Council Regulation (EC) no 1113/2005 of 12 July 2005 terminating the new exporter review of Regulation (EC) No 1995/2000 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate (UAN) originating, inter alia, in Algeria
Date: 2005-07-12
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, fertiliser industry, organic fertiliser

L 184/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.7.2005

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1113/2005

of 12 July 2005

terminating the new exporter review of Regulation (EC) No 1995/2000 imposing definitive anti-
dumping duties on imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate (UAN) originating, inter alia,
in Algeria

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

from 1 June 1998 to 31 May 1999), but had started to
export UAN to the Community thereafter.

Having regard to the Treaty
Community,

establishing the European

2.2. Initiation of a ‘new exporter’ review

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(4) thereof,

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

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

1. MEASURES IN FORCE

The measures currently in force on imports into the
Community of
and ammonium
solutions of urea
nitrate (UAN) originating in Algeria are definitive anti-
dumping duties imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No
1995/2000 (2). Pursuant to that same Regulation, anti-
dumping measures are also in force on UAN originating
in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine.

2. CURRENT INVESTIGATION

2.1. Request for a review

After the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on
imports of UAN originating in Algeria, the Commission
received a request to initiate a ‘new exporter’ review of
to Article
Regulation (EC) No 1995/2000, pursuant
11(4) of
from the Algerian
the basic Regulation,
company Fertial SPA (the applicant). The applicant
claimed that
exporting
producer
anti-dumping
subject
measures in force with regard to UAN. Furthermore, it
claimed that it had not exported UAN to the Community
investigation period (i.e. the period
during the original

related to the
to the

it was not

in Algeria

(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 238, 22.9.2000, p. 15. Regulation as amended by Regulation

(EC) No 1675/2003 (OJ L 238, 25.9.2003, p. 4).

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

The Commission examined the evidence submitted by
the applicant and considered it sufficient to justify the
initiation of a review in accordance with Article 11(4) of
the basic Regulation. After consultation of the Advisory
Committee and after the Community industry concerned
the
had been given the opportunity to comment,
Commission
(EC) No
Regulation
1795/2004 (3),
review of Regulation (EC) No
a
1995/2000 with
and
regard
commenced its investigation.

applicant

initiated,

the

by

to

Pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1795/2004,
the anti-dumping duty of EUR 6,88 per tonne imposed
by Regulation (EC) No 1995/2000 on imports of UAN
produced, inter alia, by the applicant was repealed. Simul-
taneously, pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regu-
lation, customs authorities were directed to take appro-
priate steps to register such imports.

2.3. Product concerned

The product concerned by the current review is the same
as that in the investigation that led to the imposition of
the measures in force on imports of UAN originating in
Algeria (original investigation), i.e. mixtures of urea and
ammonium nitrate in aqueous or ammoniacal solution,
normally declared within CN code 3102 80 00 and origi-
nating in Algeria.

2.4. Parties concerned

The Commission officially advised the applicant and the
representatives of the exporting country of the initiation
of the review. Interested parties were given the oppor-
tunity to make their views known in writing and to be
heard.

The Commission sent a questionnaire to the applicant
and received a reply within the deadline set for that
purpose. The Commission sought to verify all the infor-
mation it deemed necessary for the determination of
dumping, and a verification visit was carried out at the
premises of the applicant.

(3) OJ L 317, 16.10.2004, p. 20.

15.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 184/11

2.5. Investigation period

(8)

The investigation of dumping covered the period from
1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004 (the investigation period
or IP).

(14)

Consequently, it was not possible to determine an indi-
vidual margin of dumping.

4. CONCLUSION

3. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

(15)

(9)

The investigation confirmed that the applicant had not
exported the product concerned during the original
investigation period and that it had begun exporting to
the Community after this period.

the purpose of
Fertial's

the present
It should be noted that
to
request, was
upon
initiated
review,
the
determine the individual margin of dumping of
applicant, which was
from the
current residual margin applicable to imports of UAN
from Algeria.

allegedly different

(10)

The Community industry argued that the applicant was
related to an exporting producer involved in the original
investigation. Although a
company related to the
applicant also supplied a raw material to the exporting
producer involved in the original investigation, nothing
indicated that such a relationship would go beyond
normal commercial transactions.
it was found
the company related to the applicant was not
that
involved in the
related to the exporting producer
that
original
the applicant was related to an exporting producer
involved in the original investigation was considered to
be unfounded.

investigation. Accordingly,

the argument

Indeed,

(16) As the investigation could not establish that the appli-
cant's individual dumping margin was actually different
from the residual dumping margin established in the
investigation,
original
the
applicant
should be rejected and the new exporter
review terminated. The residual anti-dumping margin
found during the original
i.e. 9,7 % (or
tonne) should consequently be main-
EUR 6,88 per
tained, as nothing indicated that
the applicant was
dumping at a different level.

request made

investigation,

the

by

(11) However, the investigation revealed that the applicant's
cost accounting records contained significant
short-
they could not be regarded as an
comings and that
appropriate basis
to determine the applicant's own
dumping margin.

5. RETROACTIVE LEVYING OF THE ANTI-DUMPING
DUTY

(17)

In the light of the above findings, the anti-dumping duty
applicable to the applicant shall be levied retroactively on
imports of the product concerned which have been made
subject to registration pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation
(EC) No 1795/2004.

(12)

It was found that costs of raw materials reported by the
applicant were based on rough estimates for half of the
IP, rather than actual costs.

6. DISCLOSURE

(18) All parties concerned have been informed of the essential
facts and considerations which lead to the above
conclusions.

(13)

company,

accounting

and general
since

In addition, the reported costs, which were drawn from
the company's cost accounting system, could not be
reconciled with the general accounting records. Indeed,
no link could be established between the two accounting
accounting)
systems
(cost
figures
the
normally used by the
contained in the cost accounting system records could
not be matched with those contained in the general
accounting records. Finally, no evidence was available
the company's cost accounting records
to show that
were correct and reflected actual costs incurred during
the IP. Therefore,
the
records reasonably reflected the costs associated with
the production and sale of the product under consid-
eration.

it could not be shown that

(19)

(20)

The applicant contested the Commission's conclusions
and argued that all
information requested had been
provided. Nevertheless, no new evidence was submitted
which would warrant
above
the
a
conclusions, and they were therefore confirmed.

revision of

This review does not affect
the date on which the
measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1995/2000,
as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1675/2003,
will expire pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Basic Regu-
lation,

L 184/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.7.2005

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The new exporter review initiated by Commission Regu-

1.
lation (EC) No 1795/2004 is hereby terminated.

2.
The duty applicable according to Article 1 of Regulation
(EC) No 1995/2000 to all companies in Algeria, is hereby levied
retroactively on imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium
nitrate in aqueous or ammoniacal solution which have been

registered pursuant
(EC) No 1795/2004.

to Article 3 of Commission Regulation

Unless otherwise

3.
concerning customs duties shall apply.

specified,

the provisions

in force

Article 2

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

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

Done at Brussels, 12 July 2005.

For the Council
The President

G. BROWN