Council Regulation (EC) No 83/2005 of 18 January 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 on imports of polyethylene terephthalate originating inter alia in the Republic of Korea and Taiwan
Date: 2005-01-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: South Korea, Taiwan, anti-dumping legislation, import, originating product, plastics

21.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 83/2005

of 18 January 2005

amending Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 on imports of polyethylene terephthalate originating
inter alia in the Republic of Korea and Taiwan

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
countries not members of the European Community (1)
(the
‘basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 11(3) thereof,

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

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

A. PROCEDURE

1. Measures in force

The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 (2) (the
‘definitive Regulation’),
imposed definitive anti-dumping
duties on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
originating in India,
the Republic
of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand.

Indonesia, Malaysia,

2. Present investigation

On 22 May 2003, the Commission announced, by a
notice published in the Official
the European
Union (3), the initiation of an interim review of the anti-
into the
dumping measures
Community of PET originating in the Republic of
Korea and Taiwan (the ‘countries concerned’).

to imports

applicable

Journal of

(‘the

in Europe

The interim review was initiated as a result of a request
lodged in April 2003 by the Association of Plastic Manu-
applicant’) on behalf of
facturers
producers representing a major proportion, in this case
more than 80 %, of the total Community production of
facie
PET. The
evidence that dumping and injury had recurred and
that the existing measures were no longer sufficient to
counteract the injurious dumping. The evidence provided
was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a full

contained sufficient prima

request

(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 301, 30.11.2000, p. 21. Regulation as last amended by Regu-

lation (EC) No 823/2004 (OJ L 127, 29.4.2004, p. 7).

(3) OJ C 120, 22.5.2003, p. 13.

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

interim review of
Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.

the existing measures, pursuant

to

On 30 June 2004, the applicant withdrew its request for
the interim review.

in view of

it was considered that,

Nevertheless,
the
evidence available and the preliminary findings already
obtained in the course of the investigation, the conti-
nuation of the investigation ex officio on dumping only
was warranted. With regard to all other aspects of the
review investigation, it was found that the interim review
should be terminated following the withdrawal of the
request. This approach has been communicated to all
interested parties, none of which made any comment.

3. Other proceedings

On 22 May 2003, the Commission announced, by a
notice published in the Official
the European
Union (4), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding
with regard to imports into the Community of PET origi-
nating in Australia, the People's Republic of China (‘PRC’)
and Pakistan.

Journal of

By Regulation (EC) No 306/2004 (5), the Commission
imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports
of PET originating in Australia, the PRC and Pakistan.
By Regulation (EC) No 1467/2004 (6),
the Council
imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of
PET originating in Australia and the PRC and terminated
the proceeding on imports of PET originating in Pakistan.

4. Parties concerned by the investigation

The Commission services officially advised the applicant,
the Community producers included in the complaint, the
other Community producers,
the exporting producers,
importers, suppliers and users as well as associations
known to be concerned, and representatives of
the
Republic of Korea and Taiwan, of the opening of the
investigation.
Interested parties were given an oppor-
tunity to make their views known in writing and to
in the
request a hearing within the time limit
notice of initiation.

set

(4) OJ C 120, 22.5.2003, p. 9.
(5) OJ L 52, 21.2.2004, p. 5.
(6) OJ L 271, 19.8.2004, p. 1.

L 19/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.1.2005

(9)

cooperating Community producers,

The Community producers represented by the applicant,
other
exporting
importers, suppliers, users and user asso-
producers,
ciations made their views known. All
interested parties
who so requested were granted a hearing.

(b) Exporting producers/exporters in the Republic of

Korea

— Daehan Synthetic Fiber Co. Ltd, Seoul

— SK Chemicals Co. Ltd, Seoul

— KP Chemical Corp., Seoul

(10) Questionnaires were sent

producers

to all parties known to be
concerned and to all the other companies that made
themselves known within the deadlines set out in the
initiation. Replies were received from the
notice of
the
seven Community
applicant;
three
exporting producers in the Republic of Korea, including
one company not currently subject to an individual duty
rate; four exporting producers in Taiwan, including one
company not currently subject to an individual duty rate;
and two suppliers, two related importers, four unrelated
importers and nine unrelated users in the Community.

four other Community producers;

represented

by

(11)

In the notice of initiation, it was indicated that sampling
may be applied in this investigation. However, given that
the number of exporting producers in the countries
concerned which
to
cooperate was lower than expected, it was decided that
sampling was not required.

their willingness

indicated

(12)

The Commission services sought and verified all
the
information deemed necessary for determination of
dumping and resulting injury and carried out verifi-
cations at the premises of the following companies:

(c) Exporting producers in Taiwan

— Far Eastern Textile Ltd, Taipei

— Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corp., Taipei

— Hualon Corp., Taipei

(d) Related importers

— SK Networks, Seoul, Republic of Korea

— SK Global (Belgium) N.V., Antwerp, Belgium

(e) Unrelated importers

— Mitsubishi Chemicals, Düsseldorf, Germany

— Helm AG, Hamburg, Germany

— Global Services International, Milano, Italy

— SABIC Italia, Milano, Italy

(f) Community suppliers

— Interquisa SA, Madrid, Spain

(a) Community producers

— BP

Chemicals,

Sunbury-on-Thames, United

— Aussapol SpA, San Giorgio Di Nogaro (UD), Italy

Kingdom

— Brilen SA, Zaragoza, Spain

— Catalana di Polimers, Barcelona, Spain

— Dupont
Kingdom

Sabanci

SA, Middlesbrough, United

— INCA International, Milano, Italy

— KoSa, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

— M & G Finanziaria Industriale, Milano, Italy

— Tergal Fibres, Gauchy, France

— VPI SA, Athens, Greece

— Voridian, Rotterdam, Netherlands

— Wellman PET Resins, Arnhem, Netherlands

(g) Community users

— Danone Waters Group, Paris, France

— Aqua Minerale San Benedetto, Scorze (VE), Italy

— RBC Cobelplast Mononate, Varese, Italy

— Nestlé Espana SA, Barcelona, Spain

5. Investigation period

(13)

The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1
April 2002 to 31 March 2003 (‘IP’).

21.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/3

6. Product concerned and like product

6.1. Product concerned

(14)

The product concerned is the same as in the original
i.e. PET with a viscosity number of
investigation,
78 ml/g or higher, according to the ISO Standard
1628-5, originating in the Republic of Korea and
Taiwan,
CN code
3907 60 20.

classifiable within

currently

6.2. Like product

(15) As in the original

investigation it was found that PET
produced and sold on the domestic market of
the
Republic of Korea and Taiwan and PET produced and
same basic
exported to the Community have
physical and chemical characteristics and uses.
is
types of PET with a
therefore concluded that all
viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher are alike within
the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

the

It

(20) An examination was also made as

to whether

the
domestic sales of each type of PET could be regarded
as having been made in the ordinary course of trade,
by establishing the proportion of profitable sales to inde-
pendent customers of the PET type in question. In cases
where the sales volume of a PET type, sold at a net sales
price equal to or above the calculated cost of production,
represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume of
that type, and where the weighted average price of that
to or above the cost of production,
type was equal
normal value was based on the actual domestic price,
the prices of all
calculated as a weighted average of
domestic sales of that type made during the IP,
irre-
spective of whether these sales were profitable or not.
In cases where the volume of profitable sales of PET type
represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that
type, or where the weighted average price of that type
was below the cost of production, normal value was
based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a
weighted average of profitable sales of that type only,
provided that these sales represented 10 % or more of
the total sales volume of that type.

B. DUMPING

1. General methodology

(21)

It was found that profitable sales of all types of PET
represented 10 % or more of the total sales volume of
that type.

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

The general methodology set out below has been applied
to all exporting producers in the Republic of Korea and
Taiwan and is the same as that used in the original
investigation. The presentation of
findings on
dumping for each of the countries concerned therefore
only describes what
specific for each exporting
country.

the

is

1.1. Normal value

For the determination of normal value, it was first estab-
lished,
for each exporting producer, whether its total
domestic sales of the product concerned were represen-
tative in comparison with its total export sales to the
Community.
the
basic Regulation, domestic sales were considered repre-
sentative when the total domestic sales volume of each
exporting producer was at least 5 % of its total export
sales volume to the Community.

In accordance with Article 2(2) of

Subsequently, those types of PET sold domestically by the
companies having overall representative domestic sales,
and that were identical or directly comparable to the
types sold for export to the Community, were identified.

For each type sold by the exporting producers on their
domestic markets and found to be directly comparable to
the type of PET sold for export to the Community, it was
established whether domestic sales were sufficiently
representative for the purposes of Article 2(2) of the
basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular type of
PET were considered sufficiently representative when the
total domestic sales volume of that type during the IP
represented 5 % or more of the total sales volume of the
comparable PET type exported to the Community.

(22)

(23)

(24)

1.2. Export price

In all cases where the product concerned was exported to
independent customers in the Community, the export
price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of
the basic Regulation, namely on the basis of export
prices actually paid or payable.

In cases where sales were made via a related importer,
the export price was constructed on the basis of the
that related importer to independent
resale prices of
costs
customers. Adjustments were made
all
incurred between importation and resale by
that
including sales, general and administrative
importer,
expenses, and a reasonable profit margin, in accordance
with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation. The appropriate
profit margin was established on the basis of information
provided by unrelated cooperating traders/importers
operating on the Community market.

for

1.3. Comparison

The normal value and export prices were compared on
an ex-works basis. For the purpose of ensuring a fair
comparison between the normal value and the export
price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was
made for differences affecting price comparability in
accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.
Appropriate
cases
where they were found to be reasonable, accurate and
supported by verified evidence.

adjustments were granted in all

L 19/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.1.2005

(25)

(26)

1.4. Dumping margin

In accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation,
a dumping margin was calculated for each cooperating
exporting producer, by comparing the weighted average
normal value with the weighted average export price.

For those countries where the level of cooperation was
found to be high (above 80 %), and where there was no
reason to believe that any exporting producer abstained
from cooperating, the residual dumping margin was set
at the level of the cooperating company with the highest
dumping margin in order to ensure the effectiveness of
the measures.

(27)

For those countries where the level of cooperation was
found to be low,
the residual dumping margin was
determined in accordance with Article 18 of the basic
Regulation, i.e. on the basis of the facts available.

2. Republic of Korea

(28) Questionnaire replies were received from three exporting
producers, one of which did not export PET to the
Community during the IP, and two importers related to
one of the exporting producers. It was established that
the cooperating exporters represented 100 % of Korean
exports of the product concerned during the IP.

compared to the weighted average export price of each
corresponding type of the product concerned.

(33)

The comparison showed the existence of either no
dumping or de minimis dumping in respect of the three
cooperating exporting producers. The dumping margins
expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the
Community border, duty unpaid are as follows:

— Daehan Synthetic Fiber Co. Ltd: 1,2 %

— SK Chemicals Co. Ltd: 0,0 %

— KP Chemical Corp.: 0,1 %

(34)

(35)

Two known Korean exporting producers of PET which
are currently subject to an individual duty rate showed
that they had not made any exports during the IP. No
evidence was provided by these exporters to indicate that
a re-assessment of their duty margins was warranted.

the high level of cooperation by Korean
In light of
(28)), the residual duty was set
companies (see recital
at
the cooperating company with the
the level of
highest dumping margin in accordance with the
approach outlined in recital (26). The level is the same
as that in the original investigation.

2.1. Normal value

3. Taiwan

(29)

For all types of PET exported by the Korean exporting
producers, it was possible to establish normal value on
the basis of the prices paid or payable in the ordinary
course of
trade by independent customers on the
domestic market, in accordance with Article 2(1) of the
basic Regulation.

(36) Questionnaire replies were received from four exporting
producers, one of which did not export PET to the
Community during the IP.
It was established that the
cooperating exporters represented less than 60 % of
Taiwanese exports of the product concerned during the
IP.

2.2. Export price

3.1. Normal value

(30) One of

the Korean exporting producers made export
sales to the Community both directly to independent
customers and via related importers in Korea and the
situation, a
Community. Consequently,
constructed export price has been established pursuant
to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.

in the latter

2.3. Comparison

(31)

In order to ensure a fair comparison, account was taken,
in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation,
of differences in factors which were claimed and demon-
strated to affect prices and price comparability. On this
basis, allowances for differences in transport, insurance,
handling charges, commissions, credit, packing, customs
duties and bank charges have been granted.

2.4. Dumping margin

(32) As provided by Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the
weighted average normal values of each type of
the
product concerned exported to the Community were

(37)

For all types of PET exported by the Taiwanese exporting
producers, normal value was established on the basis of
the prices paid or payable in the ordinary course of trade
in
by independent customers on the domestic market,
accordance with Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation.

3.2. Export price

(38)

Export prices were established in accordance with Article
2(8) of the basic Regulation, namely on the basis of
export prices actually paid or payable.

3.3. Comparison

(39)

In order to ensure a fair comparison, account was taken
of differences in factors which were claimed and demon-
in
strated to affect prices and price comparability,
accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.
On this basis, allowances for differences in transport,
insurance,
credit,
charges,
packing, customs duties and bank charges have been
granted.

commissions,

handling

21.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/5

3.4. Dumping margin

(40) As provided by Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the
weighted average normal values of each type of
the
product concerned exported to the Community were
compared to the weighted average export price of each
corresponding type of the product concerned.

(41)

The comparison showed the existence of dumping in
respect of two of the cooperating exporting producers.
The dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the
CIF import price at the Community border, duty unpaid
are as follows:

(47)

— Far Eastern Textile Ltd: 0,0 %

— Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corp.: 3,1 %

— Hualon Corp.: 9,6 %

(42) One exporting producer, which is currently subject to an
individual duty, cooperated in this proceeding even
though it had made no export sales to the Community
during the IP. On the basis of the information provided,
it was deemed appropriate to leave its current dumping
information was
margin
submitted to indicate that a re-assessment of its duty
margin was warranted.

unchanged,

because

no

(43)

(44)

(45)

There is one known Taiwanese exporter of PET which is
currently subject to an individual duty, but which did not
cooperate in this proceeding. For this exporter,
it was
considered appropriate not to give it an individual duty
so as not to reward non-cooperation. More importantly,
no data were available which would have allowed the
determination of an individual duty.

In light of this fact and of the low level of cooperation
by Taiwanese companies (see recital (36)), the residual
dumping margin was determined in accordance with
Article 18 of the basic Regulation, as outlined in recital
(27).

The residual dumping margin, which was calculated on
the basis of data available from Eurostat and also from
the cooperating exporting producers, expressed as a
percentage of the CIF import price at the Community
border, duty unpaid is as follows:

— Taiwan: 20,1 %

C. LASTING NATURE OF THE CHANGED
CIRCUMSTANCES

(46)

In accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation,
it was also examined whether the changed circumstances

to the original

investigation regarding
with respect
dumping could reasonably be considered to be of a
lasting nature.

1. Republic of Korea

it was

found that

export prices

For those companies which exported during the IP and
cooperated with the investigation,
the current review
showed that their dumping margin either remained at,
or had fallen to, a de minimis level. The main reason for
this was that whilst the normal values and domestic sales
prices for these companies had risen as compared to the
data from the original investigation, sales prices on the
Community market had risen by a greater margin.
Indeed,
to the
Community were on average 53 % higher during the IP
of
this investigation when compared with the export
prices found during the IP of the original investigation.
No indications were found, suggesting that these changes
would not be of a lasting nature. It should also be noted
that these companies had a high capacity utilisation, in
excess of 80 %, during the
IP. Additionally these
companies do not have any plans to increase existing
capacity,
thereby restricting the scope for any future
changes in circumstances. It is therefore considered that
this situation as far as export price and volume is
concerned is not likely to change.

(48) One company which did not export to the Community
during the original investigation cooperated and exported
the product concerned to the Community during this
investigation. The dumping margin for this company
was also found to be de minimis. The normal value, as
well as domestic and export prices of this company were
found to be in the same range as those for the other two
cooperating exporters.

(49)

For the two cooperating exporting producers that did not
export to the Community during the IP, no evidence to
justify a change in their duty was found as outlined in
recital (34). It should also be recalled that there was a
wide range of dumping margins found in the original
investigation (1,4 % to 55,8 %), which indicates
that
considerable differences in the dumping behaviour of
Korean companies existed. For these reasons,
it cannot
be concluded that the findings of de minimis dumping
the producers which exported to the
margins
Community during the IP are representative for those
these
exporters which did not. Accordingly,
that a
companies,
is
revision of
warranted, nor is there any data available that would
allow a revised individual margin to be calculated for
them. These findings were disclosed to the parties
concerned, none of which made any comments nor
provided any additional information.

for
there is no evidence to suggest

anti-dumping

current

duties

their

for

L 19/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.1.2005

(50)

(51)

(52)

(53)

2. Taiwan

investigation.

Three of the four companies in Taiwan, currently subject
to an individual duty, cooperated in the current investi-
gation. For one of these companies, the current investi-
gation showed that its dumping margin had fallen to a de
level. For the second company the dumping
minimis
investigation to
margin fell from 7,8 % in the original
4,6 % in the current
In line with the
situation in the Republic of Korea, the main reason for
this was that whilst the normal values and domestic sales
prices for these companies had risen when compared
with data from the original investigation, sales prices to
the Community market had risen by a greater margin.
it was found that export prices to the
For Taiwan,
Community were on average 42 % higher during the IP
of
this investigation when compared with the export
prices found during the IP of the original investigation.
It was also found for these companies that their capacity
utilisation was similar to that found for the companies in
Korea. Nor did they have any plans to increase their
installed capacity.

The third cooperating company, currently subject to an
individual duty, provided evidence that it did not export
the product concerned to the Community during the IP
of this investigation.

In addition, one company in Taiwan which did not
export to the Community during the original
investi-
gation also cooperated during this investigation. The
dumping margin for this company is 10,7 %.

(54)

(55)

(56)

(57)

the current

For the three cooperating producers which exported to
the Community during the IP of
investi-
gation, there are no reasons to believe that the nature
the changes between the current and the original
of
investigations, particularly the increase in export prices
to the Community, are not lasting in nature. Accordingly,
it
the dumping margins for these
companies, calculated on the basis of the data provided
in this investigation are reliable.

is considered that

there is no evidence to suggest

For the producer which cooperated but which did not
export to the Community during the IP of the current
investigation,
that a
revision of its current anti-dumping duties is warranted.
It is, therefore considered appropriate to leave its current
margin unchanged. As with the situation for Korea, there
are no data available that would allow a revised indi-
vidual margin to be calculated for this company. Again,
following disclosure,
the party concerned made no
comments nor provided any additional information.

D. PROPOSAL FOR ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

the conclusions reached with regard to
In view of
dumping and the lasting nature of changed circum-
the present anti-dumping measures against
stances,
imports of
the product concerned originating in the
Republic of Korea and Taiwan should be amended to
reflect the new dumping margins found.

The fact that PET prices can fluctuate in line with fluc-
tuations in crude oil prices, should not entail a higher
It was therefore considered appropriate that the
duty.
amended duties should be expressed in the form of a
specific amount per tonne. This approach was followed
in the original investigation.

The individual company anti-dumping duty rates were
established on the basis of the findings of the present
review. They, therefore, reflect the situation found during
this review with respect to these companies. These duty
rates, as opposed to the duty applicable to ‘all other
companies’, are thus exclusively applicable to imports
of products originating in the country concerned and
produced by the companies specifically mentioned in
the
Imported
products produced by any other company not specifically
the Regulation,
mentioned in the operative part of
including by
specifically
entities
mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and will be
to ‘all other
subject
companies’.

to the duty rate

related to those

this Regulation.

applicable

operative

part

of

(58)

The proposed anti-dumping duties for those companies which exported to the Community during
the IP are as follows:

Country

Company

Republic of Korea

Daehan Synthetic Fiber Co. Ltd

SK Chemicals Co. Ltd

KP Chemical Corp.

Taiwan

Far Eastern Textile Ltd

Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corp.

Hualon Corp.

Dumping
margin

Anti-
dumping
duty rate

Proposed
duty
(euro/t)

1,2 %

0,0 %

0,1 %

0,0 %

3,1 %

9,6 %

0,0 %

0,0 %

0,0 %

0,0 %

3,1 %

9,6 %

0

0

0

0

24,5

81,9

21.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/7

(59)

In line with the revised residual dumping margin outlined in recital (45), the residual anti-dumping
duty for Taiwan should be increased to EUR 143,4/tonne.

E. FINAL PROVISION

(60)

Interested parties were informed of all the facts and considerations on the basis of which it was
intended to propose an amendment to the Regulation in force. No comments were received,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.

The table in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 shall be replaced by the following table:

‘Country

Anti-dumping duty
(EUR/tonne)

TARIC additional code

India

Indonesia

Malaysia

Korea

Taiwan

Thailand

181,7

187,7

160,1

148,3

143,4

83,2

A999

A999

A999

A999

A999
A999’

2.

The table in Article 1(3) shall be replaced by the following table:

‘Country

Company

Anti-dumping
duty
(EUR/tonne)

TARIC additional
code

India

India

India

India

Indonesia

Indonesia

Indonesia

Malaysia

Malaysia

Republic of Korea

Republic of Korea

Republic of Korea

Republic of Korea

Republic of Korea

Taiwan

Taiwan

Taiwan

Taiwan

Thailand

Thailand

Pearl Engineering Polymers Ltd

Reliance Industries Ltd

Elque Polyesters Ltd

Futura Polymers Ltd

P.T. Bakrie Kasei Corp.

P.T. Indorama Synthetics Tbk

P.T. Polypet Karyapersada

Hualon Corp. (M) Sdn. Bhd.

MpI Polyester Industries Sdn. Bhd.

Daehan Synthetic Fiber Co., Ltd

Honam Petrochemical Corp.

SK Chemicals Co., Ltd

Tongkong Corp.

KP Chemical Corp.

Far Eastern Textile Ltd

Tuntex Distinct Corp.

Shingkong Synthetic Fibers Corp.

Hualon Corp.

Thai Shingkong Industry Corp. Ltd

Indo Pet (Thailand) Ltd

130,8

181,7

200,9

161,2

187,7

92,1

178,9

36,0

160,1

0

101,4

0

148,3

0

0

69,5

24,5

81,9

83,2

83,2

A182

A181

A183

A184

A191

A192

A193

A186

A185

A194

A195

A196

A197

A577

A188

A198

A189

A578

A190
A468’

L 19/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.1.2005

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

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 18 January 2005.

For the Council
The President

J.-C. JUNCKER