Proposal for a Council Regulation extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 769/2002 on imports of coumarin originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of coumarin consigned from India or Thailand, whether declared as originating in India or Thailand or not
Date: 2004-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, India, Thailand, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, chemical compound, originating product

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 8.12.2004 
COM(2004) 779 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 769/2002 on 
imports of coumarin originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of 
coumarin consigned from India or Thailand, whether declared as originating in India or 
Thailand or not 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

By Regulation (EC) No 769/2002, the Council imposed, in May 2002, an anti-dumping duty 
of EUR 3479 per tonne on imports of coumarin originating in the People’s Republic of China 
(PRC). 

Following a request lodged by the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) on behalf of 
the sole producer in the Community, the Commission initiated in April 2004 an investigation 
into the alleged circumvention of the measures on imports of coumarin originating in the PRC 
by imports of coumarin consigned from India or Thailand. 

The  investigation  showed  a  significant  increase  in  the  imports  of  coumarin  into  the 
Community  from  India  and  Thailand.  For  these  practises  no  economic  justification  or 
sufficient due cause could be established other than the avoidance of the anti-dumping duty 
on coumarin.  

It  is  therefore  proposed  that  the  Council  adopt  the  attached  proposal  for  a  Regulation 
extending  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  of  EUR  3479  per  tonne  imposed  on  imports  of 
coumarin  originating  in  the  PRC  to  imports  of  coumarin  consigned  from  India  or  Thailand, 
whether declared as originating in India or Thailand or not, with the exemption of imports of 
coumarin  genuinely  produced  and  sold  by  Atlas  Fine  Chemicals  Pvt.  Ltd.  The  Regulation 
should be published in the Official Journal on 7 January 2005 at the latest. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 769/2002 on 
imports of coumarin originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of 
coumarin consigned from India or Thailand, whether declared as originating in India or 
Thailand or not 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 

Having  regard  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22  December  1995  on  protection 
against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community1 (‘the basic 
Regulation’), and in particular Article 13 thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

1. 

Existing measures 

A. PROCEDURE 

(1) 

Following  an  expiry  review,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  769/20022  (‘the  original 
Regulation’),  the  Council  imposed  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  of  EUR  3479  per 
tonne on imports of coumarin, falling within CN code ex 2932 21 00 originating in the 
People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’).  

2. 

Request 

(2) 

On 24 February 2004, the Commission received a request pursuant to Article 13(3) of 
the  basic  Regulation  to  investigate  the  alleged  circumvention  of  the  anti-dumping 
measures imposed on imports of coumarin originating in the PRC (‘the request’). The 
request  was  submitted  by  the  European  Chemical  Industry  Council  (CEFIC)  (‘the 
applicant’) on behalf of the sole producer in the Community. 

(3) 

The request alleged that there had been a change in the pattern of trade following the 
imposition  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  on  imports  of  coumarin  originating  in  the 

1 

2 

OJ  L  56,  6.3.1996,  p.  1.  Regulation  as  last  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  461/2004  (OJ  L  77, 
13.3.2004, p. 12). 
OJ  L  123,  9.5.2002,  p.  1.  Regulation  as  last  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1854/2003  (OJ  L  272, 
23.10.2003, p. 1). 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
PRC, as shown by a significant increase in imports of the same product from India and 
Thailand.  

(4) 

(5) 

This  change  in  the  pattern  of  trade  was  alleged  to  stem  from  the  transhipment  of 
coumarin  originating  in  the  PRC  via  India  and  Thailand.  It  was  further  alleged  that 
there was insufficient due cause or economic justification for these practices other than 
the existence of the anti-dumping measures on imports of coumarin originating in the 
PRC. 

Finally,  the  applicant  alleged  that  the  remedial  effects  of  the  existing  anti-dumping 
measures on coumarin originating in the PRC were being undermined both in terms of 
quantities  and  prices.  Significant  volumes  of  imports  of  coumarin  from  India  and 
Thailand  appeared  to  have  replaced  imports  of  coumarin  from  the  PRC.  In  addition, 
there  was  sufficient  evidence  that  the  increase  in  imports  was  made  at  prices  well 
below  the  non-injurious  price  established  in  the  investigation  that  led  to  the  existing 
measures,  and  that  dumping  was  taking  place  in  relation  to  the  normal  values 
previously established for coumarin originating in the PRC. 

3. 

Initiation 

(6) 

The  Commission  initiated  an  investigation  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  661/20043  (‘the 
initiating  Regulation’)  into  the  alleged  circumvention  of  the  anti-dumping  measures 
imposed  on  imports  of  coumarin  originating  in  the  PRC  by  imports  of  coumarin 
consigned from India or Thailand, whether declared as originating in India or Thailand 
or not and, pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, directed the 
customs authorities to register imports of coumarin consigned from India or Thailand, 
whether declared as originating in India or Thailand or not, falling within CN code ex 
2932 21 00 (TARIC codes 2932 21 00 11 and 2932 21 00 15), as from 9 April 2004. 
The  Commission  advised  the  authorities  of  the  PRC,  India  and  Thailand  of  the 
initiation of the investigation. 

4. 

Investigation 

(7) 

The Commission officially advised the authorities of the PRC, India and Thailand, the 
producers/exporters, the importers in the Community known to be concerned and the 
applicant  of  the  initiation  of  the  investigation.  Questionnaires  were  sent  to  the 
producers/exporters  in  the  PRC  and  India  (there  were  no  known  producers  in 
Thailand),  as  well  as  to  the  importers  in  the  Community  named  in  the  request  or 
known  to  the  Commission  from  the  investigation  which  led  to  the  imposition  of  the 
existing  measures.  Interested  parties  were  given  the  opportunity  to  make  their  views 
known  in  writing  and  to  request  a  hearing  within  the  time  limit  set  in  the  initiating 
Regulation.  All  parties  were  informed  that  non-cooperation  might  lead  to  the 
application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation and findings being made on the basis 
of the facts available. 

(8) 

No producer or exporter in the PRC or Thailand submitted a reply to the questionnaire. 
Replies to the questionnaire were received within the prescribed time limits from one 
exporting  producer  in  India  and  one  unrelated  importer  in  the  Community.  The 

3 

OJ L 104, 8.4.2004, p. 99. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
Commission  carried  out  a  verification  visit  at  the  premises  of  the  following  Indian 
exporting producer: 

– 

Atlas Fine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd, Nasik, India  

5. 

Investigation period 

(9) 

The  investigation  period  covered  the  period  from  1  April  2003  to  31  March  2004 
(‘IP’). Data from 2000 up to the end of the IP were collected to investigate the change 
in the pattern of trade.  

B. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION 

1. 

General considerations/degree of cooperation 

(a)  Thailand  

(10)  No  producers  or  exporters  of  coumarin  in  Thailand  made  themselves  known  or  co-
operated  in  the  investigation.  Accordingly,  findings  in  respect  of  the  exports  of 
coumarin consigned from Thailand to the Community had to be made on the basis of 
the facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. At the outset 
of  the  investigation,  the  authorities  of  Thailand  had  been  informed  of  the 
consequences of non-cooperation, as set out in Article 18(6) of the basic Regulation.  

(b) 

India  

(11)  One  exporting  producer  in  India,  Atlas  Fine  Chemicals  Pvt.  Ltd,  India  (‘Atlas’), 
cooperated, representing  more than 90% in volume and value of the total imports of 
coumarin from India during the IP.  

(12)  Atlas  had  stated  in  its  questionnaire  reply  that  none  of  its  related  companies  are 
involved,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  in  the  trade  and  manufacturing  of  coumarin. 
However, the verification visit revealed that Atlas has two related companies in India: 
Monolith  Chemicals  Pvt.  Ltd.  and  Aims  Impex  Pvt.  Ltd.  that  import  coumarin 
originating in the PRC into India and then sell the imported products to Atlas.  

(c)  PRC  

(13)  No Chinese producers or exporters co-operated in the investigation. 

(14) 

It was made clear to these companies that non-cooperation may lead to the application 
of Article 18 of the basic Regulation. They were also informed of the consequences of 
non-cooperation. 

2. 

Product concerned and like product 

(15)  The  product  concerned  by  the  alleged  circumvention  is,  as  defined  in  the  original 
Regulation, coumarin currently classifiable within CN code ex 2932 21 00. Coumarin 
is a whitish crystalline powder with the characteristic odour of newly mown hay. Its 
main uses are as an aroma chemical and as a fixative in the preparation of fragrance 
compounds,  such  compounds  being  used  in  the  production  of  detergents,  cosmetics 
and fine fragrances.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

(16)  Coumarin  can  be  manufactured  following  two  different  production  processes:  the 
Phenol  route  which  involves  Perkin  reaction  and  the  o-Cresol  route  which  involves 
Rasching reaction. However, coumarin produced through these two processes has the 
same basic physical and chemical characteristics and has the same uses.  

(17)  Based on the information gathered during the investigation from the sole cooperating 
Indian producer and in the absence of co-operation by any other Indian producers and 
by  any  parties  in  Thailand,  it  must  be  inferred,  in  the  absence  of  any  contrary 
evidence,  that  coumarin  exported  to  the  Community  from  the  PRC  and  coumarin 
consigned  from  India  and  Thailand  have  the  same  basic  physical  and  chemical 
characteristics  and  have  the  same  uses.  They  are  therefore  to  be  considered  as  like 
products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.  

3. 

Change in the pattern of trade 

(18)  As  stated  above,  the  change  in  the  pattern  of  the  trade  was  alleged  to  stem  from 

transhipment via India and Thailand.  

Thailand  

(19)  As  no  Thai  company  cooperated  in  the  investigation,  exports  from  Thailand  to  the 
Community had to be established on the basis of the facts available pursuant to Article 
18 of the basic Regulation. Eurostat data, which were the most appropriate information 
available, were therefore used to establish the export prices and quantities of imports 
from Thailand.  

(20) 

Imports of coumarin from Thailand increased from 0 tonne in 2000 to 211 tonnes in 
the IP. These imports from Thailand commenced in October 2001, some months after 
the initiation of expiry review concluded in 2002 (‘the previous investigation’), when 
it  could  not  be  excluded  that  the  measures  imposed  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
600/964 would be maintained. The share of the imports consigned from Thailand in the 
total volume of imports of coumarin into the Community increased from 0% in 2000 
to 50% in the IP, while the share of imports into the Community of coumarin from the 
PRC  remained  stable  at  7%  during  the  same  period.  In  addition,  Chinese  export 
statistics at CN code level show that during the same period exports of coumarin from 
the PRC in Thailand substantially increased from 1 tonne in 2000 to 270 tonnes in the 
IP. It was also noted that imports from Thailand have compensated to some extent for 
the  decrease  in  imports  from  the  PRC  since  measures  were  originally  imposed  by 
Regulation (EC) No 600/96. 

(21) 

In the absence of cooperation and of any contrary evidence it is concluded that there 
was a change in the pattern of trade between the PRC, Thailand and the Community 
from 2000 to the IP which stemmed from transhipment of coumarin originating in the 
PRC via Thailand. 

India  

(22)  The  share  of  the  imports  consigned  from  India  in  the  total  volume  of  imports  of 
coumarin into the Community increased from 11% in 2000 to 35% in the IP, while the 

4 

OJ L 86, 4.4.1996, p. 1. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
share of imports into the Community of coumarin from the PRC remained stable at 7% 
during the same period. Furthermore, Chinese export statistics at CN code level show 
that during the same period exports of coumarin from the PRC to India substantially 
increased  from  88  tonnes  in  2000  to  687  tonnes  in  the  IP.  It  was  also  noted  that 
imports from India have compensated to some extent for the decrease in imports from 
the PRC since measures were originally imposed by Regulation (EC) No 600/96. 

(a)  Co-operating exporting producer in India  

(23)  Atlas substantially and continuously increased its exports to the Community from 1005 
in  the  financial  year  (‘FY’)  2000/20016  to  1957  in  the  IP.  During  the  same  period 
Atlas increased substantially its purchase of coumarin originating in the PRC from 100 
in the FY 2000/2001 to 1411 in the IP. It is therefore concluded that Atlas decided to 
import coumarin of Chinese origin, and after a slight modification re-export it to the 
Community thereby increasing substantially the share of imports consigned from India 
to the Community. 

(b)  Non-cooperating companies 

(24)  The  request  mentioned  one  other  producer  in  India.  As  far  as  this  non-cooperating 
company is concerned, and indeed any other producers that may exist but have chosen 
not to co-operate, the export volume and value had to be established on the basis of the 
facts  available  pursuant  to  Article  18  of  the  basic  Regulation.  Eurostat  data,  which 
were the most appropriate information available, were therefore used to establish the 
export  prices  and  quantities  of  the  non-cooperating  companies.  On  that  basis,  it  was 
found that imports from the non-cooperating companies slightly decreased. Moreover, 
it  should  be  noted  that  the  imports  from  the  non-cooperating  companies  only 
represented  4-7%7  in  volume  and  value  of  the  total  imports  of  coumarin  from  India 
during  the  IP.  Given  the  non-cooperation  and  the  small  market  share  of  the  non-
cooperating  companies,  it  was  found  that  the  information  available  for  the  non-
cooperating  companies  was  not  such  as  to  invalidate  the  finding  of  a  change  in  the 
pattern of trade.  

(c)  Conclusion for India 

(25)  On  the  basis  of  the  above  findings,  it  is  concluded  that  there  was  a  change  in  the 
pattern of trade between India, the PRC and the Community from 2000 to the IP which 
stemmed from re-export after a slight modification of coumarin originating in the PRC 
via  India  by  the  co-operating  company  and  transhipment  of  coumarin  originating  in 
the PRC via India by non-co-operating companies. 

4. 

Insufficient due cause or economic justification 

Thailand 

(26)  As  to  imports  from  Thailand,  in  the  absence  of  cooperation  and  of  any  contrary 
evidence,  it  is  concluded  that,  given  that  the  imports  started  some  months  after  the 

5 
6 
7 

For reasons of confidentiality, data in this paragraph have been indexed.  
FY=financial year, covering the period from 1 April of one year to 31 March of the following year. 
Ranges given for confidentiality reasons. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
initiation  of  the  previous  investigation,  probably  in  anticipation  of  a  renewed 
imposition  of  the  existing  anti-dumping  measures,  the  change  in  the  pattern  of  trade 
stemmed from the existence of the anti-dumping measures rather than from any other 
sufficient due cause or economic justification within the meaning of Article 13(1) of 
the basic Regulation. 

India  

(27)  For  the  cooperating  Indian  exporting  producer,  Atlas,  it  was  found  that  it  imported 
coumarin  produced  via  the  o-Cresol  route  from  the  PRC  via  two  related  Indian 
companies.  The  imported  product  was  further  purified  by  Atlas  and  this  further 
purified  coumarin  was  then  re-exported  to  the  Community.  In  the  IP,  the  volume  of 
coumarin  subject  to  this  production  process  represented  75%8  of  Atlas’  total 
production volume. The remaining volume of 25%9 represented genuine production in 
India of coumarin from the Phenol route. As the CN code declared for the coumarin 
imported  from  the  PRC  and  the  one  declared  for  the  further  purified  coumarin  re-
exported by Atlas to the Community is the same, it is concluded that both products are 
the  same  and  therefore  the  product  re-exported  to  the  Community  keeps  its  Chinese 
origin. 

(28)  Atlas claimed that a CN code is just an indicative element to establish the origin of a 
product  and  that  the  further  purification  of  coumarin  has  to  be  considered  as  a  last 
substantial processing in an undertaking equipped for that purpose and resulting in the 
manufacture of a new product. Therefore in Atlas’ view, coumarin further purified by 
the company had Indian origin.  

(29) 

It  was  found  that  the  further  purification  of  coumarin,  already  suitable  for  the 
cosmetics industry, does not change the origin of that coumarin.  

(30)  Moreover, the investigation revealed that the cost of further purification of coumarin 
was not high and it was therefore concluded that this process only consisted in a slight 
modification  of  coumarin  to  improve  its  purity  and  not  in  the  manufacure  of  a  new 
product. Indeed, the further purified coumarin falls under the definition of the product 
concerned. This was not contested by Atlas. 

(31)  Atlas  also  claimed  that  in  assessing  whether  the  processing  was  to  be  considered 
substantial, the value of coumarin imported from the PRC that was lost in the further 
purification process should be treated as a cost generated by the purification process. 
However,  the  value  of  coumarin  lost  in  the  purification  process  is  incurred  at  the 
moment when such coumarin is purchased. Therefore it cannot be considered as a cost 
generated by the purification process itself.  

(32)  The  company  also  added  that  the  main  reason  to  export  coumarin  originating  in  the 
PRC was the insecurity due to the risk of strikes in India. However, even if the risk of 
strikes were, as such, considered to be a possible justification for company decisions, 
strikes can influence both production processes applied by Atlas, i.e. the production of 
Indian  coumarin  from  the  Phenol  route  and  the  purification  of  coumarin  from  the  o-
Cresol route originating in the PRC. Strikes therefore do not appear to be a sufficient 

8 
9 

For reasons of confidentiality, precise data are not given. 
For reasons of confidentiality, precise data are not given. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
justification  for  the  fact  that  the  portion  of  the  coumarin  originating  in  the  PRC  and 
used by Atlas in the production process increased from around 25% in 2000 to more 
than 70% in the IP10.  

(33) 

It  is  therefore  concluded  that  the  change  in  the  pattern  of  trade  stemmed  from  the 
existence of the anti-dumping measures rather than from any other sufficient due cause 
or economic justification within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation. 

(34)  As  far  as  the  non-cooperating  companies  in  India  are  concerned,  their  exports 
decreased  after  the  FY  2001/2002,  as  Atlas  sharply  increased  its  market  share,  but, 
given  the  small  quantities  involved,  this  was  found  not  to  affect  the  finding  of  a 
change in the pattern of trade. 

Undermining of the remedial effects of the duty in terms of the prices and/or the 

5. 
quantities of the like products 

Thailand 

(35)  Based on the trade flow analysis made above, it was found that a change in the pattern 
of the Community imports is linked to the fact that there were anti-dumping measures 
in  place.  While  imports  declared  as  originating  in  Thailand  were  absent  on  the 
Community market  until  October 2001,  they amounted to 211 tonnes in the IP. This 
volume  represented  30.7%  of  the  Community  consumption  during  the  IP  of  the 
previous investigation.  

(36)  The investigation revealed that the average prices of imports from Thailand were even 
lower  than  the  prices  of  imports  from  the  PRC  in  the  previous  investigation  and 
therefore lower than the prices of the Community industry. Average prices of imports 
from Thailand were also 20% lower than the Chinese export prices during the IP of the 
current investigation. 

(37)  On the basis of the above, it is concluded that the change in trade flows, together with 
the  abnormally  low  prices  of  exports  from  Thailand  have  undermined  the  remedial 
effects of the anti-dumping measures both in terms of quantities and prices of the like 
products. 

India 

(38)  Based on the trade flow analysis made above, it was found that a change in the pattern 
of  trade  is  linked  to  the  fact  that  there  were  anti-dumping  measures  in  place.  While 
imports consigned from India represented only 11% of the total volume of imports of 
coumarin into the Community in 2000, they amounted to 35% in the IP. This volume 
represented  18-22%11  of  the  Community  consumption  during  the  IP  of  the  previous 
investigation. 

(39)  The  investigation  revealed  that  the  average  prices  of  imports  from  India  were  even 
lower  than  the  prices  of  imports  from  the  PRC  in  the  previous  investigation  and 
therefore lower than the prices of the Community industry. Average prices of imports 

10 
11 

For reasons of confidentiality, precise data are not given. 
Ranges given for confidentiality reasons. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
from  India  were  also  14%  lower  than  the  Chinese  export  prices  during  the  IP  of  the 
current investigation. 

(40)  On the basis of the above, it is concluded that the change in trade flows, together with 
the abnormally low prices of exports from India have undermined the remedial effects 
of  the  anti-dumping  measures  both  in  terms  of  quantities  and  prices  of  the  like 
products. 

(41)  Atlas  claimed  that  it  is  unreasonable  to  compare  Chinese  export  prices  to  the 
Community in 1994 (i.e. the IP used in the investigation which lead to the imposition 
of the original measures in 1996) with Indian export prices to the same market today 
because ten years have lapsed between the two IPs.  

(42)  However,  the  reality  is  that  Indian  export  prices  were  compared  with  the  Chinese 

export prices established in the IP of the expiry review concluded in 2002. 

Evidence of dumping in relation to the normal values previously established for 

6. 
like or similar products 

Thailand 

(43) 

In order to determine whether evidence of dumping could be found with respect to the 
product concerned exported to the Community from Thailand during the IP, Eurostat 
data were used pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation. 

(44)  Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation requires evidence of dumping in relation to the 

normal value previously established for the like or similar products.  

(45)  For the purpose of a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, 
due  allowance,  in  the  form  of  adjustments,  was  made  for  differences  which  affect 
prices  and  price  comparability.  These  adjustments  were  made  in  accordance  with 
Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation in respect of transport and insurance, on the basis 
of the facts available, i.e. as given in the request, in accordance with Article 18 of the 
basic Regulation. 

(46) 

In accordance with Articles 2(11) and 2(12) of the basic Regulation, the comparison of 
the weighted average normal value as established in the previous investigation and the 
weighted  average  of  export  prices  during  this  investigation’s  IP,  expressed  as  a 
percentage of the CIF price at the Community frontier, duty unpaid, showed dumping 
for  the  imports  of  coumarin  to  the  Community  from  Thailand.  The  dumping  margin 
found,  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  CIF  price  at  the  Community  frontier,  duty 
unpaid, was above 100%. 

India 

(47) 

In order to determine whether evidence of dumping could be found with respect to the 
product concerned exported to the Community from India during the IP, export prices 
provided by the Indian cooperating producer and, for the non-cooperating companies 
Eurostat data were used pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

(a)  Co-operating exporting producer 

(48)  For the purpose of a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price for 
Atlas,  due  allowance,  in  the  form  of  adjustments,  was  made  for  differences  which 
affect  prices  and  price  comparability.  These  adjustments  were  made  in  accordance 
with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation in respect of transport, insurance, handling 
and  ancillary  costs,  packing  and  currency  conversions,  on  the  basis  of  data  provided 
by Atlas.  

(49) 

In accordance with Articles 2(11) and 2(12) of the basic Regulation, the comparison of 
the weighted average normal value as established in the previous investigation and the 
weighted  average  of  export  prices  during  this  investigation’s  IP,  expressed  as  a 
percentage of the CIF price at the Community frontier, duty unpaid, showed dumping 
for  the  imports  of  coumarin  consigned  by  Atlas.  The  dumping  margin  found, 
expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  CIF  price  at  the  Community  frontier,  duty  unpaid, 
was above 80%.  

(50)  Atlas claimed that the comparison of the weighted average normal value as established 
in  the  previous  investigation  and  weighted  average  of  export  prices  during  this 
investigation’s  IP  gave  incorrect  conclusion  because  the time  difference  between  the 
IPs of the two investigations is ten years.  

(51)  However, the Commission took data for the weighted average normal value from the 
expiry review which was concluded in 2002 and therefore the time difference between 
the  IPs  of  the  two  investigations  is  only  two  years.  This  is  in  line  with  the 
requirements of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation. 

(b)  Non-cooperating companies 

(52)  For the purpose of a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, 
due  allowance,  in  the  form  of  adjustments,  was  made  for  differences  which  affect 
prices  and  price  comparability.  These  adjustments  were  made  in  accordance  with 
Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation in respect of transport, insurance, handling and 
ancillary costs, packing and currency conversions, on the basis of data given by Atlas.  

(53) 

In accordance with Articles 2(11) and 2(12) of the basic Regulation, the comparison of 
the weighted average normal value as established in the previous investigation and the 
weighted  average  of  export  prices  during  this  investigation’s  IP,  expressed  as  a 
percentage of the CIF price at the Community frontier, duty unpaid, showed dumping 
for the imports of coumarin to the Community from the non-cooperating companies in 
India.  The  dumping  margin  found,  expressed  as a percentage of the CIF price at the 
Community frontier, duty unpaid, was above 60%. 

C. MEASURES 

(54) 

In view of the above findings of circumvention within the meaning of Article 13(1) of 
the  basic  Regulation,  the  existing  anti-dumping  measures  on  imports  of  the  product 
concerned originating in the PRC should be extended to the same product consigned 
from India and Thailand, whether declared as originating in India or Thailand or not. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

(55)  The  duty  extended  should  be  the  one  established  in  Article  1(2)  of  the  original 

Regulation. 

(56)  Pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, which provide that any 
extended  measures  shall  be  applied  against  registered  imports  from  the  date  of 
registration,  the  anti-dumping  duty  should  be  collected  on  imports  of  coumarin 
consigned  from  India  and  Thailand  which  entered  the  Community  under  registration 
imposed  by  the  initiating  Regulation.  However,  given  the  fungible  nature  of  the 
product and the particular circumstances of this case, it was not possible to segregate 
with  certainty  transactions  relating  to  coumarin  genuinely  produced  in  India  from 
those relating to coumarin imported from China, further purified and subsequently re-
exported to the Community. Consequently, the retroactive collection of the extended 
anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  coumarin  consigned  from  India  should  not  be 
applicable to imports of coumarin exported by Atlas during the registration period.  

D. REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION  
OR EXTENSION OF THE DUTY  

(57)  The  sole  cooperating  exporting  producer,  Atlas,  lodged  a  request  for  the  exemption 
from the registration and the envisaged extended anti-dumping measures, pursuant to 
Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation. 

(58)  The investigation revealed that Atlas had circumvented the anti-dumping measures in 
force  through  re-export,  after  a  slight  modification,  of  coumarin  originating  in  the 
PRC. It was also found that Atlas had exported to the Community coumarin genuinely 
produced in India from the Phenol route (see recital 27). According to Article 13(4) of 
the  basic  Regulation,  the  fact  that  Atlas  was  involved  in  circumventing  practices 
disqualifies it for the obtention of an exemption.  

E. UNDERTAKING 

(59)  However, given the fungible nature of the product and the difficulties encountered by 
Atlas  during  the  IP  to  distinguish  products  manufactured  in  India  from  the  Phenol 
route  and  Chinese  originating  coumarin  further  purified  and  re-exported  to  the 
Community, it is exceptionally considered appropriate to accept an undertaking from 
Atlas,  whereby  the  company  would  sell  to  the  Community  coumarin  genuinely 
produced in India up to a quantitative ceiling corresponding to the quantity of such a 
product  sold  to  the  Community  during  the  IP.  Coumarin  sold  under  the  undertaking 
would not be subject to the payment of the extended duty.  

(60)  This  undertaking  from  Atlas  may  be  accepted  by  the  Commission  by  a  Commission 

Decision.  

(61) 

In  this  context,  Atlas  has  undertaken  to  provide  the  Commission  with  regular  and 
detailed  information  concerning  its  exports  to  the  Community,  meaning  that  the 
undertaking can be monitored effectively by the Commission.  

(62)  To  further  enable  the  Commission  to  effectively  monitor  the  compliance  of  the 
company  with  the  undertaking,  when  the  request  for  release  for  free  circulation  is 
presented to the relevant customs authority, exemption from the anti-dumping duty is 
to  be  conditional  on  the  presentation  of  a  commercial  invoice  containing  at  least  the 
elements  listed  in  the  Annex.  This  level  of  information  is  also  necessary  to  enable 

EN 

12 

   EN 

customs authorities to ascertain with sufficient precision that shipments correspond to 
the commercial documents. Where no such invoice is presented, or when it does not 
correspond to the product presented to customs, the appropriate rate of anti-dumping 
duty will instead be payable.   

In view of this, the offer of an undertaking is therefore considered acceptable and the 
company  concerned  has  been  informed  of  the  essential  facts,  considerations  and 
obligations upon which acceptance is based. 

(63) 

If  Atlas  breaches  the  undertaking  or  if  the  undertaking  was  proved  to  be  otherwise 
unworkable, the Commission may withdraw its acceptance, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

2. 

Article 1 

The definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 769/2002 
on  imports  of  coumarin,  falling  within  CN  code  ex  2932  21  00  originating  in  the 
People’s Republic of China is hereby extended to imports of coumarin, falling within 
CN  code  ex  2932  21  00  consigned  from  India  or  Thailand,  whether  declared  as 
originating in India or Thailand or not (TARIC codes 2932 21 00 11 and 2932 21 00 
15). 

The  duty  extended  by  paragraph  1  of  this  Article  shall  be  collected  on  imports 
registered in accordance with Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 661/2004 
and  Articles  13(3)  and  14(5)  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96,  with  the 
exception  of  the  goods  exported  by  Atlas  Fine  Chemicals  Pvt  Ltd.,  Debhanu 
Mansion, Nasik-Pune Highway, Nasik Road, MS 422 101, India, (TARIC additional 
code A579).  

Notwithstanding paragraph 1 above, the definitive anti-dumping duty shall not apply 
to imports released for free circulation in accordance with Article 2.  

The provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply. 

Article 2  

Imports  declared  for  release  into  free  circulation  shall  be  exempt  from  the  anti-
dumping  duty  imposed  by  Article  1  provided  that  they  are  produced  by  companies 
from  which  undertakings  are  accepted  by  the  Commission  and  whose  names  are 
listed in the relevant Commission Decision, as from time to time amended and have 
been imported in conformity with the provision of the same Commission Decision. 

Imports  mentioned  in  paragraph  1  shall  be  exempt  from  the  anti-dumping  duty  on 
condition that: 

(a) 

a  commercial  invoice  containing  at  least  the  elements  listed  in  the  Annex  is 
presented  to  Member  States'  customs  authorities  upon  presentation  of  the 
declaration for release into free circulation; 

(b) 

the  goods  declared  and  presented  to  customs  correspond  precisely  to  the 
description on the commercial invoice. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
Article 3 

1. 

Requests for exemption from the duty extended by Article 1 shall be made in writing 
in one of  the  official languages of the Community and must be signed by a person 
authorised  to  represent  the  applicant.  The  request  must  be  sent  to  the  following 
address: 

European Commission 
Directorate-General for Trade 
Directorate B  
Office: J-79 05/17 
B - 1049 Brussels 
Fax (32 2) 295 65 05  
Telex COMEU B 21877. 

2. 

The  Commission,  after  consulting  the  Advisory  Committee,  may  authorise,  by 
decision, the exemption of imports from companies which made such a request from 
the duty extended by Article 1. 

Customs authorities are hereby directed to discontinue the registration of imports, established 
in accordance with Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 661/2004. 

Article 4 

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

Article 5 

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

Done at Brussels, 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The  following  elements  shall  be  indicated  on  the  commercial  invoice  accompanying  the 
company's sales of coumarin to the Community which are subject to the Undertaking: 

ANNEX  

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

The  heading  "COMMERCIAL  INVOICE  ACCOMPANYING  GOODS  SUBJECT 
TO AN UNDERTAKING" 

The name of the company referred to in Article 2.1 issuing the commercial invoice 

The commercial invoice number 

The date of issue of the commercial invoice 

The TARIC additional code under which the goods on the invoice are to be customs 
cleared at the Community frontier  

The exact description of the goods, including: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Product Code Number (PCN) used for the purposes of the investigation and the 
undertaking; 

plain  language  description  of  the  goods  corresponding  to  the  PCN  concerned 
(e.g. "PCN …..); 

company product code number (CPC) (if applicable); 

CN code; 

quantity (to be given in KG). 

Name  of  the  company  acting  as  an  importer  in  the  Community  to  which  the 
commercial invoice accompanying goods subject to an undertaking is issued directly 
by the company. 

The name of the official of the company that has issued the invoice and the following 
signed declaration: 

“I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for direct export to the European Community of the 
goods  covered  by  this  invoice  is  being  made  within  the  scope  and  under  the  terms  of  the 
undertaking  offered  by  [company],  and  accepted  by  the  European  Commission  through 
Decision  [INSERT  NUMBER].  I  declare  that  the  information  provided  in  this  invoice  is 
complete and correct.” 

EN 

15 

   EN