Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of trichloroisocyanuric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China and the United States of America
Date: 2005-09-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, United States, acid, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, chemical product, originating product

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 7.9.2005 
COM(2005) 413 final 

. 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of trichloroisocyanuric acid originating in the People’s Republic of 
China and the United States of America  

. 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1)  CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

110 

•  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 
trichloroisocyanuric acid originating in the People's Republic of China and the United 
States of America 

120 

•  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. 

139 

141 

219 

229 

230 

•  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. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
3)  LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

305 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

On 10 July 2004, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to 
the imports of Trichloroisocyanuric Acid (TCCA) originating in the People's Republic 
of  China  ('PRC').  On  13  October  2004  the  Commission  initiated  an  anti-dumping 
proceeding  with  regard  to  the  imports  of  TCCA  originating  in  the  United  States  of 
America ('USA'). Both initiations were based on a complaint lodged by the European 
Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), containing evidence of dumping and of material 
injury resulting therefrom. 

On  7  April  2005,  the  Commission  imposed,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  538/2005,  a 
provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  the  imports  into  the  Community  of  TCCA 
originating in the PRC and the USA. 

The  enclosed  Commission  proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  contains  the  definitive 
conclusions regarding dumping, injury, causality and Community interest.  

Member States were consulted on 20 July 2005. 20 Member States were in favour of 
the proposed course of action and 5 opposed 

It  is  proposed  that  the  Council  adopt  the  attached  proposal  for  a  Regulation  which 
should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 7 October 2005 
at the latest. 

310 

•  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  

329 

•  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 reason(s). 

331 

332 

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. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
341 

342 

•  Choice of instruments 

Proposed instruments: regulation. 

Other means would not be adequate for the following reason(s). 

The above-mentioned basic regulation does not foresee alternative options. 

4)  BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

409 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget. 

E-257 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of trichloroisocyanuric acid originating in the People’s Republic of 
China and the United States of America  

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  Community(1)  (the 
‘basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9 thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

A. 

PROCEDURE 

1. Provisional Measures 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

On 7 April 2005, the Commission imposed, by Regulation (EC) No 538/2005(2) (‘the 
provisional  Regulation’),  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  the  imports  into  the 
Community  of  trichloroisocyanuric  acid  (‘TCCA’)  originating  in  the  People’s 
Republic of China (‘PRC’) and the United States of America (‘USA’) (‘the countries 
concerned’). 

It is recalled that the investigation of dumping concerning the PRC covered the period 
from 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 (‘IP-PRC’) and that the investigation of dumping 
concerning the USA covered the period 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004 (‘IP-USA’).  

For both investigations, the examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury 
covered  the  period  from  1  January  2000  to  the  end  of  the  respective  investigation 
period (‘period considered’). 

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 89, 8.4.2005, p. 4. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. Subsequent procedure 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

Following  the  imposition  of  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  TCCA 
from  the  countries  concerned,  all  parties  received  a  disclosure  of  the  facts  and 
considerations  on  which  the  provisional  Regulation  was  based.  All  parties  were 
granted  a  period  within  which  they  could  make  representations  in  relation  to  these 
disclosures.  

Some  interested  parties  submitted  comments  in  writing.  Those  parties  who  so 
requested  were  also  granted  an  opportunity  to  be  heard  orally.  The  Commission 
continued  to  seek  and  verify  all  information  it  deemed  necessary  for  its  definitive 
findings.  

The Commission services further disclosed all the essential facts and considerations on 
the  basis  of  which  they  intended  to  recommend  the  imposition  of  a  definitive  anti-
dumping  duty  and  the  definitive  collection  of  amounts  secured  by  way  of  the 
provisional duty. The interested parties were also granted a period within which they 
could  make  representations  subsequent  to  this  disclosure.  The  oral  and  written 
comments  submitted  by  the  parties  were  considered  and,  where  appropriate,  the 
findings have been modified accordingly. 

B. 

PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

(7) 

It is recalled that, in recital (19) of the provisional Regulation, the product concerned 
was defined as TCCA and preparations thereof originating in the countries concerned. 
TCCA is also referred to as ‘symclosene’ under its international non-proprietary name 
(INN). TCCA is normally declared within CN codes ex 2933 69 80 and ex 3808 40 20. 

(8)  Moreover,  it  is  recalled  that,  as  set  out  in  recitals  (22)  and  (23)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation,  it  was  found  that  the  product  concerned  and  TCCA  produced  by  the 
Community industry and sold on the Community market as well as TCCA produced 
and sold on the domestic markets of the countries concerned and the analogue country 
were like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation, since no 
differences in the basic physical and chemical characteristics and uses of the existing 
different types of TCCA had been found. 

(9) 

One processor reiterated its claim already made at the provisional stage that the scope 
of the investigation should have excluded blended TCCA. The processor alleged that 
the  complaint  had  defined  the  product  concerned  as  only  unblended  TCCA  and  that 
this  product  scope  had  been  improperly  enlarged  by  blended  TCCA.  However,  it  is 
recalled  that  the  complaint  does  not  make  any  reference  to  blended  or  unblended 
products. It is also recalled that a product concerned is defined according to its basic 
physical, chemical, technical characteristics and end uses and may encompass several 
or many types which all share the same basic characteristics. In this case, both blended 
and  unblended  tablets  were  found  to  meet  these  criteria.  The  product  concerned  in 
these  proceedings,  as  indicated  in  the  notices  of  initiation  for  both  cases,  is 
trichloroisocyanuric  acid  and  preparations  thereof,  i.e.  all  types  of  the  product 
concerned that share the same basic characteristics are covered by these proceedings. 
It can therefore not be said that blended tablets should be excluded from the product 
scope nor that the product scope was enlarged. On this basis, the claim was rejected 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
and  the  conclusion  drawn  under  recital  (24)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  is 
confirmed. 

C. 

DUMPING 

1. General methodology 

1.1.  Normal value 

(10) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  about  the  methodology  used  when  calculating  the 
normal  value,  the  methodology  used  as  set  out  in  recitals  (26)  to  (33)  of  the 
provisional Regulation is confirmed. 

1.2. Export price 

(11) 

In the absence of any comments about the general methodology used when calculating 
the  export  price,  the  methodology  used  as  set  out  in  recital  (34)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation is confirmed. 

1.3. Comparison 

(12) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  about  the  methodology  used  when  comparing  the 
normal value and the export price, the methodology used as set out in recital (35) of 
the provisional Regulation is confirmed. 

1.4. Dumping margin for the PRC 

(13) 

In  the  provisional  Regulation  two  co-operating  producers  in  the  PRC  were  neither 
granted  Market  Economy  Treatment  (‘MET’)  nor  Individual  Treatment  (‘IT’)  (see 
recitals  (44)  and  (66)).  The  dumping  margins  for  these  two  exporting  producers  had 
provisionally  been  calculated  as  a  weighted  average  of  their  respective  individual 
dumping margins. 

(14)  These  two  companies  received  erroneously  a  separate  dumping  margin  and  an 
individual  duty,  contrary  to  Article  9(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation  and  the  consistent 
practice of the Institutions. Therefore, this should be corrrected at the definitive stage 
and both companies should be subject to the country-wide duty. 

(15)  Therefore, for the definitive measures and given that those two companies were clearly 
still under significant State influence, their data had to be considered in the calculation 
of  the  country-wide  dumping  margin.  Thus,  given  that  the  level  of  cooperation  was 
low, the country-wide dumping margin was set as a weighted average of 

(i) 
the  weighted  average  of  the  dumping  margins  found  for  these  two  exporting 
producers,  in  accordance  with  the  methodology  explained  in  recital  (38)  of  the 
provisional Regulation; and 

(ii) 
the  dumping  margins  found  for  the  representative  type  of  the  product 
concerned  with  the  highest  dumping  margin,  as  derived  from  the  two  exporters 
concerned. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
2. People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’) 

2.1. MET 

(16) 

In the absence of any comments, the provisional findings concerning determination of 
MET as set out in recitals (40) to (63) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed. 

2.2. IT 

(17) 

In the absence of any comments, the provisional findings concerning determination of 
IT as set out in recitals (64) to (67) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed 

2.3. Normal Value 

2.3.1. Determination of normal value for all exporting producers not granted MET 

a) Analogue country 

(18) 

In the absence of any comments on the choice of analogue country, the selection as set 
out in recitals (68) to (74) of the provisional Regulation is confirmed. 

b) Determination of normal value 

(19) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  on  the  normal  value  for  exporting  producers  not 
granted MET, the findings as set out in recital (75) of the provisional Regulation are 
confirmed. 

2.3.2. Determination of normal value for exporting producers granted MET 

(20)  Several  exporters  submitted  that  certain  allowances  claimed  when  calculating  the 
normal value had not sufficiently been taken into account. The exporters argued that 
certain costs (i.e. transports costs and packaging) had been included in the constructed 
normal  value  which  should  rather  have  been  deducted  as  an  allowance,  in  the  same 
way as it was done in cases where normal value was based on the domestic price. 

(21)  These  exporters  also  claimed  that,  for  those  types  of  the  product  concerned  where  a 
constructed normal value had to be used, selling, general and administrative expenses 
(‘SG&A’) should be those expenses incurred on the domestic market. 

(22)  Finally, they claimed that the applicable profit margin should be the margin obtained 

on domestic sales in the ordinary course of trade. 

(23)  Following  analysis  of  the  claims,  it  was  considered  appropriate  to  adjust  the  normal 
value  for  the  allowances  claimed  to  the  extent  that  these  claims  indeed  concerned 
transport and packaging costs that had been included in the constructed normal value 
as  provisionally  established.  Furthermore,  the  normal  value  has  now  been  calculated 
taking into account the SG&A incurred on the domestic market, and the profit margin 
applied has been adjusted to reflect the profit margin obtained in the ordinary course 
of  trade  on  the  domestic  market.  The  normal  value  has  therefore  been  adjusted 
downwards to reflect these changes. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
2.4. Export prices 

(24) 

In the absence of any comments, the provisional findings concerning export prices as 
set out in recitals (79) to (80) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed. 

2.5. Comparison 

(25) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments,  the  provisional  findings  concerning  comparison 
between  the  normal  value  and  the  export  price  as  set  out  in  recital  (81)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are confirmed. 

2.6. Dumping margin 

2.6.1. For the cooperating exporting producers granted MET/IT 

(26) 

In the absence of any other comments, except for the normal value adjustments, as set 
out in detail in recitals (20) to (23) above, the methodology set out in recitals (82) and 
(83) of the provisional Regulation is confirmed. The new dumping margins expressed 
as a percentage on the CIF import price at the Community border, are now as follows : 

Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co. Limited 

8,1 % 

Puyang Cleanway Chemicals Limited 

7,3 % 

Heze Huayi Chemical Co. Limited 

14,1% 

Zhucheng  Taisheng  Chemical  Co. 
Limited 

40,5 % 

2.6.2. For all other exporting producers 

(27)  The new country-wide dumping margin, expressed as a percentage on the CIF import 
price  at  the  Community  border,  and  amended  as  explained  in  recitals  (13)  to  (15) 
above, is now as follows : 

All other companies 

42,6 % 

3. The United States of America 

3.1 Normal value  

(28) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  on  the  determination  of  normal  value,  with  the 
exception  of  an  issue  of  comparison  having  an  influence  on  the  level  of  the  normal 
value  for  one  exporting  producer  and  commented  below,  the  provisional  findings 
concerning  the  method  of  establishing  normal  value  as  set  out  in  recital  (92)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are confirmed.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
3.2. Export price 

(29)  One  exporting  producer  contested  the  fact  that  the  SG&A  expenses  and  the  profit 
realised by its related importers in the Community were deducted in their entirety from 
the resale prices in order to arrive at a reliable export price. Rather it claimed that such 
deductions should be allocated over the activities of the company both in the US and 
in the Community.  

(30) 

In this respect, it is recalled that, pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, all 
costs,  including  the  SG&A  incurred  between  importation  and  resale  of  the  related 
importer,  plus  a  reasonable  profit  have  to  be  deducted.  The  deductions  have  been 
calculated  on  the  basis  of  actual  verified  data  of  the  importer.  Since  the  costs  which 
the  exporter  wanted  to  allocate  to  the  US  activities  were  indeed  incurred  in  the 
Community, the claim had to be rejected. 

3.3. Comparison 

(31)  One  exporting  producer  claimed  that  the  Commission  wrongly  compared  bulk  ex-

factory product for export with finished domestic retail product. 

(32) 

In this respect it is noted that from the initiation of the proceeding, a comparison has 
been made between the bulk product sold on the domestic market in the US and the 
bulk  product  imported  into  the  Community,  even  if  the  latter  was  presented  as  a 
finished  product,  such  as  tablets,  when  sold  to  the  first  independent  customer  in  the 
Community.  This  approach  was  based  on  the  observation  that  TCCA  is  mainly 
imported in bulk form into the Community and re-worked in the Community. 

(33)  However,  it  is  recognised  that  while  making  this  comparison  some  necessary 
adjustments  with  regard  to  the  finishing  of  the  product  were  not  made  at  the 
provisional stage. Therefore, normal value was adjusted by eliminating from the cost 
of production in the US the part that corresponds to the finishing of the product sold 
on  the  US  domestic  market.  The  manufacturing  costs  of  the  department  of  the  US 
exporting  producer  where  this  activity  took  place  were  eliminated  from  the  normal 
value, in accordance with the deduction from the resale price in the Community of the 
costs linked to the same activity, typically performed by third party subcontractors or 
tollers.  

(34) 

(35) 

It was further claimed that the above described ‘bulk approach’ would also require the 
exclusion of overheads (SG&A expenses) in the determination of normal value on the 
domestic  market,  because  allegedly  those  overheads  are  mainly  made  to  market  the 
finished product.  

In this respect it is noted that the activity of the group, which in the US consists of the 
exporting  producer  and  its  mother  company,  and  the  costs  made  at  that  level  with 
regard to TCCA, contribute to the marketing of both the bulk product and its different 
presentations to the first independent customer. The finished product is nothing more 
than  the  bulk  product  in  a  specific  presentation.  Claiming  that  the  overheads  do  not 
play  a  role  in  the  marketing  of  the  bulk  production  would  imply  that  it  would  be 
possible to continue the profitable production of bulk product without interference of 
the  company  and  group  structure,  and  more  specifically  its  sales  organisation. 
However,  in  reality  the  marketing  does  not  distinguish  between  bulk  or  finished 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
product  but  serves  the  marketing  of  TCCA  in  all  its  presentations.  The  claim  was 
therefore rejected. 

(36) 

In all other respects and in the absence of further comments, the provisional findings 
concerning the comparison of normal value to export price as set out in recital (94) of 
the provisional Regulation are confirmed. 

3.4. Dumping margin 

(37) 

In  accordance  with  Article  2(11)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  comparison  of  the 
weighted  average  normal  value  of  each  product  type  concerned  exported  to  the 
Community  to  the  weighted  average  export  price  of  each  corresponding  type  of  the 
product  concerned,  taking  into  account  the  level  of  trade,  showed  the  existence  of 
dumping in respect of the co-operating exporting producers.  

(38)  The definitive dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at 

the Community border, duty unpaid, are the following: 

BioLab Inc.: 50,4% 

Clearon Inc.: 105,3% 

(39)  The  residual  definitive  margin  was  established  at  the  highest  dumping  margin  found 
on the basis of the highest dumped and representative product type for one of the co-
operating exporting producers. 

Residual dumping margin: 120% 

D. 

INJURY 

1. Community production 

(40) 

In the absence of any new information submitted, the findings set out in recitals (97) 
and (98) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2. Definition of the Community industry 

(41)  One  processor  located  in  the  Community  argued  that  it  should  be  considered  as  a 
Community producer because it produces blended tablets of TCCA which are covered 
by the definition of the product concerned. The investigation however showed that this 
processor  did  neither  produce  itself  TCCA  in  granular  or  powder  form,  nor  even 
tablets  of  TCCA  or  preparations,  but  rather  subcontracted  the  production  of  these 
tablets.  Moreover,  the  production  of  these  tablets  does  not  entail  the  production  of 
TCCA  but  rather  a  transformation  of  TCCA  from  one  form  (granular  or  powder 
TCCA) in another (tablets of TCCA). On this basis, the claim could not be taken into 
account. 

(42)  Contradictory claims were received as to the treatment of the data provided by one of 
the European producers not included in the definition of the Community industry. The 
above  processor  claimed  that  the  data  of  this  producer  should  have  been  part  of  the 
Community industry while an exporting producer affirmed the contrary. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
(43) 

In  this  respect,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  data  available  for  this  producer  were  not 
used  in  the  assessment  of  the  situation  of  the  Community  industry,  given  that,  as 
mentioned in recital (97) of the provisional Regulation, the said producer did not fully 
co-operate  in  the  investigation  and  consequently  could  not  be  included  in  the 
definition  of  the  Community  industry.  There  was  therefore  no  reason  to  consider  its 
data in the analysis of the situation of the Community industry. 

(44)  Four Chinese co-operating exporting producers alleged that if there are more than two 
Community producers, like in the present case, the complaint cannot be supported by 
only one of them. It must be noted, however, that the degree of support for a complaint 
does  not  depend  on  the  number  of  companies  supporting  the  complaint,  but  is 
expressed in terms of production volume, pursuant to Article 4(1) and 5(4) of the basic 
Regulation. Moreover, it is recalled that as mentioned in recital (97) of the provisional 
Regulation, two out of the three Community producers supported the complaint. These 
two  producers  represented  more  than  50%  of  total  Community  production  so  that 
conditions  for  initiation  were  met.  Furthermore,  it  is  noted  that  in  this  case,  the 
complainant  Community  producer,  who  fully  cooperated  in  the  investigations, 
represented more than 50 % of the total Community production of TCCA during the 
IPs. The claim was therefore rejected. 

(45) 

(46) 

It  should  be  mentioned  that  since  the  imposition  of  the  provisional  measures, 
Aragonesas  Delsa,  the  Community  producer  which  was  deemed  to  constitute  the 
Community  industry,  has  been  acquired  by  the  group  Ercros.  One  American  co-
operating exporter alleged that the conditions for qualification as Community industry 
might  not  be  met  anymore,  given  that  according  to  this  exporter,  Ercros  also  owns 
Inquide, allegedly an important importer of Chinese TCCA.  

In this respect, it should be first noted that Inquide is part of the Neokem group, which 
is  one  of  the  other  European  producers  which  did  not  fully  co-operate  in  the 
investigation. Contrary to what is alleged by the American exporter, Ercros does not 
own Inquide fully but only owns a minor share in Inquide. Therefore, contrary to what 
is claimed by this exporter, Inquide and Aragonesas-Delsa have not merged and there 
are no direct financial links between them. The investigation also confirmed that the 
Community  producer  was  neither  participating  in  dumping  practices,  nor  shielded 
from  the  injurious  effects  of  dumping.  Therefore,  there  were  no  reasons  to  put  into 
question its qualification as Community industry. Consequently, the conclusion drawn 
in recital (99) of the provisional Regulation is confirmed. 

(47) 

In the absence of any other comments, the definition of the Community industry as set 
out in recital (99) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

3. Community consumption 

(48) 

In the absence of any new information, the calculation of Community consumption as 
set out in recitals (100) to (105) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
4. Imports into the Community from the countries concerned 

4.1.  Cumulative assessment of the effects of the dumped imports concerned - market 
shares of dumped imports 

(49)  One exporting producer argued that the cumulative assessment of the imports from the 
PRC  and  the  imports  from  the  USA  was  not  warranted  since  the  conditions  of 
competition  between  the  Chinese  and  the  American  imports  in  terms  of  import 
volume, market share and price behaviour were fundamentally different. 

(50) 

It is first recalled that the three conditions set by Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation 
have been assessed under recital (107) of the provisional Regulation. 

(51)  Moreover,  before  deciding  on  the  cumulation  of  the  imports  from  the  USA  and  the 
PRC,  the  actual  situation  of  import  volumes,  market  share  and  prices  of  the  imports 
concerned has been analysed separately for both countries in recitals (109) to (112) of 
the provisional Regulation. 

(52)  As regards the conditions of competition, it should be recalled that as set out in recital 
(24)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  TCCA  produced  in  the  PRC  and  the  USA,  and 
TCCA  produced  and  sold  by  the  Community  producers  on  the  Community  market 
have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and are interchangeable for 
Community  customers.  In  addition,  it  was  found  that  exporting  producers  in  the 
countries  concerned  and  producers  in  the  Community  all  use  similar  sales  channels. 
Moreover, the imports from the PRC and the USA both showed the same price trends. 
The  fact  that  imports  from  two  different  countries  do  not  entirely  follow  the  same 
trend in terms of volumes and market share can stem from various reasons and does 
not necessarily imply that they are not sold under similar conditions of competition.  

(53)  On the basis of the above, and in the absence of any further comments with respect to 
the  cumulative  assessment  of  the  effects  of  the  dumped  imports  concerned,  the 
findings as set out in recitals (106) to (108) of the provisional Regulation are hereby 
confirmed. 

4.2. 

Prices of imports and undercutting 

(54)  Following  corrections  made  in  the  dumping  calculations,  the  price  undercutting  has 

also been revised. 

(55)  During  the  IP,  the  weighted  average  price  undercutting  margins  for  the  PRC, 
expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  Community  industry's  sales  prices,  ranged  from 
33,8%  to  44,2%  for  the  Chinese  exporters.  The  weighted  average  price-undercutting 
margin was 39,7%. 

(56)  During the IP, undercutting for the US was also found to exist. Whilst one exporting 
producer  undercut  only  certain  types  of  TCCA,  the  other  co-operating  exporting 
producer  was  found  to  significantly  undercut  the  Community  industry’s  prices.  The 
weighted average price-undercutting margin was 0,69%. It is also noteworthy that the 
Community industry prices were depressed. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
5. Situation of the Community Industry 

(57) 

It  is  recalled  that  in  recital  (135)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the  Commission 
provisionally  concluded  that  the  Community  industry  had  suffered  material  injury 
within the meaning of Article 3 of the basic Regulation. 

(58)  Four  Chinese  exporters  claimed  that  in  most  anti-dumping  investigations,  material 
injury  was  established  when  the  Community  industry  is  making  losses  while  in  this 
particular case, the Community industry is still profitable. 

(59)  However,  it  is  recalled  that  a  loss  making  situation  is  not  a  pre-requisite  for  the 
determination  of  material  injury.  In  accordance  with  Article  3(5)  of  the  basic 
Regulation which states that the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on 
the  Community  industry  shall  include  an  evaluation  of,  inter  alia,  the  “actual  and 
potential  decline  in  […]  profits”,  the  profitability  analysis  has  to  be  seen  by 
comparison to the profit realised in the absence of dumping. In this particular case, it 
is recalled that the Community industry has lost 50% of the profit it reached in 2000, 
namely  before  the  dumped  imports  entered  the  Community  market.  Moreover,  it  is 
recalled  that  the  Community  industry  suffered  also  from  negative  developments  in 
respect of prices and market shares. 

(60)  On the basis of the above, and in the absence of any other comments in addition to the 
above, the findings in respect of the situation for the Community industry, as set out in 
recitals (117) to (135) of the provisional Regulation, are hereby confirmed.  

6. Conclusion 

(61) 

In  view  of  the  above,  it  is  concluded  that  the  Community  industry  has  suffered 
material injury within the meaning of Article 3 of the basic Regulation.  

E. CAUSATION 

1. Effect of the dumped imports 

(62) 

In  the  absence  of  any  new  information  submitted,  the  conclusions  set  out  in  recitals 
(136) to (141) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

Production capacity 

2. Effect of other factors 

(63)  One  exporting  producer  alleged  that  the  Community  industry  did  not  have  the 
technical ability to participate in market growth because of technical problems linked 
to the start-up of a new factory, and was not prevented from doing so by the dumped 
imports as alleged in recital (118) of the provisional Regulation. 

(64)  As mentioned in recital (118) of the provisional Regulation, the Community industry 
decided  in  2001/2002  to  set  up  a  new  factory  which  started  production  in  mid  2003 
when  the  old  plant  was  shut  down.  Although  it  is  true  that  the  Community  industry 
encountered some technical difficulties to use fully the capacity of its new factory, it 
should be noted that the designed capacity, which the exporting producer is referring 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
to  in  its  submission,  does  not  match  with  the  data  taken  into  consideration  in  the 
provisional Regulation. The capacity figures mentioned in the provisional Regulation 
referred to an actual capacity, i.e. a capacity adjusted to take into consideration these 
difficulties  instead  of  the  nameplate  capacity.  Therefore,  the  effect  of  the  technical 
difficulties  on  the  decreasing  trend  of  capacity  utilisation  had  already  been  partially 
taken into account. However, on the basis of the findings of the investigation, a further 
correction of the capacity figures used in the provisional Regulation would appear to 
be appropriate because the consequences of the above mentioned technical difficulties 
were  not  fully  reflected  in  the  capacity  figures.  Consequently,  the  actual  capacity 
utilisation  during  the  IPs  would  be  near  to  100%.  Indeed,  it  was  found  that  the 
Community industry was operating at full capacity and had to temporary purchase the 
product concerned in order to meet the demand. Therefore, it cannot be excluded that 
the  temporary  technical  difficulties  of  the  Community  industry  to  produce  have 
contributed to some extent to the injury suffered by the Community industry.  

Effect of investments 

(65)  One  exporting  producer  argued  that  the  Commission  failed  to  consider  the  negative 
impact on profitability of the major investments made by the Community industry and 
the additional costs due to the technical problems it had to face in the start-up phase. 

(66) 

It  is  recalled  that  the  issue  of  the  new  investment  of  the  Community  industry  has 
already been dealt with in recital (150) to (152) of the provisional Regulation. 

(67)  Moreover,  as  stated  in  recital  (129)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the  new  factory 
permitted the Community industry to reduce both fixed and variable costs, to produce 
more  efficiently  and  to  reach  better  productivity  levels.  Therefore,  as  mentioned  in 
recital (125) of the provisional Regulation, any additional cost of the new investment 
has  been  compensated  by  parallel  cost  reductions  and  better  efficiency.  Indeed,  the 
cost  of  production  which  first  increased  between  2000  and  2001,  subsequently 
decreased  until  the  IPs  when  a  gain  in  productivity  could  be  reached.  It  is  also 
noteworthy that any effect of the new factory on the depreciation costs started only in 
July  2003,  i.e.  when  the  new  factory  started  to  produce  and  when  the  old  factory 
definitely  stopped.  It  can  therefore  not  explain  the  decreasing  trend  in  profitability 
which  already  started  in  2001  -  profitability  decreased  by  more  than  20%  between 
2000  and  2002  and  even  by  more  than  40%  between  2001  and  2002.  The  argument 
was therefore rejected. 

Maturation of the TCCA market 

(68)  One processor challenged the conclusion of recital (149) of the provisional Regulation 
and reiterated its claim that price decreases were normal and were to be expected due 
to the maturation of the TCCA market. 

(69)  Although  a  price  decrease  can  be  expected  when  a  product  reaches  a  certain 
maturation,  it  should  however  be  stressed  that  while  maturation  is  rather  commonly 
understood as a smooth, continuous and regular process which takes place over several 
years,  the  price  decrease  of  the  imports  concerned  was  on  the  contrary,  sudden  and 
significant,  since  prices  dropped  by  an  average  of  15%  per  year  between  2000  and 
2003, even though the demand during the summer time in this period was particularly 
high. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
(70)  Moreover,  according  to  the  claim  mentioned  above,  the  injury  suffered  by  the 
Community  industry  in  terms  of  prices  would  have  been  caused  by  the  normal 
evolution of the Community market which became mature over the period considered. 
This would mean that the decrease of 8% of the Community industry prices between 
2000 and the IP-PRC, or 12% between 2000 and the IP-USA would correspond to the 
“normal” evolution of the prices on the Community market in view of the life cycle of 
the product. However, it is recalled that prices of the imports concerned decreased by 
40%  between  2000  and  the  IPs,  which  is  obviously  much  more  than  an  expected 
“normal” price decrease which would be merely due to the maturation of the market. 
Therefore,  even  if  the  maturation  of  the  market  might  have  contributed  to  a  limited 
extent to the price evolution, it can certainly not explain the significant price decrease 
of the imports concerned between 2000 and the IPs nor the injury suffered thereof by 
the Community industry. 

Exports of the Community industry 

(71)  Four co-operating Chinese exporters claimed that some figures regarding the exports 
of the Community industry were missing in the injury analysis so that it is not possible 
to establish the full picture of the Community industry situation. 

(72)  Regarding  profitability,  one  exporting  producer  argued  that  the  Commission  has  not 
taken into consideration the negative impact of the Community industry’s exports of 
TCCA to the USA. It is recalled that the injury investigation focuses on the situation 
of the Community industry on the Community market. Consequently, the profitability 
figures mentioned in recital (125) of the provisional Regulation only concern the sales 
made on the Community market and are therefore not influenced by any alleged loss 
made on the USA or on any other export market.  

(73)  Some  parties  alleged  that  any  negative  trends  in  the  Community  industry’s  market 
share and profitability were largely due to the Community industry’s exports outside 
the Community market. According to them, if the Community industry’s exports had 
been  sold  in  the  EC  market  instead  of  being  exported  to  the  USA  market,  the 
Community industry would have been able to meet the demand on the EC market, to 
keep its market share and to sell at a better price. 

(74)  The  investigation  showed  that  the  exports  of  the  Community  industry  continuously 
increased since 2000 and represented more than 50 % of its total sales of the product 
concerned during the IPs, compared to less than 45% in the year 2000.  

(75) 

In  this  respect,  it  should  first  of  all  be  noted  that  the  Community  industry’s  market 
strategy is not to meet the demand on the Community market whatever the price is, but 
to sell a maximum on this market at an acceptable price. 

(76)  Secondly, the prices of exports to the USA do not as such point to injury because they 
are not comparable to those on the Community market. Indeed, it was found that any 
link made between the exports sales and the situation of the Community industry is not 
relevant  because  the  exports  sales  and  the  sales  made  on  the  Community  market  are 
not comparable in terms of product mix and thus in terms of price. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
(77)  Sales made on the export market are mainly sales of granules in big bags whose price 
is much lower than the product sold on the Community market, i.e. mainly tablets. A 
simple price comparison of the unadjusted figures is therefore inconclusive. 

(78)  Thirdly, it should be noted that more than 80% of the sales on the Community market 
take  place  between  February  and  August,  while  the  sales  period  on  the  American 
market is longer, particularly in the sun belt area. Therefore, the sales to the USA in 
excess of what the Community market could absorb at an acceptable price allowed the 
Community industry to achieve improved economies of scale and to maintain the price 
level on the Community market.  

(79)  Fourthly, it should be noted that the USA market is the first market in the world for 
swimming pool equipments and chemicals.  It was therefore vital for the Community 
industry  to  have  access  to  this  important  market  and  maintain  its  position  there,  in 
order to diversify its customers and also to take part in the development of the most 
active market.  

(80)  Finally,  no  evidence  was  provided  showing  that  these  sales  on  the  American  market 
could  have  been  replaced  by  sales  on  the  Community  market  at  the  same  period  of 
time and at better price, thus causing self inflicted injury.  

(81)  On the basis of the above, the claims were rejected and in the absence of any further 
comments,  the  conclusions  drawn  in  respect  of  the  effect  of  other  factors  in  recitals 
(142) to (154) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3. Conclusion on Causation 

(82)  Based  on  the  above  considerations  and  other  elements  contained  in  recitals  (136)  to 
(154) of the provisional Regulation, it is concluded that imports from the PRC and the 
USA  have  caused  material  injury  to  the  Community  industry  within  the  meaning  of 
Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation. 

F. 

COMMUNITY INTEREST 

1. Interest of the Community industry 

(83) 

In the absence of any comments made with respect to the interest of the Community 
industry,  the  findings  as  set  out  in  recital  (160)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are 
hereby confirmed. 

2. Interest of unrelated importers 

(84) 

It  should  be  recalled  that  the  cooperation  of  unrelated  importers  was  very  low  as 
already  mentioned  in  recital  (162)  of  the  provisional  Regulation.  Furthermore,  no 
importers made any comments after disclosure of the provisional findings.  

(85)  Under these circumstances, and in the absence of any further information submitted or 
available in respect of the interest of the unrelated importers, the findings as set out in 
recitals (161) to (162) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
3. Interest of processors 

(86)  The further investigation showed that the situation of the processors can vary a lot in 
terms  of  profitability  and  in  terms  of  impact  of  TCCA  on  their  cost  of  production. 
Therefore,  the  assumption  made  in  recital  (168)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  that 
TCCA represents more than 40% of the processor’s cost of production and that it is a 
low  margin  product  needs  to  be  refined.  Indeed,  an  additional  on  spot  verification 
carried out at the premises of one of the most important processor on the EC market, 
showed  that  the  product  concerned  represented  less  than  25%  of  its  total  cost  of 
production and that its profitability was above 8%. 

(87)  One  processor  challenged  the  assessment  of  the  provisional  Regulation  that  the 
processors could revise their price upward, and thus pass part of the cost increase to 
their  customers  so  that  the  effect  of  the  measures  would  be  diluted  through  the 
distribution chain. 

(88)  This  scenario  was  however  confirmed  by  at  least  another  processor,  which  clearly 
stated that since the provisional duties have been imposed, processors have increased 
their prices between 15% and 25% (or on average EUR 0.32/kg) for the 2005 season. 
This was also confirmed by another processor. The investigation also showed that the 
processors are not contractually prevented from increasing their prices and that special 
clauses  have  also  been  inserted  in  their  contracts  for  the  2006  season  in  view  of  the 
possible  imposition  of  anti-dumping  duties.  These  elements  clearly  show  that  the 
processors have already, at least partially, taken some precautions to pass on the cost 
increase to the distribution chain. 

(89)  Finally,  the  investigation  showed  that  the  mark-up  added  by  the  mass  merchants  on 
their  purchase  price  from  the  processors  can  be  significant,  i.e.  above  40%,  which 
confirms that there is room for passing on the cost increase caused by the duties to the 
distribution chain. 

(90)  One processor claimed that the imposition of one single duty on imports of TCCA in 
the  form  of  both  granules  and  tablets  would  drive  exporting  producers  and 
intermediaries  to  import  directly  tablets  and  would  negatively  affect  the  processing 
activity. It was therefore suggested that a higher duty be imposed on imports of tablets 
than  on  imports  of  TCCA  in  granules.  According  to  this  processor,  such  distinction 
would allow to protect both the Community industry and the processors. 

(91)  However,  it  is  recalled  that  the  product  concerned  was  defined  as  TCCA  and 
preparations thereof. It can be in the form of granules, powder or tablets, with no limit 
of  Chlorine  content.  Therefore,  although  the  comparisons  were  made  between 
products  having  identical  characteristics,  such  as  the  form  or  the  packaging,  the 
resulting  duty  applied  on  the  product  concerned  should  apply  on  imports  of  TCCA, 
whatever  the  form  is,  i.e.  granules,  powder  or  tablets.  Any  other  approach  would 
consist  in  using  the  anti-dumping  duties  to  make  up  for  the  difference  in  processing 
costs between the European processors and the Chinese exporters, which is obviously 
not the purpose of anti-dumping measures. Finally, it is noted that, although the same 
ad  valorem  duty  applies  to  both  TCCA  in  granules  and  tablets  of  TCCA,  it  will 
necessarily  result  in  a  higher  amount  of  duties  to  be  paid  when  applied  on  more 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
expensive  products,  such  as  tablets.  This  could  partially  satisfy  the  request  made  by 
this processor. The claim was therefore rejected. 

(92)  On  the  basis  of  the  above,  and  in  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  made  with 
respect to the interest of the Community processors, the findings as set out in recitals 
(163) to (172) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4. Interest of consumers 

(93)  One processor reiterated its claim that any price increase will not be in the consumers’ 
interest.  However,  as  explained  in  the  provisional  Regulation,  any  price  increase  is 
likely  to  be  minor  and  thus  not  to  affect  the  consumer‘s  choice.  This  has  been 
confirmed by one processor which even stated that the impact on the final consumer 
would be around EUR 10 per year, which is even less then the conservative estimate 
of EUR 2.5 per month mentioned in the provisional Regulation. Such a cost increase 
cannot  be  considered  as  significant  or  of  a  nature  as  to  lead  the  final  consumer  to 
switch to alternative products. 

(94) 

In  addition,  the  estimated  amount  of  EUR  10  per  year  only  reflects  the  hypothetical 
maximum impact of the measures if the entire duty were to be passed on to the final 
consumer. It also does not take into account the fact that the definitive measures are at 
least for the imports originating in the USA lower than those provisionally imposed. 

(95)  On  the  basis  of  the  above,  and  in  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  made  with 
respect to the interest of the Community consumers, the findings as set out in recitals 
(173) to (177) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

5. Conclusion on Community Interest 

(96) 

In  view  of  the  conclusions  drawn  in  the  provisional  Regulation,  and  taking  into 
account the submissions made by the various parties, it is concluded that there are no 
compelling  reasons  not  to  impose  definitive  anti-dumping  measures  against  dumped 
imports of TCCA originating in the countries concerned. 

G. 

DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 

(97)  Based  on  the  methodology  explained  in  recitals  (179)  to  (183)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation, an injury elimination level was calculated for the purposes of establishing 
the level of measures to be imposed.  

(98)  When calculating the injury margin in the provisional Regulation, the target profit for 
the Community industry was set at 10%, a level deemed conservative and which could 
be reasonably expected in the absence of injurious dumping. 

(99)  Several  interested  parties  argued  that  a  10%  profit  is  inappropriate  for  the  TCCA 
business  and  that  the  profit  should  rather  be  below  5%.  However,  as  mentioned  in 
recital (181) of the provisional Regulation, the profit level of the Community industry 
before  the  imports  concerned  into  the  Community  started  to  significantly  increase. 
Indeed, the level reached in 2000 and 2001, shows that a 10% profit can reasonably be 
expected in the absence of dumping. The claims were therefore rejected. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
(100)  In  the  absence  of  any  new  comments  on  this  subject,  the  methodology  set  out  in 

recitals (179) to (183) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

1. Definitive measures 

(101)  In  the  light  of  the  foregoing  and  in  accordance  with  Article  9(4)  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  should  be  imposed  at  the  level  of  the 
dumping margin calculated as regards imports originating in the PRC and at the level 
of the injury margin calculated as regards imports originating in the USA. 

(102)  On the basis of the above, since the injury margins were in all cases higher than the 
dumping  margins  with  regard  to  the  PRC  and  lower  than  the  dumping  margins  with 
regard to the USA, the definitive duties should be as follows:  

Country 

Company 

Anti-dumping 
duty rate 

PRC 

Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co. Limited 

8,1 % 

Puyang Cleanway Chemicals Limited

7,3 % 

Heze Huayi Chemical Co. Limited 

14,1% 

Zhucheng  Taisheng  Chemical  Co.
Limited 

40,5 % 

All other companies 

USA 

Biolab Inc.: 

Clearon Inc.: 

All other companies 

42,6 % 

7,4% 

8.1% 

25,0% 

(103)  The  individual  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 countrywide 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.  Imported  products  produced  by 
any other company not specifically mentioned by its name and address in the operative 
part  of  this  Regulation,  including  entities  related  to  those  specifically  mentioned, 
cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to "all 
other companies". 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
(104)  Any claim requesting the application of these individual 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(3) forthwith with 
all  relevant  information,  in  particular  any  modification  in  the  company's  activities 
linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with e.g. that name change 
or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will 
accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual 
duty rates. 

(105)  In  order  to  minimise  the  risks  of  circumvention  due  to  the  high  difference  in  the 
amounts  of  duties,  it  is  considered  that  special  measures  are  needed  in  this  case  to 
ensure  the  proper  application  of  the  anti-dumping  duties.  These  special  measures 
include: 

(106)  The  presentation  to  the  customs  authorities  of  the  Member  States  of  a  valid 
commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex to 
this Regulation. Only imports accompanied by such an invoice shall be declared under 
the  applicable  TARIC  additional  codes  of  the  producer  in  question.  Imports  not 
accompanied  by  such  an  invoice  shall  be  made  subject  to  the  residual  anti-dumping 
duty applicable to all other exporters. 

(107)  The  companies  concerned  have  also  been  invited  to  submit  regular  reports  to  the 
Commission  in  order  to  ensure  a  proper  follow-up  of  their  sales  of  the  product 
concerned  to  the  Community.  Should  the  reports  not  be  submitted,  or  should  the 
analysis of the reports show that the measures are not adequate to eliminate the effects 
of  injurious  dumping,  the  Commission  may  initiate  an  interim  review  pursuant  to 
Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation. This review may, inter alia, examine the need 
for the removal of individual duty rates and the consequent imposition of a country-
wide duty. 

2. Collection of provisional duties 

(108)  In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and in the light of the level of 
the material injury caused to the Community Industry, it is considered necessary that 
the  amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty,  imposed  by 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 538/2005, should be collected at the rate of the duty 
definitively  imposed.  Where  the  definitive  duties  are  higher  than  the  provisional 
duties,  only  the  amounts  secured  at  the  level  of  the  provisional  duties  should  be 
definitively  collected.  The  amounts  secured  in  excess  of  the  definitive  rate  of  anti-
dumping duties should be released. 

3 

European Commission 
Directorate-General for Trade 
Direction B 
Office J-79 5/16 
B-1049 Brussels 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1 

2 

A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of trichloroisocyanuric 
acid and preparations thereof, also referred to as ‘symclosene’ under the international 
non-proprietary name (INN), and falling within CN codes ex 2933 69 80 and ex 3808 
40 20 (TARIC codes 2933 69 80 70 and 3808 40 20 20), originating in the People’s 
Republic of China and the United States of America. 

The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable before duty, to the net free-at-
Community-frontier price for products manufactured by the companies listed below 
shall be as follows: 

Country 

Company 

Anti-dumping duty 
rate 

TARIC 
additional Code

PRC 

Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co. Limited 

Puyang Cleanway Chemicals Limited 

Heze Huayi Chemical Co. Limited 

8,1 % 

7,3 % 

14,1% 

Zhucheng Taisheng Chemical Co. Limited

40,5 % 

All other companies 

USA 

Biolab Inc. 

Clearon Inc. 

All other companies 

42,6 % 

7,4% 

8,1% 

25,0% 

A604 

A628 

A629 

A627 

A999 

A594 

A596 

A999 

3. 

4. 

The application of the individual duty rates specified for the companies mentioned in 
paragraph 2 shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the 
Member  States  of  a  valid  commercial  invoice,  which  shall  conform  to  the 
requirements  set  out  in  Annex  1.  If  no  such  invoice  is  presented,  the  duty  rate 
applicable to all other companies shall apply. 

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

Article 2 

Amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  pursuant  to  Commission 
Regulation  (EC)  No  538/2005  on  imports  of  trichloroisocyanuric  acid  and  preparations 
thereof, also referred to as ‘symclosene’ under the international non-proprietary name (INN) , 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
and falling within CN codes ex 2933 69 80 and ex 3808 40 20 (TARIC codes 2933 69 80 70 
and 3808 40 20 20), originating in the People’s Republic of China and the United States of 
America  shall  be  definitely  collected  at  the  rate  definitively  imposed  by  the  present 
Regulation. The amounts secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping duties shall 
be released. 

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 

23 

   EN 

 
 
 
ANNEX 1 

The  valid  commercial  invoice  referred  to  in  Article  1(3)  of  the  Regulation  must  include  a 
declaration signed by an official of the company, in the following format: 

1 

2 

The  name  and  function  of  the  official  of  the  company  which  has  issued  the 
commercial invoice; 

The  following  declaration:  “I,  the  undersigned,  certify  that  the  [volume]  of 
trichloroisocyanuric acid sold for export to the European Community covered by this 
invoice was manufactured by [company name and address] [TARIC additional code] 
in  [country  concerned].  I  declare  that  the  information  provided  in  this  invoice  is 
complete and correct.”  

Date and signature. 

EN 

24 

   EN