  of 
production  also  fell  steadily  from  EUR 10,37  in  1999  to  EUR 8,14  in  the  IP,  a  total 
decrease  of  21%.  This  product  was  unprofitable  throughout  the  analysis  period, 
although the gap between cost of production and sales price remained relatively stable 
over the period. 

Table 8: Standard 360 formulation 

Standard 360 
formulation 

Quantity sold 
(tonnes @ 95% acid 
equivalent) 

% of EU sales 

Sales price (EUR 
per kg @ 95% acid 
equivalent) 

Index 

Cost of 
production (EUR 
per kg @ 95% acid 
equivalent) 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 (IP) 

7 632 

9 102 

10 015 

10 322 

43% 

9,23 

100 

10,37 

41% 

8,65 

94 

9,31 

39% 

7,55 

82 

8,88 

38% 

7,28 

79 

8,14 

Index 

100 

90 

86 

79 

(79)  For non-hazardous formulated glyphosate containing 360 g of glyphosate per litre, the 
sales  price,  expressed  per  kilogram  at  95%  acid  equivalent  (the  equivalent  of  2,64 
litres of formulated product), fell steadily from 1999 to 2002 for an overall decrease of 
12%. Cost of production also fell from 1999 to 2001, but increased again in the IP for 
an  overall  decrease  of  22%.  The  increase  in  cost  of  production  in  the  IP  is  due  to 
reduced capacity utilisation. The profitability of this product increased in the course of 
the analysis period. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
Table 9: Non-hazardous 360 formulation 

Non-hazardous 
360 formulation 

Quantity sold 
(Index) 

% of EU 
sales(Index) 

Sales price (Index) 

Cost of 
production (Index) 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 (IP) 

100 

100 

100 

100 

123 

100 

100 

79 

125 

106 

88 

90 

73 

69 

88 

78 

(80)  The  table  below  shows  the  combined  weighted  average  sales  price  and  cost  of 
production  for  all  forms  of  glyphosate,  i.e.  salt,  acid  and  all  types  of  formulated 
products. Sales prices and cost of production seemingly increased in 2001. The reason 
for  this  is  a  change  in  the  product  mix  sold  on  the  Community  market,  i.e.  the 
Community  industry  sold  less  of  the  lower-value  acid  and  salt  products  on  the 
Community market. 

Table 10: All products 

All Products 

Sales  price  (EUR 
per  kg  @  95%  acid 
equivalent) 

Index 

Cost of 
production (EUR 
per kg @ 95% acid 
equivalent) 

1999 

8,92 

100 

8,55 

2000 

7,94 

89 

7,58 

2001 

2002 (IP) 

8,16 

7,61 

91 

8,01 

85 

7,84 

Index 

100 

88 

94 

92 

f) 

Profitability 

(81)  The overall profitability of the Community Industry in respect of glyphosate activities 
deteriorated  from  4,2%  in  1999  to  –2,6%  in  the  IP.  This  profitability  relates  to  all 
forms of glyphosate produced and sold by the Community industry in the Community. 
Glyphosate  imported  and  resold,  as  mentioned  at  recital  (71)  above,  has  not  been 
included in this calculation. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
(82)  A  party  in  the  PRC  argued  that  the  product  which  was  imported  and  resold  should 
have  been  included  in  the  assessment  of  overall  profitability.  In  this  regard,  these 
products have been correctly excluded since they do not contribute to the profitability 
of  the  Community  industry  relating  to  production  and  sales  in  the  Community.  The 
argument is therefore rejected. 

(83)  Overall  profitability was also  negatively  affected  by  the  mix  of  products  sold  by  the 
Community industry on the Community market. The Community industry planned to 
move  away  from  the  “standard”  glyphosate formulation,  which  has  been  selling  at  a 
loss  under  pressure  from  low  priced  imports,  mainly  from  the  PRC  and  Taiwan, 
towards  more  sophisticated,  higher  value  products  such  as  the  non-hazardous 
formulations.  However,  during  the  IP,  sales  of  these  higher  value  products  produced 
within the Community decreased due to a weaker demand for these products, having a 
negative effect on overall profitability. The profitability figures are given in table 11 
below. 

(84)  Glyphosate  is  also  sold  by  importers/formulators  on  the  Community  market.  These 
sales, almost exclusively of standard 360 formulation glyphosate, which is the biggest 
selling  product  of  the  Community  industry,  compete  directly  with  the  sales  by  the 
Community  industry  of  the  same  formulation.  The  glyphosate  in  question  is  sourced 
either as acid or salt primarily from Community producers, but is also imported from 
third countries. While sales by the Community industry to supply the demand of this 
standard formulation have not been profitable, nevertheless, the Community industry 
needs to continue to supply them as these sales provide a contribution to cover their 
fixed costs through the maintenance of capacity utilisation. 

Table 11: Profitability 

Profitability 

Profitability 
(Community 
sales) 

1999 

4,2% 

2000 

4,3% 

2001 

2002 (IP) 

0,6% 

-2,6% 

g) 

Investments and return on investments 

(85) 

Investment  in  the  glyphosate  business  decreased  sharply  after  1999  to  between  15% 
and  18%  of  the  1999  figures.  It  has  to  be  noted  that  the  bulk  of  the  investments 
relating  to  the  capacity  increases  in  2001  were  made  in  the  years  up  to  1999.  No 
significant investment was planned or made for the remainder of the analysis period. 
Detailed data is shown below: 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
Table 12: Investments 

Investments 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 (IP) 

Investments 
(EUR ’000) 

Index 

Return on 
investment  

50 940 

7 409 

9 035 

7 883 

100 

22% 

15 

18 

15 

157% 

17% 

negative 

h)  Cash flow and ability to raise capital 

(86)  Cash Flow of the Community industry deteriorated between 1999 and the IP, both in 
absolute values as well as expressed as a percentage of turnover. This decrease is in 
line with the deterioration of the overall profitability during the analysis period. 

Table 13: Cash Flow 

Cash flow 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 (IP) 

13 217 

11 769 

4 975 

-562 

100 

5,0% 

89 

38 

negative 

4,4% 

2,1% 

-0,3% 

Cash flow 
(EUR ’000) 

Index 

Cash flow 
expressed as 
percentage of 
turnover 

(87)  Capital is either raised on the stock exchange or alternatively funded internally within 
the company. Investments and, in some cases, spending for R&D have been limited in 
recent years reflecting the decreasing profitability of glyphosate sales. The absence of 
significant  investments  since  2000  is  confirmed  by  the  figures  given  in  recital  (85) 
above. 

i) 

Employment, productivity and wages 

(88)  The  Community  producer  referred  to  in  recital  (52)  above  was  not  in  a  position  to 
present  comparable  figures  for  the  whole  of  the  analysis  period  for  the  reason 
explained in recital (66) above, therefore making it necessary to exclude the available 
information for this company in order to examine the trend on a consistent basis.  

(89)  Employment  decreased  in  the  analysis  period  from  1  017  employees  in  1999  to  808 
employees in the IP, a decrease of 20%. This reflects a decrease in production in 2001 
and 2002, but also reflects the fact that, in general, productivity, as measured by output 
per worker, has increased. In 2002 productivity decreased, mainly due to a reduction 
in capacity utilisation as noted in recital (71). The increase in wage costs per worker is 
a result of collective bargaining at industry level. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
(90)  A party in the PRC argued that the reduction in employment resulted from increased 
efficiency rather than from injury. However, the reduction in employment is largely a 
consequence  of  reduced  production  by  the  Community  industry,  although  it  is 
recognised that increased efficiency has also had an effect, as has been noted at recital 
(89) above. 

Table 14: Employment 

Employment 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 (IP) 

Number of 
employees 

Index 

Wage costs per 
employee 
(in EUR) 

1 017 

846 

791 

808 

100 

83 

78 

80 

57 730 

60 040 

63 619 

64 871 

Index 

100 

104 

110 

112 

Production per 
employee 
(tonnes/year) 

Production per 
employee 
(indexed) 

44 

56 

58 

49 

100 

129 

133 

112 

j)  Magnitude of dumping and recovery from past dumping 

(91)  As concerns the impact on the situation of the Community industry of the magnitude 
of  the  dumping  margin  found  in  the  IP  (29,9%),  it  should  be  noted  that,  while  the 
margin is less than that found in the original investigation (38,2%), it still remains at a 
high  level.  The  situation  of  the  Community  industry  initially  improved  to  a  certain 
extent after the imposition of the original measures, but it did not completely recover. 
It should be noted that dumping increased further to 62%, as established in the anti-
absorption  investigation  mentioned  in  recital  (1).  This  increased  dumping  and  the 
subsequent circumvention of the measures via Malaysia and Taiwan, as established in 
the anti-circumvention investigation mentioned in recital (1), certainly contributed to 
the  price  depression  within  the  Community  and  on  the  declining  profitability  of  the 
Community  industry.  Should  imports  from  the  PRC  resume  at  higher  levels,  the 
impact on the Community industry of the dumping found in the current investigation 
would be significant. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
(92)  Two  parties  in  the  PRC  argued  that  the  measures  were  not  effective  and  should  be 
removed since, during the period for which they were in place, the economic situation 
of  the  Community  industry  did  not  recover  significantly.  In  this  regard,  it  must  be 
noted that the effectiveness of the measures was reduced by continuing price pressure 
linked to decreasing prices of imports originating in the PRC. In addition, it should be 
recalled that absorption and circumvention practices occurred following the imposition 
of  the  measures,  as  mentioned  in  recitals  (1)  and  (45)  above,  which  also  limited  the 
effectiveness of the measures. In view of these factors, the argument that the measures 
should be removed is, therefore, not accepted. 

6.  Conclusion on the situation of the Community industry 

(93)  Following the imposition of the anti-dumping measures against imports originating in 
the  PRC,  the  economic  situation  of  the  Community  industry  improved  in  terms  of 
productivity,  production,  production  capacity,  sales  and  market  share.  This  must  be 
viewed, in addition to the existence of the measures, in the context of the increasing 
consumption  of  glyphosate  within  the  Community.  However,  sales  prices  have 
steadily decreased resulting in a steady deterioration in profitability and culminating in 
losses  in  the  IP.  This  has  adversely  affected  cash  flow,  while  stock  levels  have 
increased  and  employment  has  decreased.  In  addition,  there  has  been  no  substantial 
new investment since 2000.  

(94)  A party in the PRC argued that the weak situation of the Community industry was due 
to its excess production capacity and reduced export sales. This argument is rejected in 
the light of the considerations mentioned in recitals (69) and (73) above. It is therefore 
considered  that  the  economic  situation  of  the  Community  industry  continues  to  be 
weak. 

E. 

LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION AND/OR RECURRENCE OF INJURY 

(95)  Since  the  imposition  of  measures,  the  PRC  has  continued  to  sell  glyphosate  to  the 
Community at dumped prices. While the quantity entering the Community market has 
decreased (inter alia as a result of the measures), PRC exporters continue to maintain 
a  clear  presence  on  the  market.  Moreover,  via  their  sales  mostly  under  inward 
processing, they nevertheless continue to exert a certain pressure on prices within the 
Community.  They  currently  have  spare  production  capacity,  amounting 
to 
approximately  40%  of  Community  consumption,  and,  in  addition,  if  measures  were 
removed,  they  would  be  in  a  position  to  redirect  existing  exports  away  from  lower 
priced  markets  in  third  countries,  towards  the  Community  market  in  significant 
quantities,  as  mentioned  in  recitals  (41)  and  (47)  above.  This  would  enable  them  to 
supply  increased  quantities  to  the  Community  market  at  prices  that  would  result  in 
significant price undercutting and price depression in the Community if the measures 
in force would expire. Prices of imports of the product concerned from the PRC would 
also undercut the export prices of other third countries, e.g. in the case of Taiwan by 
somewhere between 10-20%. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
(96)  A  party  in  the  PRC  argued  that  the  low  quantity  of  imports  of  glyphosate  from  the 
PRC  should  not  affect  prices  on  the  Community  market  and  that  the  decrease  in 
Community  prices  was  due  to  reductions  in  costs  of  production  by  the  Community 
industry.  This  argument  is  rejected  as  it  was  found  that  glyphosate  is  a  commodity 
product and therefore the presence of relatively small quantities of glyphosate on the 
Community  market  at  low  prices  affects  market  prices.  This  is  the  case  in  particular 
for  standard  formulated  product  which  accounts  for  around  40%  of  Community 
industry  sales  on  that  market  and  against  which  imports  from  the  PRC  compete 
directly.  Despite  the  efforts  of  the  Community  industry  to  reduce  its  costs,  its 
profitability  in  respect  of  the  standard  formulated  product  remained  negative 
throughout the analysis period as a result of the decreasing prices. 

(97)  Another party in the PRC considered that imports under inward processing should not 
have  been  taken  into  account  in  assessing  injury  as  these  are  not  sold  on  the 
Community market. In this regard, it should be noted that imports of glyphosate salt 
and  acid  under  inward  processing  compete  directly  with  the  same  products  from  the 
Community  industry  for  the  demand  by  importers/formulators  to  supply  their  export 
markets. It is, therefore, correct to take the quantities of such imports into account in 
the assessment of injury. Moreover, although imports under inward processing are not 
themselves sold within the Community, the effect of the prices of these imports is felt 
in the market through the action of importers/formulators who seek to obtain products 
to  supply  both  Community  and  export  demands  at  the  most  competitive  prices 
available. Therefore, the prices of imports under inward processing contributed to the 
price  pressure  which  led  to  the  deterioration  of  the  profitability  of  the  Community 
industry on the Community market, and to its continued weak economic situation. The 
argument is, therefore, not accepted. 

(98)  As shown in recital (93), the Community industry is currently in a weak situation, in 
particular  as  regards  its  profitability  which  has  continually  declined,  since  the 
imposition of the measures under consideration, to a situation where the industry was 
making  losses  during  the  IP  and  is  even  experiencing  a  negative  cash  flow.  On  the 
basis of all this, it  is therefore likely that if the Community industry was exposed to 
increased  volumes  of  imports  originating  in  the  PRC  at  dumped  prices,  this  would 
result  in  a  deterioration  of  its  already  weakened  financial  situation  and  a  loss  in  its 
market  share.  On  this  basis,  it  is  concluded  that,  should  the  measures  expire,  this 
would lead to a continuation of injury to the Community industry. 

F. 

COMMUNITY INTEREST 

1.  General considerations 

(99)  The Commission examined whether the maintenance of the anti-dumping measures on 
glyphosate would be in the interest of the Community. It has been found that there is a 
likelihood  of  continuation  of  injurious  dumping.  The  investigation  also  considered 
whether or not there are any overriding interests against maintaining the measures and 
also took account of the past effects of duties on all the various interests involved. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
(100)  It should be recalled that, in the original investigation, the adoption of measures was 
not considered to be against the interest of the Community. Since this is also an expiry 
review  investigation,  the  impact  of  the  existing  measures,  in  particular  on  users, 
consumers and importers/formulators was also examined. 

2. 

Interest of the Community industry 

(101)  Glyphosate originating in the PRC is still offered at CIF values below the current sales 
prices  of  the  Community  producers.  Therefore,  the  expiry  of  measures  would  lead 
either  to  glyphosate  originating  in  the  PRC  gaining  market  share  on  the  Community 
market to the detriment of the Community producers, or alternatively the Community 
industry would have to lower their already declining sales prices even further in order 
to  maintain  market  share  and  capacity  utilisation.  In  both  scenarios  the  Community 
industry would suffer losses due to an expiry of measures. 

(102)  The Community producers claimed that the measures had been either absorbed by the 
PRC or circumvented for most of the analysis period, thereby resulting in them having 
a limited remedial effect. The absorption and circumvention via Malaysia and Taiwan 
have been confirmed and addressed by the review investigations mentioned in recital 
(1) above. 

(103)  Several  suppliers  of  raw  materials  and  services  came  forward  and  stated  that  they 
expect  a  reduced  Community production if measures were to expire, and therefore a 
reduced demand for their raw materials and services. 

(104)  In view of the above, it is considered that, in the absence of anti-dumping measures on 
imports  of  the  product  concerned  from  the  PRC,  the  situation  of  the  Community 
industry  would  worsen  through  increased  imports  at  dumped  prices  from  the  PRC 
leading  to  increased  financial  losses.  While  imports  from  the  PRC  have  dropped 
during the period analysed, it must be stressed that glyphosate can be considered as a 
commodity. In these circumstances, even a low level of imports at dumped prices can 
have a detrimental impact on the Community industry. The Community industry has 
increased production, sales volumes and market share over the period analysed but at 
the  expense  of  profits.  The  essential  viability  of  the  industry  would  be  threatened  in 
the absence of measures to eliminate the injurious dumping. 

3. 

Interest of unrelated importers/formulators  

(105)  Since the major part of glyphosate imports originating in the PRC into the Community 
is  in  the  form  of  acid  or  salt  and  is  resold  in  a  formulated  form,  the  formulating 
industry  is  therefore  concerned  by  this  proceeding.  Certain  of  these  importers 
indicated  that,  while  currently  only  importing  minimal  quantities  of  glyphosate  from 
the PRC, they would recommence imports from the PRC in the absence of measures. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
(106)  One  importer/formulator  fully  co-operated  with  the  Commission.  It  presented  a 
submission in which it stated its position against measures because any increase in the 
price  of  the  main  input  would  reduce  its  profit  margin  on  formulated  glyphosate.  A 
number of formulators who are currently not importing glyphosate acid originating in 
the  PRC  as  a  result  of  the  existing  measures  stated  that  they  would  recommence 
sourcing the product from the PRC should measures expire. As it was found that most 
of the importers/formulators deal with a range of products other than glyphosate, it is 
considered  that,  even  if  measures  would  have  the  effect  of  limiting  a  decrease  in 
glyphosate  acid  prices,  the  impact  of  the  measures  on  the  overall  business  of  these 
companies would be limited. 

(107)  Importers/formulators expect that lifting the measures would lead to lower prices for 
their  glyphosate  on  the  Community  market,  allowing  them  to  expand  their  market 
share at the expense of the Community producers. However, the financial benefit from 
this would be limited, since the importers/formulators would be forced to pass on the 
bulk  of  their  decrease  in  cost  to  their  customers  due  to  competition  from  other 
formulators  also  importing  glyphosate  originating  in  the  PRC.  Moreover,  the 
importers/formulators should not obtain advantage through dumping since this creates 
an imbalance vis-à-vis the other competitors, namely the Community industry. 

(108)  For  the  above-mentioned  reasons,  it  is  considered  that  the  benefits  afforded  to  the 
Community  industry  resulting  from  maintaining  the  measures  would  outweigh  any 
marginal negative impact that may result for the importers/formulators concerned. 

4. 

Interests of distributors and consumers 

(109)  The Commission received a submission by an association representing distributors and 
users of agrochemicals in the EU. This association put forward a number of allegations 
concerning  the behaviour of the Community producers on  the Community market to 
the detriment of independent distributors of agrochemicals. 

(110)  This  association  and  an  importer/formulator  claimed  that  the  Community  market  is 
heavily  protected  against  imports  through  regulatory  barriers,  namely  Council 
Directive  91/414/EC  concerning  the  placing  of  plant  protection  products  on  the 
market8, therefore making it unnecessary for measures to remain in place. This claim 
was repeated by the association following disclosure of the findings. It has to be noted 
that this Council Directive does not relate to trade defence, but rather to environmental 
safety issues. It was nevertheless argued that obtaining the necessary information for 
registration of glyphosate is both costly and time consuming and acts as a deterrent for 
importers/formulators to import glyphosate from third countries. However, in practice 
this does not appear to be a severe limitation since a number of importers/formulators 
have  succeeded  in  obtaining  registration  under  Council  Directive  91/414/EC. 
Furthermore,  the  cooperating  importer/formulator  stated  that  they  would  import 
glyphosate  originating  in  the  PRC  should  measures  be  lifted.  Therefore,  it  is 
considered that Council Directive 91/414/EC does not close the Community market to 
imports of glyphosate from the PRC. 

8 

OJ L 230 , 19.8.1991, p. 1.  

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(111)  The  association  further  claimed  that  low  prices  of  “generic”  standard  formulated 
products  produced  by  formulators  based  on  acid  or  salt  manufactured  by  a  certain 
Community  producer  are  compensated  by  high  prices  of  “branded”  equivalent 
products  sold  by  the  same  producer.  It  was  claimed  that  these  low  priced  “generic” 
products  would  act  as  a  deterrent  toward  the  entry  of  other  manufactures,  including 
imports of glyphosate originating in the PRC, to the Community market. While it was 
confirmed that formulators purchase acid and/or salt from this Community producer at 
low  prices,  it  could  not  be  said  that  the  Community  producer  was  in  a  position  to 
achieve  high  prices  on  its  formulated  products.  As  stated  in  recital  (75)  above, 
Community producers, including the producer concerned, were selling their standard 
formulated products (which are branded products) at a loss during the analysis period, 
which makes the claim that they would be in a position to obtain high prices on their 
“branded” products implausible. 

(112)  This  association  also  claimed  that  two  Community  producers  operate  a  cartel  in  the 
Community because one of them appears to limit its market share in the Community 
while they could supply a much larger share of the Community market. In this regard, 
it should be noted that evidence presented in support of the claim was not conclusive, 
since factors other than the existence of a cartel could explain the alleged limitation of 
the market share by the Community producer. First of all, it has to be pointed out that 
the market share of not only the producer in question but also of other producers did 
not  vary  substantially  over  the  analysis  period.  Secondly,  sales  on  export  markets 
could be made at higher prices, and hence the fact that the company did not sell more 
in  the  Community  as  opposed  to  outside  of  it  could  possibly  be  explained  by  other 
factors such as, for example, the company’s own efforts to maximise returns on export 
markets  which  were  more  profitable  than  the  Community  market.  Furthermore,  the 
production of the Community industry is significantly larger than consumption in the 
Community  and,  therefore,  it  is  important  economically  for  all  Community 
manufacturers to export glyphosate to third countries in order to achieve high capacity 
utilisation in order to fully absorb their fixed costs. In this context, there is at present 
insufficient evidence to conclude that a cartel exists, involving the deliberate limitation 
of  quantities  supplied  to  the  Community  market  to  the  detriment  of  consumers. 
Finally,  the  question  of  the  existence  or  not  of  any  cartel  is  a  matter  which  should 
rather be addressed in the context of an anti-trust investigation. However, no anti-trust 
procedure has been initiated, to date, by the Commission on this matter.  

(113)  On the other hand, there was no indication concerning possible negative effects of the 
continuation of the anti-dumping measures as regards the glyphosate distributors. 

(114)  As regards the consumers of the product, these are essentially farmers. A reduction in 
the price of glyphosate would have a minimal effect on their profitability since this is 
only a relatively minor item in the overall cost of crop growing. It was established that 
the  expiry  of  the  measures  would  lead  to  an  improvement  in  the  profit  margin  of 
farmers which would be of the order of 0,1%. 

(115)  For  the  above-mentioned  reasons,  it  is  considered  that  any  benefits  afforded  to  the 
Community  industry  resulting  from  maintaining  the  measures  would  outweigh  any 
marginal  negative  impact  that  may  result  for  the  distributors  and  consumers 
concerned. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
5.  Conclusion on Community interest 

(116)  Should the existing measures expire, it is expected that the Community industry would 
suffer  significant  losses  due  to  price  depression  on  the  Community  market,  which 
would either lead to a loss of market share against increased imports originating in the 
PRC  or  a  further  deterioration  of  their  sales  prices  should  they  attempt  to  maintain 
their  market  share.  Importers/formulators  could  benefit  from  an  increasing  market 
share due to cheaper supply of glyphosate originating in the PRC, but, compared to the 
losses  incurred  by  the  Community  industry,  the  economic  effect  of  this  for 
importers/formulators would be minor in view of the need to pass on price reductions 
to  their  clients.  There  was  no  indication  concerning  possible  negative  effects  of  the 
continuation of the anti-dumping measures as regards the glyphosate distributors. For 
users,  although  these  might  benefit  somewhat  from  lower  prices  if  measures  were 
removed,  this  would  not  have  a  significant  effect  on  their  profit  margin  or, 
consequently, on their activity. 

(117)  After weighing the interests of the various parties involved, the Commission concludes 
that there are no compelling reasons of Community interest against the continuation of 
measures. 

G. 

PROPOSED DUTIES 

(118)  The product type used as a reference to determine the duty rate was glyphosate acid 
because it is the common base of all forms of glyphosate exported from the PRC and 
produced  in  the  Community.  It  was  found  that  acid  accounts  for  55%  of  the 
manufacturing  costs  of  the  equivalent  quantity  of  standard  360  formulated  product. 
Moreover, the acid form represented more than 90% of the volume imported from the 
PRC during the investigation period. It is therefore considered that a duty established 
on the basis of data concerning glyphosate acid would be representative of all different 
forms of glyphosate imported from the PRC. 

(119)  For  the  purposes  of  calculating  the  price  increase  necessary  in  order  to  remove  the 
injurious  effects  of  dumping,  it  was  considered  appropriate  to  compare  the  prices  of 
the  dumped  imports  with  the  production  costs  of  glyphosate  acid  of  the  Community 
industry increased by an amount sufficient to achieve a reasonable level of profit. The 
Commission took the view that a profit margin of 5% represented a reasonable profit 
since  glyphosate  acid  is  a  commodity,  theoretically  sold  in  bulk  to  intermediate 
customers who bear the extra cost of formulation before selling it in the market to end 
users, as already considered in the original investigation. 

(120)  On this basis, the weighted average of the export prices for this product type for the IP, 
on  a  CIF  Community  frontier  level,  was  compared  with  the  weighted  average  total 
cost of production of the Community producers, increased to give by a profit margin 
of 5%. This comparison showed an underselling margin of 80%. 

(121)  Since  the  injury  margin  is  higher  than  the  dumping  margin  found,  the  anti-dumping 
duties  should  be  based  on  the  dumping  margin  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of 
Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation.  

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
(122)  In view of the findings above, it is considered appropriate that the anti-dumping duties 
imposed by the original measures should be set at the level mentioned below: 

Country  

Company  

Rate of AD duty 

People’s Republic of China  All exporting producers 

29,9% 

(123)  The anti-dumping duty in force in respect of glyphosate was extended by Regulation 
(EC)  No  163/20029  to  cover,  in  addition,  imports  of  glyphosate  consigned  from 
Malaysia and Taiwan, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or Taiwan or not. 
As a consequence of the fact that the anti-dumping duty, as calculated in this review, 
replaces  the  duty  in  force,  the  anti-dumping  duty  to  be  applied  to  imports  of  the 
product concerned, as set out in recital (122) above, should be extended to imports of 
glyphosate  consigned  from  Malaysia  and  Taiwan,  whether  declared  as  originating  in 
Malaysia or Taiwan or not. The two exporting producers who were exempted from the 
measures as extended by Regulation (EC) No 163/2002 should also be exempted from 
the measures as imposed by this Regulation. 

(124)  In  accordance  with  Article  20  of  the  basic  anti-dumping  Regulation,  all  parties 
concerned  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the  basis  of 
which it was intended to propose to reduce the level the existing measures. They were 
also  granted  a  period  within  which  to  make  representations  subsequent  to  that 
disclosure. The comments received have been taken into consideration. 

(125)  It follows from the above that, based on the findings of the review investigations, the 
anti-dumping  duties  imposed  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  368/98,  as  amended  by 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1086/2000  and  as  extended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  163/2002, 
should be lowered to 29,9% expressed as a percentage of the net free-at-Community 
frontier price before duty, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 

2. 

A  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  is  hereby  imposed  on  imports  of  glyphosate  falling 
within  CN  codes  ex  2931  00  95  (TARIC  code  2931  00  95  82)  and  ex  3808  30  27 
(TARIC code 3808 30 27 19) originating in the People’s Republic of China. 

The  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  mentioned  in  paragraph  1  is  hereby  extended  to 
imports of glyphosate consigned from Malaysia (whether declared as originating in 
Malaysia  or  not)  (TARIC  codes  2931  00  95  81  and  3808  30  27  11)  with  the 
exception of those produced by Crop Protection (M) Sdn. Bhd., Lot 746, Jalan Haji 
Sirat  4  1/2  Miles,  off  Jalan  Kapar,  42100  Klang,  Selangor  Darul  Ehsan,  Malaysia 
(TARIC additional code A309). 

9 

OJ L 30, 31.1.2002, p. 1. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3. 

4. 

5. 

The  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  mentioned  in  paragraph  1  is  hereby  extended  to 
imports  of  glyphosate  consigned  from  Taiwan  (whether  declared  as  originating  in 
Taiwan or not) (TARIC codes 2931 00 95 81 and 3808 30 27 11) with the exception 
of  those  produced  by  Sinon  Corporation,  No.  23,  Sec.  1,  Mei  Chuan  W.  Rd, 
Taichung, Taiwan (TARIC additional code A310). 

The  rate  of  duty  applicable  to  the  net,  free-at-Community-frontier  price  of  the 
products described in paragraphs 1 to 3, before duty, shall be 29,9%. 

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

The anti-dumping duties shall be imposed for a period of five years from the date of entry into 
force of this Regulation. 

Article 2 

Article 3 

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

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

Done at Brussels, […] 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

32 

   EN