Council Regulation (EC) No 1891/2005 of 14 November 2005 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3068/92 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of potassium chloride originating in Belarus, Russia or Ukraine
Date: 2005-11-14
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Belarus, Russia, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, chemical salt

L 302/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.11.2005

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1891/2005

of 14 November 2005

amending Regulation (EEC) No 3068/92 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
potassium chloride originating in Belarus, Russia or Ukraine

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

(4)

Having regard to the Treaty
Community,

establishing the European

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22
December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from
countries not members of the European Community (1)
(the
basic Regulation) and in particular Article 11(3) thereof,

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

(5)

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

A. PROCEDURE

1. Previous investigations and existing measures

Following an investigation (the previous investigation),
the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 969/2000 (2),
amended the measures originally imposed by Regulation
(EEC) No 3068/92 (3) on imports of potassium chloride
in Russia (the existing measures).
originating,

inter alia,

In March 2004, by means of a notice published in the
Official Journal of the European Union (4), the Commission
launched, on its own initiative, a partial interim review of
the existing measures to examine whether they should be
amended to take account of
the
European Union to 25 Member States on 1 May 2004
(Enlargement).

the enlargement of

The results of that partial interim review showed that it
was in the interests of the Community to provide for the
temporary adaptation of the existing measures so as to
avoid a sudden and excessively negative impact on
importers and users in the ten new Member States imme-
diately following Enlargement.

(6)

(7)

(8)

in May 2004, by Regulation (EC) No
To this end,
1002/2004 (5),
the Commission accepted undertakings
from two exporting producers in Russia, namely JSC
Silvinit and JSC Uralkali for a period of one year.
In
June 2005, by Commission Regulation (EC) No
858/2005 (6) new undertakings, which expire on 13
April 2006, were accepted from the two exporting
in order to provide
In addition,
producers in Russia.
for
anti-dumping duties
imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 3068/92 on imports
made under the terms of the undertakings, Regulation
(EEC) No 3068/92 was amended by Regulation (EC)
No 992/2004 (7).

exemption from the

the

to ‘the
It
should also be noted that all
Community’ or ‘the Community of 15’
in the present
Regulation shall be taken to mean, unless otherwise
specified,
the Community as constituted immediately
before Enlargement.

references

2. Grounds for the present reviews

In January 2004, separate requests were received from
JSC Silvinit and JSC Uralkali
(the applicants) for indi-
interim reviews of the existing measures
vidual partial
pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.

The applicants alleged and provided sufficient prima facie
evidence that a comparison of normal value based on
their own costs/domestic prices and their export prices
to the Community would lead to a removal of dumping.
Therefore,
the existing
the continued imposition of
measures at the existing levels, which were based on
the level of dumping previously established, were no
longer necessary to offset dumping.

after

determined,
that

consulting
sufficient evidence existed for

the Advisory
Having
the
Committee,
initiation of partial
the Commission
published notices of initiation and commenced an inves-
tigation (8).

interim reviews,

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation

(5) OJ L 183, 20.5.2004, p. 16. Regulation as amended by Regulation

(EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 12).

(EC) No 588/2005 (OJ L 98, 16.4.2005, p. 11).

(2) OJ L 112, 11.5.2000, p. 4.
(3) OJ L 308, 24.10.1992, p. 41.
(4) OJ C 70, 20.3.2004, p. 15.

(6) OJ L 143, 7.6.2005, p. 11.
(7) OJ L 182, 19.5.2004, p. 23.
(8) OJ C 93, 17.4.2004, p. 2 and p. 3.

19.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 302/15

3. Period of investigation

into three basic categories, based on the K2O content,
namely:

(9)

The investigation was limited to dumping and covered
the period from 1 April 2003 until 30 March 2004 (the
investigation period or IP).

4. Parties concerned by the investigation

(10)

the

and

exporting

applicants
the initiation of

The Commission officially advised the representatives of
the
the
country,
Community industry of
the interim
reviews and gave all parties directly concerned the oppor-
tunity to make their views known in writing and to
request a hearing. The Commission also sent question-
naires to the applicants. Questionnaires replies were
received from the applicants and from an exporting
applicant
trader
companies.

related to one of

in Russia

the

(14)

(11)

information it
The Commission sought and verified all
deemed necessary for the purpose of the determination
of dumping and carried out verifications of the replies to
the questionnaire at
the following
companies:

the premises of

(a) Exporting producers in Russia:

JSC Silvinit, Solikamsk, Perm Region, Russia,

JSC Uralkali, Berezniki, Perm Region, Russia.

(b) Related exporter to JSC Silvinit:

(15)

International Potash Company, Moscow, Russia.

B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

1. Product concerned

(12)

The product is the same as in previous investigation, i.e.
potassium chloride (potash or KCl) and is generally used
as agricultural fertiliser, directly, blended with other ferti-
lisers or after transformation into a complex fertiliser
known as NPK (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium). The
potassium content
is variable and is expressed as a
percentage of the weight of potassium oxide (K2O) on
the dry anhydrous product.
is also used as a raw
material
in the manufacture of certain industrial and
pharmaceutical products.

It

(13)

Potash is generally commercialised in either a standard/-
powder form (standard potash) or in other than standard
form that includes — but is not limited to — a granular
form (granular potash). The product is generally classified

— potassium content not exceeding 40 % K2O — falling
(CN) code

Nomenclature

Combined

within
3104 20 10,

— potassium content exceeding 40 % K2O but less than
to 62 % — falling within CN code

or
equal
3104 20 50,

— potassium content over 62 % K2O — falling within

CN code 3104 20 90.

fall under any of

should also be considered as

It should be recalled that in the previous investigation it
was found that imports of certain special mixtures or
blends with an unusually high content of potash which
the CN codes for potash
do not
the
indicated above,
reached as
product concerned. This conclusion was
such mixtures
same basic
shared the
physical and chemical characteristics and have the same
above.
uses
Accordingly, such mixtures or blends falling within CN
codes ex 3105 20 10, ex 3105 20 90, ex 3105 60 90,
ex 3105 90 91 and ex 3105 90 99 were also included
in the present investigation and constitute part of the
product concerned.

categories mentioned

and blends

basic

the

as

2. Like product

It was established that, as there were no differences in the
physical or chemical properties between the product
exported from Russia to the Community and the
product produced in Russia and sold on the Russian
domestic market,
they were considered to be like
products for the purposes of the present investigation.

C. DUMPING WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICANTS

1. Normal value

export

sales volumes

to the Community.

(16) As far as the determination of normal value is concerned,
it was first established whether the total volume of each
of the applicants’ total domestic sales of the like product
were representative in comparison with their respective
In
total
accordance with Article 2(2) of
the basic Regulation,
domestic sales were considered to be representative
when each of the applicants’ domestic sales volumes of
their
the like product constituted at
respective total export sales volumes to the Community
during the investigation period. On this basis, for both
applicants, overall domestic
the product
concerned during the IP were found to have been
made in representative quantities.

least 5 % of

sales of

L 302/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.11.2005

(17)

by

the

types

product

defining

in
Subsequently,
accordance with the TARIC codes under which the
is classified (i.e. by standard grade or other
product
than standard grade,
including granular) and by the
packing or form in which it is shipped (i.e. in bulk, in
bags or in containers), an analysis was made as to
whether the domestic sales of each product type were
representative. Domestic sales of a particular product
type were considered sufficiently representative when
the total domestic sales volume of that type during the
IP represented 5 % or more of the total sales volume of
the
the
Community.

comparable

exported

product

type

to

(18) As a result of

this analysis,

it was found that one
JSC Silvinit, had only sold one
exporting producer,
exported product
type in representative quantities on
the domestic market. For the other exporting producer,
JSC Uralkali, it was found that all exported product types
had been sold in representative quantities on the
domestic market.

(19) An examination was also made as

the
domestic sales of each product type could be regarded
as having been made in the ordinary course of trade by
establishing the proportion of profitable sales to inde-
pendent customers of the type in question.

to whether

(20)

such exports,

it was found for JSC Uralkali that its
In this regard,
domestic sales prices for the best sold product
type
exported to the Community (the best sold export type)
showed
accounting for over 99 % of
unusual trends during the investigation period.
It was
established that, during the investigation period, 77 %
of domestic sales of the best sold exported type had
been made to one customer in Russia and that
the
sales price to this particular customer had, in the space
of one month in the middle of the investigation period,
more than doubled. Price rises for the same product type
sold to other domestic customers also rose at the same
time, but only by a margin of around 40 %. Examination
of price rises for other potash types sold domestically
showed similar price increases of around 40 % during
the investigation period.

(21)

In view of this particular market situation with regard to
pricing for a key product
type used to calculate the
dumping margin, pursuant to Article 2(3) of the basic
Regulation it is considered that such sales do not permit
a proper comparison. Given the significance of such sales

to the

customer

it
specific

in the domestic sales volumes of the type in question,
and the importance of this type in the overall export
volume of potash exported by the company concerned
is considered reasonable to
to the Community,
in
sales
disregard these
question. The remaining domestic sales of this product
type to other customers were found to be below the 5 %
threshold considered necessary for them to be regarded
as representative. Accordingly, normal value for
this
product type was calculated on the basis of the cost of
production of the exporting producer concerned, plus a
reasonable amount for selling, general and administrative
costs and profit. The amounts for selling, general and
administrative costs and for profit were based on actual
data pertaining to production and sales, in the ordinary
course of trade, of the like product, by the exporting
producer under
investigation in accordance with the
first sentence of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation.

(22)

It was submitted by Uralkali that the ‘particular market
situation’ foreseen in Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation
is not applicable for the sales of the product concerned
to the customer in question and therefore the domestic
prices for the product type concerned should have been
used to establish normal value.
In this regard it was
argued (i) that the provision of Article 2(3) of the basic
Regulation would not apply in case of ‘artificially high
prices’ and (ii) that special conditions applied to only one
specific client could not be considered to constitute a
‘particular market situation’
for the Russian domestic
market as a whole. Moreover,
it was claimed that the
prices in question were resulting from ‘market forces’
and reflected ‘the actual situation on the market’.

(23) With regard to the above,

it should be noted that the
particular market situations referred to in Article 2(3) of
the basic Regulation are not exhaustive and that
the
particularity of the market should be assessed, inter alia,
in light of price variations and trends rather than solely
on the basis of the absolute level of the prices. In this
case both low priced sales transactions and high priced
transactions were excluded from the calculations since
they did not reflect a level of prices of a lasting nature
and since those prices did not appear to reflect market
forces as such trends were not
found for any other
for any other client of Uralkali.
product
Secondly, Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation provides
that normal value may be constructed in situations where
‘… because of a particular market situation such sales do
not permit a proper comparison …’. This clearly allows
that, as in the current situation, sales to a customer
which are considered not to permit a proper comparison
may be disregarded as a basis for establishing normal
value. This conclusion does not relate to the Russian
market as a whole but rather to these sales of Uralkali.

type or

19.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 302/17

(24) As concerns JSC Silvinit, where the sales volume of one
product type, sold at a net sales price equal to or above
the unit cost, represented more than 80 % of the total
sales volume of
type, and where the weighted
average price of that type was equal to or above the
adjusted unit cost, normal value was based on the
actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average
of the prices of all domestic sales of that product type
made during the IP,
irrespective of whether these sales
were profitable or not.

that

purchase costs per unit to those of another major potash
producer with similar production methods, output levels
and similar natural advantages. As there are no other
producers of potash in Russia,
this information was
sought and obtained from a large producer of potash
in Canada.

(25)

the domestic prices

For the other product type of JSC Silvinit, which was sold
in insufficient quantities
to
for
provide an appropriate basis for the establishment of
the normal value, another method had to be applied.
in
In this case, constructed normal value was used,
the basic Regulation.
accordance with Article 2(3) of
Normal value was
constructed by adding to the
adjusted unit cost of the exported type, a reasonable
percentage
administrative
expenses and a reasonable margin of profit, on the
basis of actual data pertaining to production and sales,
in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product, by
the exporting producer under investigation in accordance
with the first sentence of Article 2(6) of the basic Regu-
lation.

general

selling,

and

for

(26)

It was claimed by Uralkali that the profit margin used in
the construction of the normal value did not properly
take into account the adjustments of the gas costs, as the
profits used for the constructed normal values were
derived form the company’s accounts before adjustments.
this claim could not be accepted since in
However,
accordance with the chapeau of Article 2(6) of
the
basic Regulation the actual profit amounts realised by
the company in the domestic market should be used
for the construction of the normal value.

(29)

The data provided showed that the energy requirements
of the Canadian producer were similar to those of the
applicant Russian producers and that electricity and gas
purchased by this company was derived from domestic
hydro-electric power and major gas fields, as is the elec-
tricity and gas used by the Russian companies. The
comparison showed that the cost per unit for electricity
paid by the Canadian producer was not too dissimilar to
that paid by the Russian producers.

(30) As concerns gas supplies, it was established on the basis
of data found in the published annual report for 2003 of
the Russian gas provider OAO Gazprom (whose regional
distributor was also the supplier
to the exporting
producers in question), that the domestic price of gas
paid by the two Russian Producers was around one
fifth of the export price from Russia. The same report
clearly stated that ‘OAO Gazprom did not make any
profit in the domestic market’. While there is no officially
available information as to the profitability of Russian
domestic gas prices, quotes from Russian government
sources in the press together with data obtained from
specialized market intelligence sources and governmental
websites all strongly suggest that the gas prices charged
to domestic customers were made at prices far from cost
recovery levels. Moreover, the price of gas paid by the
two Russian Producers was significantly lower than the
gas price paid by the Canadian producers.

(27) As concerns energy costs, such as electricity and gas used
in the mining and production processes of the product
concerned, the investigation established that these costs
form a significant proportion of the total cost of manu-
facturing of potash producers, not only in Russia but in
other producing countries as well. In this regard, it was
submitted by the Community industry that the energy
cost per unit of electricity and gas paid by the Russian
companies to their utilities suppliers did not reasonably
reflect the actual production cost of the electricity and
gas purchased.

(31)

(28)

In view of these allegations, it was considered appropriate
in the present case to also compare the applicants’ energy

In view of the above, it was therefore considered that the
prices charged by the regional Russian gas provider to
the Russian potash producers in the investigation period
could not reasonably reflect the costs associated with the
production of gas when compared to the exported price
of gas from Russia and the price of a Canadian gas
provider
In
accordance, therefore, with Article 2(5) of the basic Regu-
lation, an adjustment to the cost of production for each
of the applicants was made. In the absence of any other
reasonable basis, such an adjustment was made using
information concerning the price of gas for export, net
of transport costs, customs export tax, value added tax
and excise duty.

industrial user

to a major

in Canada.

L 302/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.11.2005

(32)

records,

therefore no

In this regard, it was submitted by one of the applicants
that the charges for gas were properly reflected in its
accounting
adjustment was
warranted under Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation. In
response to this argument it is not disputed that the
company has
invoiced
correctly accounted for
prices paid, rather the adjustment
is justified by the
fact
the gas purchased does not
the price of
reasonably reflect the cost of production and distribution
of the gas.

that

the

(33) On the adjustment

by

for

that

the gas costs,

the Russian Authorities

it was also
submitted
the
Commission had not taken into account the different
transportation costs between the gas sold domestically
for industrial usage and the gas sold for export.
It
should be recalled (see recital 31) that the comparison
which has led to the adjustment has been made between
the gas prices actually paid by the companies and the
export prices charged by the Russian gas provider OAO
Gazprom for export from Russia, net of transport costs,
customs export tax, value added tax and excise duty.
Therefore, this claim was rejected.

(34) One of the applicants submitted that it had a significantly
lower unit cost of production during the first quarter of
2004 (i.e. the last quarter of the investigation period) due
to increased efficiency and lower maintenance costs and
that this lower unit cost should be considered as the
basis for the cost of production for the whole investi-
gation period. This request was not granted as the appro-
priate basis for establishing such costs is the full investi-
gation period, rather than costs occurring in an excep-
tional, shorter, period.

(35) As also concerns cost of production, it was submitted by
the Community industry that depreciation of capital
assets should, for the purpose of the applicants’ cost of
production, be based on the replacement costs of such
assets (e.g. new mine shafts and machinery etc.). In this
it was argued that depreciation based conven-
regard,
tionally on the acquisition (historical) value of
the
in accordance with Article
capital assets would not,
the
reasonably reflect
the basic Regulation,
2(5) of
costs associated with the production of
the product
concerned. It was submitted, therefore, that an upward
adjustment to the Russian producers’ costs was required.

(36) As concerns this submission,

it was noted that depre-
ciation based on the acquisition value and residual
life of capital assets appears to be in line
economical
with accounting practices
in the mining industry.
Therefore, in order to establish whether the depreciation
included in the cost of production data reasonably
reflected the costs associated with the production of
the product concerned, the investigation focused on the

way the historical values of the assets had been estab-
lished.

(37)

In this regard, the on-the-spot verification visits to the
Russian producers showed that the original value of their
assets had been determined on the basis of valuations
carried out during the privatization process which took
place in 1993. These asset values were subsequently
revised between 1993 and 1997 as a result of the appli-
cation of ‘revaluation coefficients’ issued by the Russian
Government to deal with hyperinflation. At the end of
1997, following a Decree of the Russian Government,
independent valuations of assets were carried out by
independent
criteria were
adopted in establishing these asset values, one of which
was the replacement value of the asset. The result of
reflected in the
these
opening Balance Sheet of the applicants in 1998.

independent assessments are

evaluators. Three

basic

(38) Nevertheless, despite

this upward valuation of

the
original values, it was noted that the asset values of the
applicants, when expressed as a ratio of production to
value of the assets, still appear to be significantly lower
than the asset values of the companies comprising the
Community industry and a major producer with similar
extraction and production capacity in Canada. Such an
assessment, however, does not
the
obsolescence and lower technological level of the assets
of the Russian producers obtained prior to the privati-
sation which took place in 1993.

take into account

(39)

(40)

Therefore in the absence of any substantive evidence
showing that depreciation had not been correctly
reflected in the accounts of the exporting producers, it
is not considered possible at the present time to make
any adjustment
to depreciation costs in the cost of
production data used for establishing the normal value
of the applicants.

The Community industry also submitted that an allo-
cation for environmental protection costs comparable
to those incurred by the Community producers should
also be factored into the cost of production calculations.
It was found, however, that the applicants had incurred
such costs and had accounted for them in the cost of
production calculations. With regard to whether such
costs should be of a similar proportion or magnitude
to those of the Community producers, it is considered
that as long as the applicants have met the environ-
mental protection levels prescribed by the Russian autho-
rities and that the costs involved in meeting such levels
are correctly reflected in their records, no adjustment is
required. As this was found to be the case for both of the
applicants, no adjustment was warranted for environ-
mental costs.

19.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 302/19

2. Export price

4. Dumping margin

JSC Silvinit (Silvinit)

(41) With regard to Silvinit,

it was found that most of the
company’s sales of potash to the Community in the
investigation period were made via an unrelated Swiss
trading company. For the purposes of the present investi-
gation and pursuant to Article 2(8) of the basic Regu-
lation, the prices, actually paid or payable to Silvinit by
this trading company, were taken as the basis for calcu-
lating the export price.

Ferchimex AS

(42) However, it was found that two transactions were made
via Silvinit’s related Russian trading company, Interna-
tional Potash Company (IPC), to a related company in
Belgium called
(Ferchimex), which
processed the imported potash into a product not
covered by the investigation. In accordance with Article
2(9) of the basic Regulation, the prices charged by IPC to
Ferchimex may be disregarded if they are considered to
be unreliable. It was noted that for both of the trans-
actions, the sales price to Ferchimex were at a broadly
similar price for the same types when sold to inde-
pendent customers in the Community. Moreover, both
transactions concerned only minor quantities. Therefore,
they were both included in the overall determination of
the export price.

JSC Uralkali (Uralkali)

(43) As concerns Uralkali,

it was found that all of

the
company’s sales of potash to the Community in the
investigation period were made directly to a trader
situated in Cyprus called Fertexim Ltd which acted as
an exclusive distributor for Uralkali. For such sales, the
export price was established in accordance with Article
2(8) of the basic Regulation, i.e. on the basis of the prices
actually paid or payable by Fertexim.

3. Comparison

(44)

The normal value and export prices for both of
the
applicants were compared on an ex-works basis. For
the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the
normal value and the export price, due allowance was
made for differences which affect price comparability in
accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.

(45) Accordingly, allowances for differences in respect of
discounts,
loading and
ancillary costs, packing and credit costs have been
granted where applicable and supported by evidence.

insurance, handling,

transport,

(46)

(47)

(48)

(49)

In accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation,
for each exporting producer
the adjusted weighted
average normal value by product type was compared
to the adjusted weighted average export price of each
corresponding type of the product concerned sold to
the Community.

The comparison showed the existence of dumping for
both of the companies concerned, however, at signifi-
cantly lower levels than those established previously. As
a weighted average of
exported to the
all
Community, expressed as percentages of the total CIF
Community frontier price, duty unpaid,
the dumping
margins established were as follows:

types

Exporting producer

% Dumping margin

JSC Silvinit

JSC Uralkali

23,0

12,3

D. LASTING NATURE OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES

In accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation,
an analysis was made as to whether the circumstances
with regard to dumping had changed significantly and if
any change could be said to be of a lasting nature. In this
regard,
it was found that the change in the dumping
margins resulted from a lowering of the normal values
of the applicants.

In this regard,
it should be noted that in the present
investigation, normal value was established on the basis
of the applicants’ costs and prices. Moreover, contrary to
investigation, domestic
the findings
consumption for potash has been steadily increasing in
the last few years and, overall, the domestic sales prices
of both Russian producers are profitable.

in the previous

than the Community, neither of

(50) As concerns the lasting nature of export sales prices on
the
markets other
applicants was able to provide detailed data on a trans-
action-by-transaction basis at producer level. Aggregated
data was, however, provided by country of destination
and by product type. This was considered sufficient for
the purposes of the present partial interim review as an

L 302/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.11.2005

exact determination of sales prices on such markets is
not an absolute requirement. In the absence of detailed
data, and in view of (i) the variety of delivery terms used
for such sales (e.g. cif, fob, FCA etc.) (ii) the different
rail +
logistical arrangements and combinations (e.g.
sea, rail only etc.) (iii) the differences in distances and
transport and handling costs to various destinations in
Asia and South America, the Commission was not in a
position to determine with exactitude the sales prices to
each country. There were, however, indications that sales
to the non-Community markets were,
price
levels
allowing for
the same order of
transport costs, of
magnitude as sales to the Community.

(56)

F. FORM OF THE MEASURES WITH REGARD TO THE

APPLICANTS

fixed

amounts

comprise

The existing measures are applicable to eight CN codes
from
and
EUR 19,61/tonne to EUR 40,63/tonne, depending on
investigation
the product
period, however,
the
exports by the applicants
to the Community were
limited to a product type falling under one CN code.

current
found that almost all

type. During the

ranging

it was

(51)

In view of all these factors, it is considered appropriate to
amend the existing measures insofar as they concern the
applicants by lowering the dumping margins to those
established in the present investigation.

(57) Accordingly, in view of the absence of information on
the other product types, and as the particular type of
potash concerned appears now to be the most commer-
cialised, the most reasonable approach for implementing
the amended duties is considered to be the replacement
of all the fixed amounts with a single ad valorem duty for
all potash types manufactured by the applicants,

(52) According to Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, the
amount of the anti-dumping duties should not exceed
the margins of dumping established, but they should
be less than those margins if such lesser duties would
be adequate to remove the injury of the Community
Industry. As the existing duties for the applicants had
been calculated on the basis of the dumping margins,
and as the new dumping margins are lower than the
ones previously
should be
adjusted to the lower dumping margins found in this
investigation, namely 23,0 % for
and
12,3 % for JSC Uralkali.

JSC Silvinit

calculated,

duties

the

(53)

The interested parties were informed of the essential facts
and considerations on the basis of which it was intended
to recommend that the anti-dumping duties originally
imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 3068/92 be amended.
They were given the opportunity to comment and to
request a hearing. All comments received were taken
into consideration where appropriate.

E. UNDERTAKINGS

(54)

the essential

facts and consi-
Following disclosure of
derations on the basis of which it was intended to
recommend that
the anti-dumping duties originally
imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 3068/92 be amended,
the applicants offered price undertakings in
both of
the basic Regulation.
accordance with Article 8(1) of

(55)

The Commission, by Decision 2005/802/EC (1) accepted
the undertakings offered by the applicants. The reasons
for accepting these undertakings are set out
in that
Decision.

(1) See page 79 of this Official Journal.

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EEC) No 3068/92 is amended as follows:

1. Article 1 shall be amended as follows:

(a) paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following:

‘1.
A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed
on imports of potassium chloride falling within CN
codes 3104 20 10, 3104 20 50, 3104 20 90, and on
special mixtures falling within CN codes ex 3105 20 10
(TARIC codes 3105 20 10 10 and 3105 20 10 20),
ex 3105 20 90 (TARIC codes 3105 20 90 10 and
3105 20 90 20),
codes
ex 3105 60 90
ex 3105 90 91
3105 60 90 10 and 3105 60 90 20),
(TARIC codes 3105 90 91 10 and 3105 90 91 20),
ex 3105 90 99 (TARIC codes 3105 90 99 10 and
3105 99 20), originating in Belarus or Russia.’;

(TARIC

(b) in paragraph 3, the heading for the table relating to

‘Russia’ shall be replaced by the following:

‘Russia (all companies excluding JSC Silvinit and JSC
Uralkali — TARIC additional code A999)’;

19.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 302/21

(c)

the following paragraph shall be inserted:

2.

in Article 1a, paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following:

the imports of

‘3a.
the exporting producers
For
the anti-dumping duty
mentioned below,
applicable to the net, free-at-Community-frontier price,
before duty, for the products described in paragraph 1
shall be as follows:

the rate of

Company

JSC Silvinit, Solikamsk, Russia

JSC Uralkali, Berezniki, Russia

Rate
of duty

23,0 %

12,3 %

TARIC
additional
code

A665

A666’

‘1.
Imports declared for release into free circulation shall
be exempt from the anti-dumping duties imposed by Article
they are produced by companies from
1, provided that
which undertakings are accepted by the Commission and
whose names are listed in the Commission Regulation (EC)
No
Decision
in
No 2005/802/EC, as from time to time amended, and
have been imported in conformity with the provisions of
the same Commission acts.’

Commission

858/2005

and

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following 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, 14 November 2005.

For the Council
The President

T. JOWELL