Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of barium carbonate originating in the People’s Republic of China
Date: 2005-06-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, chemical salt, originating product

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 27.06.2005 
COM(2005) 279 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of barium carbonate originating in the People’s Republic of China  

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1)  CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This  proposal  concerns  the  application  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of 
22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members 
of  the  European  Community,  as  last  amended  by  Council  Regulation  (EC) 
No 461/2004  of  8  March  2004  (‘the  basic  Regulation’)  in  the  proceeding  concerning 
imports of barium carbonate originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the PRC’). 

•  General context 

This proposal is made in the context of the implementation of the basic Regulation and 
is the result of an investigation which was carried out in line with the substantive and 
procedural requirements laid out in the basic Regulation. 

•  Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

There are no existing provisions in the area of the proposal. 

•  Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

2)  CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

•  Consultation of interested parties 

Interested  parties  concerned  by  the  proceeding  have  already  had  the  possibility  to 
defend their interests during the investigation, in line with the provisions of the basic 
Regulation. 

•  Collection and use of expertise 

There was no need for external expertise. 

•  Impact assessment 

This proposal is the result of the implementation of the basic Regulation. 

The  basic  Regulation  does  not  foresee  a  general  impact  assessment  but  contains  an 
exhaustive list of conditions that have to be assessed. 

3)  LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

On 30 April 2004, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard 
to  imports  into  the  Community  of  barium  carbonate  originating  in  the  People’s 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Republic of China. On 29 January 2005, provisional anti-dumping duties were imposed 
by the Commission. 

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

The  Member  States  were  consulted  regarding  this  investigation.  9  Member  States 
supported and 8 Member States opposed the proposal. 8 Member States abstained. 

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopts the attached proposal for a Regulation 
which should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union no later than 
28 July 2005.  

•  Legal basis 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22  December  1995  on  protection  against 
dumped  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European  Community,  as  last 
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 of 8 March 2004.  

•  Subsidiarity principle 

The proposal falls under the exclusive competence of the Community. The subsidiarity 
principle therefore does not apply. 

•  Proportionality principle 

The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reasons. 

The form of action is described in the above-mentioned basic Regulation and leaves no 
scope for national decision. 

Indication  of  how  financial  and  administrative  burden  falling  upon  the  Community, 
national governments, regional and local authorities, economic operators and citizens is 
minimized and proportionate to the objective of the proposal is not applicable. 

•  Choice of instruments 

Proposed instruments: regulation. 

Other  means  would  not  be  adequate  because  the  basic  Regulation  does  not  foresee 
alternative options. 

4)  BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of barium carbonate originating in the People’s Republic of China  

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 

Having  regard  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22  December  1995  on  protection 
against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community1 (‘the basic 
Regulation’) and in particular Article 9 thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

A. 

PROVISIONAL MEASURES 

On  29  January  2005,  the  Commission,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  145/20052  (‘the 
provisional Regulation’), imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on imports into the 
Community  of  barium  carbonate  originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of  China  (‘the 
PRC’). 

B. 

SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE 

Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations, on the basis of 
which it was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping measures, several interested 
parties  made  written  submissions  making  their  views  known  on  the  provisional 
findings. No parties requested to be heard.  

The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for 
the  definitive  findings.  Verification  visits  were  carried  out  at  the  premises  of  the 
following companies: 

(a) Unrelated importer: 

– 

Castle Colours Ltd., UK; 

(b) Community users: 

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 27, 29.1.2005, p. 4. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
– 

– 

Terreal S.A., France, 

Torrecid S.A., Spain. 

(4) 

All  parties  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations,  on  the  basis  of 
which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty 
on imports of barium carbonate originating in the PRC and the definitive collection of 
the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty. They were also granted a period 
within  which  to  make  representations  subsequent  to  the  disclosure  of  the  essential 
facts and considerations.  

(5) 

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

C. 

PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

(6) 

Since no new comments were received regarding the product concerned and the like 
product, the findings in recitals (11) and (12) of the provisional Regulation are hereby 
confirmed. 

D. 

DUMPING 

1.  Market Economy Treatment (‘MET’) 

(7) 

In the absence of any comments, the findings in recitals (13) to (23) of the provisional 
Regulation concerning MET are hereby confirmed. 

2. 

Individual treatment (‘IT’) 

(8) 

In the absence of any comments, the findings in recitals (24) to (29) of the provisional 
Regulation concerning individual treatment are hereby confirmed. 

3.  Normal value 

(a)  Determination of normal value for co-operating producers granted MET 

(9) 

For  one  exporting  producer,  in  determining  whether  domestic  sales  were  in  the 
ordinary course of trade and also when constructing normal value for certain types of 
the  product  concerned,  incorrect  financing  costs  were  used  in  calculating  the 
provisional dumping margin. Therefore, for the calculation of the definitive dumping 
margin, the necessary corrections were made.  

(10)  For the other exporting producer the sales value of waste was provisionally deducted 
from  the  cost  of  production.  However,  after  having  reviewed  the  appropriate 
information,  it  was  far  from  certain  whether  the  amount  could  be  considered  as 
deductible  as  waste.  In  this  regard,  and  on  the  basis  of  the  information  available,  it 
appeared  that  the  “waste”  had  in  fact  a  significant  separate  commercial  value. 
Moreover,  in  the  absence  of  any  inventories  kept,  it  was  not  possible  to  properly 
quantify  the  amount  under  consideration.  Finally,  even  in  the  event  that  this  amount 
had to be deducted, the company attributed the whole amount to the product concerned 
whereas  it  also  affected  other  products  produced  by  this  company.  Therefore,  at 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
definitive stage the deduction for waste was reversed. For the same exporting producer 
the value of the by-product was adjusted.  

(11)  The exporting producer concerned contested the approach taken and argued that waste 
in  form  of  slag  and  lime  is  disposed  through  synergy  with  an  adjacent  plant  in  a 
manner that reduced its total cost. It has to be noted that the exporting producer also 
claimed  in  its  questionnaire  that  these  sales  should  be  considered  as  sales  of  a  “by-
product”. In this regard, it is reiterated that the quantity sold of the product in question 
could  not  be  established  during  the  investigation.  Furthermore,  the  investigation 
revealed  that  sales  to  the  neighbouring  factory  were  of  the  by-product  H2S  only.  In 
this  regard,  it  was  considered  that  contradicting  information  was  submitted  which 
could  not  be  clarified  after  definitive  disclosure.  Secondly,  this  exporting  producer 
claimed  that  the  value  of  the  by-product  H2S  deducted  from  the  cost  of  production 
should  have  been  higher.  However,  the  evidence  collected  during  the  investigation 
showed that this claim was overstated and had therefore to be rejected. 

(12)  Apart from the adjustments made, as set out in recitals (9) and (10) above, and in the 
absence  of  any  further  comments,  the  findings  in  recitals  (43)  to  (59)  of  the 
provisional Regulation concerning normal value are hereby confirmed. 

(b)  Determination  of  normal  value  for  all  co-operating  producers  not  granted 

MET 

(13)  One  user  organisation  objected  to  the  use  of  the  United  States  of  America  (‘US’)  as 
analogue  country.  This  interested  party  did  not  substantiate  its  claim  or  provide  any 
evidence,  but  referred  rather  generally  to  an  alleged  lack  of  competition  on  the  US 
market,  due  to  anti-dumping  measures  in  force  there.  However,  it  is  noted  that  the 
level  of  competition  in  the  domestic  market  of  the  US  was  investigated  for  the 
provisional determination. As mentioned in recital (37) of the provisional Regulation, 
it  was  found  that  there  was  indeed  a  fair  level  of  competition  on  the  US  domestic 
market.  

(14)  One  unrelated  importer  objected  to  the  use  of  the  US  as  analogue  country  since  the 
producer in the US, whose data have been used for the determination of normal value, 
was related to a Community producer. It should be noted that during the investigation 
period (‘IP’), no such relationship existed. Furthermore, this importer did not submit 
any information or evidence that this relationship which started only after the IP had 
an influence on the domestic costs and prices in the US during the IP. The unrelated 
importer’s argument had therefore to be rejected. 

(15)  Given the above, the choice of the US as an analogue country is hereby confirmed. 

4. 

Export price 

(16) 

In the absence of any comments, the provisional findings concerning the determination 
of  the  export  price,  as  described  in  recital  (60)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  are 
hereby confirmed. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
5.  Comparison 

(17)  The  exporting  producers  noted  that  for  the  calculation  of  the  provisional  dumping 
margin, ocean freight and insurance costs were erroneously deducted from the export 
sales  transactions  made  on  a  FOB  or  CFR  basis,  whereas  the  sales  price  of  these 
transactions did not include such costs. These export sales transactions were corrected 
accordingly.  

(18)  Furthermore,  it  was  found  that  one  exporting  producer  did  not  report  commissions 
paid to traders for export sales of the product concerned to the Community. The export 
prices were therefore adjusted accordingly. 

(19)  Apart from the adjustments made as set out in recitals (9), (10) and (18) above, and in 
the  absence  of  any  further  comments,  the  findings  in  relation  to  the  comparison  of 
normal value and export prices, as described in recitals (61) to (66) of the provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

6.  Dumping margins 

(20) 

In  the  light  of  the  above  corrections,  the  dumping  margins  finally  determined, 
expressed as a percentage of the CIF Community frontier price, duty unpaid, are: 

Hubei Jingshan Chutian Barium Salt Corp. Ltd 

Zaozhuang Yongli Chemical Co. 

All other companies 

E. 

INJURY 

3,4% 

4,6% 

31,7% 

1.  Community industry and Community consumption 

(21) 

In the absence of any comments in this particular respect, the findings in recitals (72) 
to (74) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2. 

Imports from the country concerned 

(22)  Following the provisional disclosure, one cooperating exporting producer reiterated its 
claim that the higher prices charged by the Community industry are due to the higher 
reactivity  of  its  products.  This  request  for  an  adjustment  to  the  prices  of  the 
Community  industry  in  respect  of  differences  in  reactivity  had  been  rejected  at  the 
provisional stage, as indicated in recital (80) of the provisional Regulation.  

(23)  Although  the  claim  was  not  sufficiently  substantiated  by  the  submission  of  new 
information, the issue was further examined, since the exporting producer claimed that 
differences  in  reactivity,  alleged  to  be  a  characteristic  present  in  all  grades  of  the 
barium carbonate, should not have been assessed only in respect of the most reactive 
grades sold by the Community industry, as was done at the provisional stage.  

(24)  Since reactivity is a property of barium carbonate which is not shown as such on the 
producers’  production  specification  sheets,  but  can  be  inferred  on  the  basis  of  the 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
particle size and density of the product concerned, it is normal practice in the different 
end-use sectors to carry out control tests upon the delivery of the product to verify its 
properties.  The  fact  that  end-users  in  a  sector  such  as  the  bricks  and  tiles  industry, 
where  reactivity  is  crucial,  increase  the  quantity  of  barium  carbonate  they  would 
normally need for their production process when they are using the product imported 
from the PRC, as opposed to that sourced from the Community industry, indicates that 
end-users  attribute  higher  reactivity  to  the  barium  carbonate  produced  by  the 
Community  industry.  Moreover,  a  further  analysis  of  the  products  sold  in  the 
Community  market  has  shown  that,  in  addition  to  the  most  reactive  grades  which 
represent  less  than  5%  of  its  sales  in  the  EC,  as  referred  to  in  recital  (80)  of  the 
provisional  Regulation,  the  Community  industry  in  fact  sold  additional  grades  with 
considerably high reactivity, which accounted for about a further 20% of its total sales 
in the Community. The balance of the Community industry’s sales are accounted for 
by  sales  of  lower  reactivity  grades.  It  was  therefore  concluded  that,  under  these 
circumstances and contrary to recital (80) of the provisional Regulation, an adjustment 
for differences in reactivity was warranted. 

(25)  For  the  purpose  of  analysing  price  undercutting,  the  selling  price  of  the  Community 
industry’s grades of barium carbonate with high reactivity was reduced by 14%. This 
adjustment  was  based  on  the  price  difference  between  higher  and  lower  reactivity 
grades sold by the Community industry. The comparison showed that during the IP the 
product concerned originating in the PRC was sold in the Community at prices which 
undercut  those  of  the  Community  industry  by  20%  to  26%,  when  expressed  as  a 
percentage of the latter.  

(26)  Apart from the adjustments made as set out in recital (25) above, and in the absence of 
any  other  comments,  recitals  (75)  to  (81)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  concerning 
imports from the country concerned are confirmed. 

3. 

Situation of the Community industry and Conclusion on Injury 

(27) 

It was submitted by one cooperating exporter that the economic indicators analysed in 
recitals  (84)  to  (94)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  did  not  show  material  injury. 
However,  no  substantially  new  element  or  evidence  was  submitted  which  would 
necessitate  a  reassessment  of  such  indicators  and,  consequently,  a  change  in  the 
conclusion reached at the provisional stage.  

(28)  This claim was reiterated after definitive disclosure, especially as regards the evolution 
of production, capacity utilisation, market share, stocks and employment. As already 
explained in recitals (84) to (88) of the provisional Regulation, these indicators clearly 
showed  a  negative  evolution,  which  contributed  to  deteriorate  the  situation  of  the 
Community industry. Thus, the claim was rejected. 

(29)  Therefore, recitals (82) to (97) of the provisional Regulation concerning the situation 
of the Community industry and the conclusion on injury are hereby confirmed.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
F. 

CAUSALITY  

1. 

Effect of the dumped imports 

(30) 

In the absence of any substantially new information or argument, recital (100) of the 
provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.  

2. 

Effect of other factors 

(31)  One cooperating exporter reiterated that injury could have also been caused by imports 
from  other  third  countries  which  increased  significantly  before  the  IP,  including 
imports from India and Brazil, in particular. As regards India, it cannot be considered a 
relevant source of supply during the period of analysis 2000-2003, given the negligible 
quantities imported. As a matter of fact, the market share of Indian imports was below 
1% in the IP and practically inexistent before. As far as Brazil is concerned, imports 
were limited both in comparison to imports from the PRC and total imports during the 
whole  period  considered.  Therefore,  it  is  concluded  that  these  imports  did  not  break 
the causal link as set out in recital (103) of the provisional Regulation.  

(32)  One  exporter  and  a  number  of  importers  and  users  claimed  that  the  Community 
industry  has  enjoyed  a  dominant  position  in  the  Community  market  for  barium 
carbonate  and  that  this  factor  has  allowed  the  industry  to  increase  its  prices  in  the 
Community.  The  exporter  stressed  the  fact  that  the  group,  to  which  the  sole 
Community producer belongs, had been investigated for abuse of dominant position in 
the past.  

(33)  First of all, it should be noted that during the period 2000-2003, the market share of 
the Community industry was, on average, around 10 percentage points higher than that 
of the Chinese exporting producers, whilst during the IP it was comparable to that of 
imports from the PRC. It cannot therefore be concluded that the Community industry 
has enjoyed a dominant position over the period considered, given the reduction of its 
market  share  against  imports  from  the  PRC  and  the  equal  market  share  of  imports 
from the PRC in the IP. In any case, no evidence has been provided by any interested 
party  to  substantiate  a  possible  abuse  of  dominant  position  on  the  side  of  the 
Community industry as regards the like product. Even in cases where a company is the 
sole producer in a given market, this fact alone cannot be taken as an indication that 
such  producer  has  abused  its  market  position  by  way  of  artificially  increasing  the 
prices  on  such  market.  Moreover,  should  the  Community  industry  have  indeed 
enjoyed  a  dominant  position,  let  alone  abused  it,  it  would  be  difficult  to  understand 
how  the  Community  industry’s  prices  could  have  dropped  by  7%  as  indicated  in 
recital (86) of the provisional Regulation, while the Chinese exporters have increased 
their  market  share  so  substantially.  Furthermore,  it  cannot  be  inferred  that  the 
Community producer abused a possible dominant position merely on the basis of the 
existence of an investigation not covering the like product, or investigations in the past 
in respect of some company of the group to which it belongs. Therefore, the claim is 
rejected. 

(34)  As  regards  the  information  contained  in  recitals  (110)  and  (111)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation,  several  users  and  importers  claimed  that  the  imposition  of  definitive 
measures  would  penalise  the  bricks  and  tiles  manufacturers,  which  prefer  to  use  the 
water suspended barium carbonate (slurry) made out of the barium carbonate imported 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
from the PRC, rather than using the barium carbonate in powder form supplied by the 
Community industry. These parties alleged that the Community industry does not sell 
slurry  and  refuses  to  supply  barium  carbonate  powder  to  importers  producing  the 
slurry.  Contrary  to  this  claim,  it  has  been  confirmed  that  the  Community  industry 
supplies  barium  carbonate  to  at  least  one  importer  producing  slurry  out  of  it. 
Therefore, there is indeed an alternative source of supply of slurry produced out of the 
Community industry’s barium carbonate. Furthermore, as stated in recital (43) below, 
the  imposition  of  anti-dumping  measures  is  by  no  means  to  stop  access  to  the 
Community market for products from the PRC, but rather to restore fair competition 
and to maintain alternative sources of supply in the Community. 

(35) 

In view of the above and in the absence of any supporting evidence provided by the 
users  and  importers  to  substantiate  their  preference  for  the  slurry  or  for  the  barium 
carbonate  imported  from  the  PRC  to  the  competitive  product  offered  by  the 
Community industry, the claim is rejected. 

3.  Conclusion on causation 

(36)  Based  on  the  above  considerations  and  other  elements  contained  in  recitals  (98)  to 
(111)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  it  is  concluded  that  imports  from  the  PRC  have 
caused material injury to the Community industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) 
of the basic Regulation. 

G. 

COMMUNITY INTEREST 

(37)  Two  associations  representing  end-users,  some  importers  and  end-users  themselves 
reiterated  their  main  concern  that  the  imposition  of  any  measures  would  reduce  the 
overall  competition  on  the  Community  market  for  this  particular  product  and 
inevitably  lead  to  an  increase  in  prices  which  would  reduce  their  level  of 
competitiveness. These parties did not provide any additional evidence to substantiate 
their claim. 

(38) 

(39) 

In addition, twenty users which had not made themselves known to the Commission 
before the imposition of the provisional measures, petitioned against the imposition of 
definitive  anti-dumping  duties.  These  parties  were  given  the  opportunity  to 
substantiate  their  claims,  but  failed  to  do  so.  Nevertheless,  their  arguments  were 
further  examined  through  verification  of  the  data  already  submitted  before  the 
imposition of provisional measures by one cooperating importer and two cooperating 
users.  

Indeed,  following  the  additional  verification  visits  to  a  company  operating  in  the 
ceramics (frits) industry and another one operating in the bricks and tiles industry (the 
two  companies  representing  together  over  20%  of  the  imports  of  barium  carbonate 
from  the  PRC  as  reported  by  cooperating  users),  it  is  confirmed,  as  mentioned  in 
recital  (127)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  that  the  share  of  barium  carbonate  in  the 
total cost of production of users is, on average, below 8%. 

(40) 

In line with the findings in recital (128) of the provisional Regulation, it was therefore 
concluded  that,  given  the  level  of  the  measures,  and  the  existence  of  alternative 
sources  of  supply  from  exporters not subject to duties, the impact of any increase in 
the price of the like product for users appears to be minimal.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
(41)  Further to definitive disclosure, two associations of users and one exporting producer 
claimed that the possible impact of the definitive measures on users would be higher 
than what established in recitals (39) to (40) above. In this respect, it should be noted 
that the findings are based on verified data of cooperating users. The above mentioned 
claims  referred  to  information  on  companies  which  did  not  cooperate  in  the 
investigation and could not be verified. The claim was therefore rejected. 

(42)  The exporting producer mentioned above claimed that only a limited number of users, 
not representative of the whole market, had served as the basis for the findings. In this 
respect,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  users  verified  at  both  provisional  and  definitive 
stage represent over 90% of the imports of barium carbonate from the PRC made by 
cooperating  users  during  the  IP.  Therefore,  the  validity  of  the  findings  is  considered 
appropriate and the claim is rejected.  

(43) 

It is further recalled that the purpose of any anti-dumping measure is by no means to 
stop access to the Community market for products from the PRC, but rather to restore 
a level playing field that had been distorted by unfair trade practices. Thus, measures 
would enable the continuation of activity of the sole Community producer, and would 
promote overall competition in the Community market. 

(44) 

In  the  absence  of  any  substantially  new  information  or  argument  in  this  particular 
respect, recitals (114) to (132) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

H. 

INJURY ELIMINATION LEVEL 

(45)  Further  to  the  disclosure  of  provisional  findings,  an  exporter  claimed  that  the  profit 
level of 7,2% deemed to represent the profit that could be achieved by the Community 
industry in the absence of injurious dumping from the PRC, is not realistic, since, due 
to the  alleged  dominant  position of the sole Community  producer, its profitability in 
the past was artificially high. 

(46)  As  already  mentioned  in  recital  (33)  above,  the  fact  that,  during  a  certain  period  of 
time, there is only one Community producer, does not imply that this producer has a 
dominant position in the market and abuses this situation, for example, by making use 
of its position in order to obtain abnormally high profit margins from its activity. As 
explained under recital (135) of the provisional Regulation, the profit margin of 7,2% 
was  calculated  as  the  weighted  average  profit  margin  of  the  like  product  during  the 
years  1996  to  1998.  Account  was  taken  of  the  Community  industry’s  profit  levels 
when it was not suffering from injurious dumping, i.e. before the period of analysis for 
the  assessment  of  injury.  As  the  exporter  in  question  has  not  provided  any  evidence 
showing that the above-mentioned profit is to be considered as abnormally high,  the 
claim  is  rejected  and  recital  (135)  as  regards  the  calculation  of  the  injury  margin  is 
hereby confirmed. 

I. 

DEFINITIVE MEASURES 

(47) 

In  view  of  the  conclusions  reached  with  regard  to  dumping,  injury,  causation  and 
Community  interest,  and  in  accordance  with  Article  9(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation, 
definitive anti-dumping duties should be imposed on imports originating in the PRC at 
the level of the lower of the dumping and the injury margins, in accordance with the 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
lesser  duty  rule.  In  this  case,  the  individual  duty  rates,  as  well  as  the  country-wide 
duty, should accordingly be set at the level of the dumping margins found.  

On the basis of the above, the definitive duties are as follows:  

Hubei Jingshan Chutian Barium Salt Corp. Ltd 

Zaozhuang Yongli Chemical Co. 

All others 

3,4%

4,6%

31,7%

(48)  Regarding  the  form  of  the  measures,  no  comments  were  received  and  therefore  the 
imposition  of  the  duty  in  the  form  of  a  specific  amount  per  tonne,  as  contained  in 
recital (138) of the provisional Regulation, is confirmed.  

J. 

UNDERTAKINGS 

(49)  Following the disclosure of the definitive findings, two exporting producers expressed 
an  interest  in  offering  a  price  undertaking.  However,  for  one  which  was  granted 
neither MET nor IT, it is the Commission’s practice not to accept undertakings in such 
a case, since no individual determination of dumping can be established. On this basis, 
the  offer  could  not  be  taken  into  consideration.  The  other  exporting  producer  which 
received market economy treatment, withdrew its offer subsequently. 

K. 

DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTY 

(50) 

In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found for the exporting producers in 
the  PRC  and  given  the  level  of  the  injury  caused  to  the  Community  industry,  it  is 
considered  necessary  that  the  amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping 
duty  imposed  by  the  provisional  Regulation  should  be  definitively  collected  to  the 
extent  of  the  amount  of  the  definitive  duties  imposed.  As  definitive  duties  are  lower 
than the provisional duties, amounts provisionally secured in excess of the definitive 
rate of anti-dumping duties shall be released. 

(51)  The  individual  company  anti-dumping  duty  rates  specified  in  this  Regulation  were 
established  on  the  basis  of  the  findings  of  the  present  investigation.  Therefore,  they 
reflect  the  situation  found  during  that  investigation  with  respect  to  these  companies. 
These  duty  rates  (as  opposed  to  the  country-wide  duty  applicable  to  ‘all  others’)  are 
thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the country concerned 
and  produced  by  the  companies  and  thus  by  the  specific  legal  entities  mentioned. 
Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the 
operative part of this Regulation with its name and address, including entities related 
to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to 
the duty rate applicable to ‘all others’. 

(52)  Any claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty 
rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of 
new  production  or  sales  entities)  should  be  addressed  to  the  Commission  forthwith 
with  all  relevant  information,  in  particular,  any  modification  in  the  company's 
activities linked to production, domestic sales and export sales associated with e.g. that 
name  change  or  that  change  in  the  production  and  sales  entities.  If  appropriate,  the 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
Regulation will accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting 
from individual duties. 

(53)  The product concerned is fungible, as explained above, and not branded. The variance 
of  the  individual  duty  rates  is  significant  and  there  are  a  number  of  exporting 
producers.  All  these  elements  may  facilitate  attempts  to  re-channel  the  export  flows 
through the traditional exporters benefiting from the lowest duty rates. 

(54)  Consequently,  should  the  exports  by  one  of  the  companies  benefiting  from  lower 
individual duty  rates  increase  by more than  30%  in  volume,  the  individual  measures 
concerned  might  be  considered  as  being  likely  to  be  insufficient  to  counteract  the 
injurious dumping found. Consequently, and provided that the requisite elements are 
met, an investigation may be initiated in order to correct appropriately the measures in 
their form or level, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 

2. 

Definitive anti-dumping duties are hereby  imposed on  imports of  barium carbonate 
with  a  strontium  content  of  more  than  0,07%  by  weight  and  a  sulphur  content  of 
more  than  0,0015%  by  weight,  whether  in  powder,  pressed  granular  or  calcined 
granular form, falling within CN code ex 2836 60 00 (TARIC code 2836 60 00 10), 
originating in the People’s Republic of China. 

The amount of the definitive anti-dumping duty shall be equal to a fixed amount as 
specified below for products produced by the following manufacturers: 

Country 

Manufacturer 

People’s 
Republic of 
China 

Hubei Jingshan Chutian Barium Salt Corp. Ltd., 
62, Qinglong Road, Songhe Town,  
Jingshan County,  
Hubei Province, PRC 
Zaozhuang Yongli Chemical Co.,  
South Zhuzibukuang Qichun,  
Zaozhuang City Center District,  
Shangdong Province, PRC 

Rate of 
Duty 
(EUR/t) 

TARIC 
additional 
code 

6,3 

A606 

8,1 

A607 

All other companies 

56,4 

A999 

3. 

In cases where the goods have been damaged before entry into free circulation and, 
therefore, the price actually paid or payable is apportioned for the determination of 
the  customs  value  pursuant  to  Article  145  of  Commission  Regulation  (EC) 
No 2454/93,  the  amount  of  the  anti-dumping  duty,  calculated  on  the  basis  of  the 
fixed amounts set above, shall be reduced by a percentage which corresponds to the 
apportioning of the price actually paid or payable. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
4. 

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

Article 2 

Amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  pursuant  to  Commission 
Regulation  (EC)  No  145/2005  on  imports  of  barium  carbonate  falling  within  CN  code 
ex 2836  60  00  and  originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of  China,  shall  be  definitively 
collected  in  accordance  with  the  rules  set  out  below.  The  amounts  secured  in  excess  of  the 
amount of the definitive anti-dumping duties shall be released. Where the definitive duties are 
higher  than  the  provisional  duties,  only  the  amounts  secured  at  the  level  of  the  provisional 
duties shall be definitively collected.  

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

Article 3 

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

14 

   EN