Council Regulation (EC) No 2272/2004 of 22 December 2004 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: 2004-12-22
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: China, India, Thailand, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, chemical compound, originating product

L 396/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.12.2004

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2272/2004

of 22 December 2004

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
Community,

establishing the European

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22
December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from
(‘the
countries not members of the European Community (1)
basic Regulation’, and in particular Article 13 thereof,

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

Whereas:

A. PROCEDURE

1. Existing measures

(1)

(2)

Following an expiry review, by Regulation (EC) No
(‘the original Regulation’)
769/2002 (2)
the Council
imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty of EUR 3 479
per tonne on imports of coumarin, falling within CN
code
People's
Republic of China (‘PRC’).

ex 2932 21 00

originating

the

in

2. Request

On 24 February 2004,
the Commission received a
request pursuant to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation
the anti-
to investigate the alleged circumvention of
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.

(1) 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).

(2) 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).

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

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

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 origi-
nating 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

The Commission initiated an investigation by Regulation
(EC) No 661/2004 (3) (‘the initiating Regulation’) into the
the anti-dumping measures
alleged circumvention of
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
the basic Regulation, directed the customs
14(5) of
authorities to register imports of coumarin consigned
from India or Thailand, whether declared as originating
falling within CN code
in India or Thailand or not,
and
ex 2932 21 00
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.

(TARIC codes

2932 21 00 11

(3) OJ L 104, 8.4.2004, p. 99.

31.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 396/19

4. Investigation

operation, as set out in Article 18(6) of the basic Regu-
lation.

(7)

India and Thailand,

the producers/exporters,

The Commission officially advised the authorities of the
PRC,
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
application of
Article 18 of the basic Regulation and findings being
made on the basis of the facts available.

lead to the

(8)

in the PRC or Thailand
No producer or exporter
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 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) T h a i l a n d

findings

(10) No producers or exporters of coumarin in Thailand made
themselves known or cooperated in the investigation.
the exports of
Accordingly,
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
the consequences of non-co-
had been informed of

in respect of

(b) I n d i a

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

are

involved,

(12) Atlas had stated in its questionnaire reply that none of its
related companies
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 origi-
nating in the PRC into India and then sell the imported
products to Atlas.

(c) P R C

(13) No Chinese producers or exporters cooperated in the

investigation.

(14)

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

(15)

(16)

2. Product concerned and like product

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
in the preparation of
chemical and as a fixative
fragrance compounds, such compounds being used in
the production of detergents,
and fine
fragrances.

cosmetics

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

reaction. However,

coumarin
the

L 396/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.12.2004

(17)

Based on the information gathered during the investi-
gation from the sole cooperating Indian producer and
in the absence of cooperation by any other
Indian
producers and by any parties in Thailand,
it must be
in the absence of any contrary evidence, that
inferred,
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.

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.

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.

(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.

I n d i a

(22)

T h a i l a n d

(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
the basic Regulation. Eurostat data,
to Article 18 of
which were the most appropriate information available,
were therefore used to establish the export prices and
quantities of imports from Thailand.

volume of

imports of

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

coumarin from the PRC to India

(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,
the initiation of expiry review
some months after
concluded in 2002 (‘the previous investigation’), when
it could not be excluded that the measures imposed by
Council Regulation (EC) No 600/96 of 25 March 1996
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
coumarin originating in the People's Republic of China (1)
would be maintained. 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

share of

the

(a) Cooperating exporting producer in India

(23) Atlas substantially and continuously increased its exports
to the Community from 100 (2) in the financial year (‘FY’)
2000/2001 (3)
to 1 957 in the IP. During the same
period Atlas
increased substantially its purchase of
coumarin originating in the PRC from 100 in the FY
therefore
2000/2001 to 1 411 in the
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
to the
Community.

from India

consigned

imports

IP.

is

It

(2) For reasons of confidentiality, data in this paragraph have been

indexed.

(3) Covering the period from 1 April of one year to 31 March of the

(1) OJ L 86, 4.4.1996, p. 1.

following year.

31.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 396/21

(b) Non-cooperating companies

(24)

the

to cooperate,

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
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 infor-
mation available, were therefore used to establish the
the non-cooperating
export prices and quantities of
companies. On that basis,
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 % (1) 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
the
was
non-cooperating companies was not such as to invali-
date the finding of a change in the pattern of trade.

information available

it was found that

found that

the

for

(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 origi-
nating in the PRC via
India by non-cooperating
companies.

4. Insufficient due cause or economic justification

T h a i l a n d

(26) As to imports from Thailand,

in the absence of co-
operation and of any contrary evidence, it is concluded
that, given that the imports started some months after
the 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
anti-dumping
stemmed from the
measures rather
than from any other sufficient due
cause or economic justification within the meaning of
Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation.

existence of

the

I n d i a

(27)

For the cooperating Indian exporting producer, Atlas, it
was found that it imported coumarin produced via the o-

route from the PRC via two related Indian
Cresol
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 repre-
sented 75 % (2) of Atlas' total production volume. The
remaining
represented genuine
production in India of coumarin from the Phenol
route. As
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,
is concluded that both
it
products are the same and therefore the product re-
exported to the Community keeps its Chinese origin.

the CN code declared for

volume of 25 % (2)

(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,

therefore

concluded

the cost of
the investigation revealed that
further purification of coumarin was not high and it
was
only
consisted in a slight modification of coumarin to
improve its purity and not
in the manufacture of a
new product. Indeed, the further purified coumarin falls
under the definition of the product concerned. This was
not contested by Atlas.

process

that

this

(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.

(1) Ranges given for confidentiality reasons.

(2) For reasons of confidentiality, precise data are not given.

L 396/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.12.2004

(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 justifi-
cation 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 puri-
fication of coumarin from the o-Cresol route originating
in the PRC. Strikes therefore do not appear to be a
sufficient 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 IP (1).

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.

(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.

(38)

their

(34) As far as the non-cooperating companies in India are
concerned,
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.

decreased

exports

after

the

I n d i a

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.
represented
the
Community consumption during the IP of the previous
investigation.

18-22 % (2)

volume

This

of

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

like products

T h a i l a n d

(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
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.

that

(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
the Community
therefore lower
than the prices of
industry. Average prices of
imports 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.

(36)

The investigation revealed that
the average prices of
imports from Thailand were even lower than the prices

(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.

(1) For reasons of confidentiality, precise data are not given.

(2) Ranges given for confidentiality reasons.

31.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 396/23

(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.

Eurostat data were used pursuant to Article 18 of the
basic Regulation.

6. Evidence of dumping in relation to the normal
similar
value previously established for

like or

products

T h a i l a n d

(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.

(48)

(49)

(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.

(a) Cooperating exporting producer

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
insurance, handling
Regulation in respect of transport,
and ancillary costs, packing and currency conversions,
on the basis of data provided by Atlas.

the comparison of

In accordance with Articles 2(11) and 2(12) of the basic
Regulation,
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 %.

(45)

(46)

(47)

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.

the comparison of

In accordance with Articles 2(11) and 2(12) of the basic
Regulation,
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 %.

I n d i a

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,
Indian cooperating
export prices provided by the
companies
producer

the non-cooperating

and,

for

(50) Atlas claimed that

the comparison of

the weighted
average normal value as established in the previous inves-
tigation 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.

L 396/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.12.2004

(53)

the comparison of

In accordance with Articles 2(11) and 2(12) of the basic
Regulation,
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 %.

(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.

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.

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 excep-
tionally 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.

(55)

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

(60)

This undertaking from Atlas may be accepted by the
Commission by a Commission Decision.

(56)

Pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regu-
lation, 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 regis-
tration imposed by the initiating Regulation. However,
the product and the
given the fungible nature of
particular
it was not
possible to segregate with certainty transactions relating
to coumarin genuinely produced in India from those
further
relating to coumarin imported from China,
purified
the
subsequently
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 regis-
tration period.

circumstances of

re-exported

case,

and

this

to

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

(61)

(62)

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

for

release for

To further enable the Commission to effectively monitor
the compliance of the company with the undertaking,
free circulation is
when the request
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 infor-
mation is also necessary to enable customs authorities
to ascertain with sufficient precision that shipments
correspond to the commercial documents. Where no
is presented, or when it does not
such invoice
the
correspond to the product presented to customs,
appropriate rate of anti-dumping duty will
instead be
payable.

(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.

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.

31.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 396/25

(63)

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

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.
The definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation
(EC) No 769/2002 on imports of coumarin, falling within CN
code ex 2932 21 00 originating in the People's Republic of
falling
China is hereby extended to imports of coumarin,
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).

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

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
to the
the applicant. The request must be sent
represent
following address:

2.
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 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).

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.

Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the definitive anti-dumping
3.
duty shall not apply to imports released for free circulation in
accordance with Article 2.

The provisions in force concerning customs duties shall

4.
apply.

The

Commission,

2.
the Advisory
the exemption of
Committee, may authorise, by decision,
imports from companies which made such a request from the
duty extended by Article 1(1).

consulting

after

Article 2

Article 4

Imports declared for release into free circulation shall be
1.
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 that Decision.

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

Article 5

Imports referred to in paragraph 1 shall be exempt from

2.
the anti-dumping duty on condition that:

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

L 396/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.12.2004

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

Done at Brussels, 22 December 2004.

For the Council
The President

C. VEERMAN

31.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 396/27

ANNEX

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

1. The heading ‘COMMERCIAL INVOICE ACCOMPANYING GOODS SUBJECT TO AN UNDERTAKING’

2. The name of the company referred to in Article 2(1) issuing the commercial invoice

3. The commercial invoice number

4. The date of issue of the commercial invoice

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

frontier

6. 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 kilograms).

7. 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.

8. 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.’