Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of tartaric acid originating in the People's Republic of China
Date: 2006-01-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, import, organic acid, originating product

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Corrigendum : Annule et remplace le document COM(2005) 711 final du 05.01.2006 pour 
tenir compte des changements suivants : 

Brussels, 26.01.2006 
COM(2005) 711 final/2 

Pages 2 et 3: dans l’expression «basic Regulation» le «r» est remplacé par «R» ; 
Page 6 :, point 1 : (MET) est remplacé par (‘MET’) ; 
Page 7, Considérant 26: le mot «explaining» est remplacé par «presenting»; 
Page 8, Considérant 31: le mot «furthermore » a été ajouté ;  
Page 9, Considerant 35 : le texte «imports of tartaric acid manufactured by » a été 

Ne concernent que la version EN :  
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
ajouté ; 
- 
- 
- 
- 
listed below » et le texte « as follows» ont été ajoutés. 

Page 9, Considerant 38 : le mot « however » a été supprimé ; 
Page 11, Considérant 47: le mot «the following» a été supprimé; 
Page 11, Considerant 48 : « Customs » est remplacé par « customs » ; 
Page 12, à l’article 1(2) le texte « of the products manufactured by the companies 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of tartaric acid originating in the People's Republic of China 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1)  CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

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

•  General context 

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

•  Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1259/2005 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty 
on imports of tartaric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China 

•  Consistency with the other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

2)  CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

•  Consultation of interested parties 

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

•  Collection and use of expertise 

There was no need for external expertise. 

•  Impact assessment 

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

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

3)  LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

On  30  October  2004,  the  Commission  opened  an  anti-dumping  investigation  with 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
regard  to  imports  into  the  Community  of  tartaric  acid  originating  in  the  People's 
Republic of China. 

By  Regulation  (EC)  No  1259/2005  of  27  July  2005,  the  Commission  imposed 
provisional anti-dumping duties on these imports.  

The attached proposal for a Council Regulation is based on the definitive findings on 
dumping,  injury,  causation  and  Community  interest  which  confirmed  the  provisional 
findings while introducing some changes to the calculation of the dumping margins. 

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation 
which should be published in the Official Journal no later than 28 January 2006. 

•  Legal basis 

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

•  Subsidiarity principle 

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

•  Proportionality principle 

The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reason(s). 

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

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

•  Choice of instruments 

Proposed instruments: regulation. 

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

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

4)  BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of tartaric acid originating in the People's Republic of China 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 

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

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

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

A 

PROVISIONAL MEASURES 

The  Commission,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1259/20052  (the  ‘provisional  Regulation’) 
imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of tartaric acid (‘TA’), currently 
classifiable within CN code 2918 12 00, originating in the People's Republic of China 
(‘PRC’). 

It is recalled that the investigation of dumping and injury  covered the  period from 1 
July 2003 to 30 June 2004 (‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’). With respect to the trends 
relevant for the injury assessment, the Commission analysed data covering the period 
from 1 January 2001 to 30 June 2004 (‘period considered’). The period used for the 
findings on undercutting, underselling and injury elimination is the aforementioned IP. 

B. 

SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE 

Following  the  imposition  of  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  TA 
originating in the PRC, some interested parties submitted comments in writing. 

The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for 
its  definitive  findings.  Following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  the 
Commission  carried  out  further  verifications,  principally  in  order  to  verify  the 
determination of normal value, at the premises of the following companies: 

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 200, 30.7.2005, p. 73. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
a) Exporting producers in the PRC 

–  Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co., Ltd, Hangzhou, PRC. 

–  Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co., Ltd, Changzhou City, PRC. 

–  Ninghai Organic Chemical Factory, Ninghai, PRC. 

(5) 

All  parties  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the  basis  of 
which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty 
and  the  definitive  collection  of  amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  duties.  They 
were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent 
to this disclosure. 

(6) 

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

C. 

PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

The product concerned is tartaric acid, currently classifiable within CN code 2918 12 
00.  The  product  concerned  is  used  in  wine,  in  beverage  and  food  additives,  as  a 
retardant in plaster and in numerous other products. It can be obtained either from the 
by-products  of  wine  making,  as  is  the  case  with  all  Community  producers  or,  via 
chemical  synthesis,  from  petrochemical  compounds,  as  is  the  case  with  all  PRC 
exporting producers. 

Two  importers  argued  that  a  distinction  should  be  made  between  TA  of  food  or 
pharmaceutical grades, such as the natural TA produced by the Community industry, 
and  synthetic  TA  of  technical  (non-food)  grades.  They  also  argued  that  the  latter 
should be excluded from the proceeding since, unlike TA produced by the Community 
industry, the technical grades could not be used for human consumption. 

One importer also pointed out that the TA produced by the Community industry and 
that imported from the PRC resulted from completely different production processes, 
and only natural TA could be used for wine production. This importer further claimed 
that the particular type of TA it imported was tailored to the needs of one particular 
user and could not be used by others. This importer therefore argued that this type of 
TA and that produced by the Community industry were not like products. 

(10)  While it is recognised that there are different types of TA which are not equally suited 
to  all  applications,  the  investigation  confirmed  that  all  these  types  of  TA  share  the 
same basic physical and chemical characteristics. As far as applications are concerned, 
for wine making, which represents about 25% of the market, only natural tartaric acid 
can be used. However, for the remaining 75%, including some products destined for 
human  consumption,  both natural and  synthetic TA can be  used and are therefore in 
competition. It should also be noted that production processes as such are not relevant 
for the definition of like product. 

(11) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  concerning  the  product  concerned  and  like 
product, recitals (11) to (13) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
1. 

Market economy treatment (‘MET’) 

D. 

DUMPING 

(12) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  regarding  the  granting  of  MET,  the  conclusions 
reached  in  recitals  (14)  to  (17)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  definitively 
confirmed. 

2. 

Normal value 

(13)  Following  provisional  disclosure,  no  comments  were  received  concerning  the 
methodology  for  determining  normal  value.  Accordingly,  the  conclusions  reached  in 
recitals (18) to (34) of the provisional Regulation are definitively confirmed. 

3. 

Export price 

(14) 

In  the  absence  of  any  relevant  comments  regarding  export  prices,  the  conclusions 
reached in recital (35) of the provisional Regulation are definitively confirmed. 

4. 

Comparison 

(15) 

In the absence of any comments regarding the comparison between the normal value 
and the export prices, the conclusions reached in recitals (36) to (37) of the provisional 
Regulation are definitively confirmed. 

5. 

a) 

Dumping margin 

For the co-operating exporting producers granted MET 

(16)  Two exporting producers submitted claims concerning the detailed calculations made 
for establishing the level of the provisional dumping margins found. These comments 
were considered in light of the revised data obtained during the verification visits as 
outlined  in  recital  (4)  of  this  Regulation.  Furthermore,  some  calculation  errors  were 
corrected. 

(17)  Accordingly,  the  definitive  weighted  average  dumping  margins  expressed  as  a 

percentage of the CIF Community frontier price duty unpaid, are: 

Company 

Definitive dumping 
margin 

Hangzhou  Bioking  Biochemical  Engineering  Co.,  Ltd, 
Hangzhou 

Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co., Ltd, Changzhou City 

Ninghai Organic Chemical Factory, Ninghai 

0.3%  

10.1% 

4.7% 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
b) 

For all other exporting producers 

(18)  Following  provisional  disclosure,  no  comments  were  received  concerning  the 
methodology  for  calculating  the  dumping  margin  for  all  other  exporting  producers. 
Accordingly,  the  provisional  countrywide  level  of  dumping  of  34.9%  of  the  CIF 
Community frontier price is definitively confirmed. 

1. 

Community production 

E. 

INJURY 

(19) 

In the absence of comments concerning Community production, recitals (43) to (44) of 
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2. 

Definition of the Community industry 

(20)  One importer submitted that some of the Community producers which were originally 
complainants  had  ceased  production,  and  asked  the  Commission  to  verify  whether 
there  was  still  enough  support  for  the  investigation  according  to  Article 5(4)  of  the 
basic Regulation. 

(21) 

In this respect, the investigation confirmed that the producers supporting the complaint 
represented  over  95%  of  the  estimated  Community  production  during  the  IP. 
Therefore, the requirements of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation are fulfilled.  

(22) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  concerning  the  definition  of  the  Community 
industry, recital (45) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

3. 

Community consumption 

(23) 

In the absence of any comments concerning the Community consumption, recital (46) 
of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

4. 

Imports into the Community from the country concerned 

(24) 

In the absence of any comments concerning the imports from the country concerned, 
recitals (47) to (52) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

5. 

Situation of the Community industry 

(25)  One  importer/user  and  one  exporter  objected  to  the  analysis  in  the  provisional 
Regulation based on the argument that some EC producers had ceased production, and 
should  therefore  not  have  been  taken  into  consideration  in  assessing  the  situation  of 
the Community industry. 

(26) 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  Commission’s  analysis  of  the  factors  mentioned  in 
Article 3(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation  did  not  include  any  data  from  the  companies 
which  had  ceased  production.  Such  companies  were  mentioned  in  the  provisional 
Regulation  only  insofar  as  necessary  for  interpreting  some  aggregate  indicators  such 
as for example market shares or total production capacity. This was each time clearly 
explained in the text presenting each indicator concerned, in order to give a complete 
and  correct  assessment  of  the  situation  of  the  Community  industry.  Therefore,  it  is 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
considered that the analysis of the situation of the Community industry was made in 
full accordance with the basic Regulation. 

(27) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  concerning  the  situation  of  the  Community 
industry, recitals (53) to (82) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

F. 

CAUSATION 

(28)  One  exporter  argued  that  the  Community  producers  had  a  dominant  position  in  the 
market  and  that  Chinese  imports,  with  only  11.5%  of  the  market,  could  not  be  the 
main cause of injury.  

(29)  As for the market share of PRC exports, it is estimated at between 11.5% and 15.8%, 
according  to  whether  Eurostat  or  Chinese  statistical  sources  are  used.  Even  a 
conservatively  estimated  market  share  of  11.5%  cannot  be  considered  insignificant 
given  that,  as  mentioned  in  the  provisional  Regulation,  injury  was  clearly  caused  by 
the  increasing  pressure  of  growing  imports  at  prices  substantially  undercutting  the 
prices of the Community industry. As to whether or not the Community industry had a 
dominant  position  is  ultimately  not  relevant  if  it  is  established  that  the  Community 
industry suffered injury from no other substantial causes than the dumped imports. In 
this  respect,  it  should  be  noted  that,  despite  its  larger  market  share,  the  Community 
industry  had  not  been  able  to  avoid  major  losses  during  the  period  considered.  This 
contradicts the claim that it has benefited from a dominant position. Moreover, imports 
of third countries also ensured that there was sufficient competition in the market. 

(30)  Another exporter pointed out that the new production brought into the market by the 
two  recently  established  EC  producers  was  more  important  than  the  increase  in 
Chinese  imports  and  therefore  injury  would  have  been  self-inflicted.  However,  the 
prices  of  the  new  EC  producers  were  in  line  with  those  of  the  established  ones  and 
their  production  was  less  than  the  production  of  the  companies  which  had  ceased 
business.  For  these  reasons,  without  the  Chinese  imports,  their  entry  into  the  market 
could  not  explain  the  price  collapse,  which  occurred  in  a  context  of  increasing 
Community consumption. 

(31)  Another exporter claimed that the regulatory framework of the Common Agricultural 
Policy distorts normal market conditions for the EC producers and that the causation 
analysis  failed  to  take  this  into  account.  Although  this  argument  was  only  made  in 
very general terms, it should be noted that the Common Agricultural Policy does not 
regulate the price of TA itself, but only sets minimum prices for some of the inputs in 
TA production as well as a selling price for alcohol. As set out in recital (89) of the 
provisional  Regulation,  these  regulatory  parameters  remained  stable  throughout  the 
period and can therefore not account for the deterioration of the Community industry’s 
situation. Furthermore, they do not call into question that Chinese imports are dumped 
and causing injury to the Community industry. 

(32) 

In the absence of any other comments concerning causality, recitals (83) to (95) of the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
G. 

COMMUNITY INTEREST 

(33)  One user from the gypsum industry claimed that the proportion represented by TA in 
the gypsum industry’s production costs, mentioned in the provisional Regulation (less 
than 2%) was too low. This figure was, however, based on the data submitted by the 
same company. According to the same data, the figure would be slightly higher, if it is 
expressed  as  a  percentage  of  only  those  products  containing  TA.  On  the  other  hand, 
two  other  gypsum  groups  have  indicated  much  lower  percentages  than  this.  This 
confirmed that the data used in the provisional Regulation can be considered to be a 
reasonable estimate. 

(34)  Moreover, it is recalled that the gypsum products in which TA is used as a retardant 
are  not  exposed  to  much  competition  from  non-EC  suppliers,  according  to  Eurostat 
data. The conclusion of the provisional Regulation, that a moderate dumping duty on 
this  percentage  of  the  costs  should  not  have  a  major  impact  upon  the  costs  and 
competitive position of those user industries, is therefore maintained.  

(35)  The  same  user  also  argued  that  the  measures  could  lead  to  shortages  of  TA,  as  was 
claimed to have happened in the past. However, it is not considered that anti-dumping 
duties of the proposed individual levels on imports of TA manufactured by companies 
representing about two-thirds of PRC exports would foreclose the EC market to PRC 
suppliers. 

(36)  One user from the emulsifier industry argued that their competitive position would be 
jeopardized  if  measures  were  introduced  on  imports  of  TA  originating  in  the  PRC. 
This user claimed that due to technical change, emulsifiers are increasingly subject to 
competition from non-EU producers and that a cost increase following the imposition 
of  measures  would  affect  their  competitive  position  in  the  market.  The  Commission 
tried to verify the possible effect of measures on this category of users on the basis of 
quantified  data.  However,  in  the  absence  of  meaningful  replies  to  the  Commission’s 
questionnaire and of co-operation from this group of users, this was not possible. 

(37) 

In the absence of any other comments concerning Community interest, recitals (98) to 
(114) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

H. 

DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 

1. 

Injury elimination level 

(38)  Further to the disclosure of provisional findings, the Community industry claimed that 

the calculated non-injurious price was too low on two grounds: 

–  The  price  of  raw  materials  was  depressed  during  the  IP,  i.e.  the  industry  had 
managed to pass on to the upstream sectors some of the pressure on prices. This is 
recognised  in  recital  (69)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  whilst  the  interest  of 
suppliers is analysed under recitals (101) to (106). As mentioned in recital (89) of 
the  provisional  Regulation,  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy  sets  out  only  a 
minimum  price  for  the  purchases  of  raw  material.  Furthermore,  the  industry  did 
not substantiate its claim and did not submit any evidence indicating that the price 
level  of  raw  materials  would  not  be  sustainable  and  should  be  higher  than  that 
minimum. Therefore, it was concluded that the argument was not founded.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
–  It  was  claimed  that  the  normal  profit  margin  used  in  the  injury  calculation,  8%, 
was too low for this type of industry. However, given the level of profits observed 
for  the  Community  industry  in  the  years  before  the  IP  and  prior  to  the  market 
penetration of the dumped imports, this percentage represents an adequate margin 
to  reflect  a  normal  profit  level  that  could  be  achieved  in  the  absence  of  such 
imports. 

(39) 

In the absence of any other comments concerning the injury elimination level, recitals 
(115) to (118) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2. 

Form and level of the duties 

(40) 

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  margins  found,  since  for  all  the  exporting  producers  concerned  the  injury 
margins were found to be higher than the dumping margins. 

(41)  Regarding the form of the measures, the Community industry required that a minimum 
price  based  on  the  injury  elimination  level  should  be  imposed.  However,  since  the 
level of the definitive anti-dumping duty is based on the dumping margins found, as 
mentioned in the above recital, the imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duty in 
form of ad valorem duties is maintained. 

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

Company 

Dumping margin 

Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co., Ltd, 
Hangzhou 

De minimis 

Changmao  Biochemical  Engineering  Co.,  Ltd, 
Changzhou City 

Ninghai Organic Chemical Factory, Ninghai 

All other companies 

10.1% 

4.7% 

34.9% 

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

(44)  Any claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty 
rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
new  production  or  sales  entities)  should  be  addressed  to  the  Commission3  forthwith 
with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company's activities 
linked  to  production,  domestic  and  export  sales  associated  with,  for  example,  that 
name  change  or  that  change  in  the  production  and  sales  entities.  If  appropriate,  the 
Regulation  will  then  be  amended  accordingly  by  updating  the  list  of  companies 
benefiting from individual duty rates.  

(45) 

In  order  to  ensure  a  proper  enforcement  of  the  anti-dumping  duty,  the  residual  duty 
level  should  not  only  apply  to  the  non-cooperating  exporters,  but  also  to  those 
companies  which  did  not  have  any  exports  during  the  IP.  However,  the  latter 
companies are invited, when they fulfil the requirements of Article 11(4) of the basic 
Regulation, second paragraph, to present a request for a review pursuant to that Article 
in order to have their situation examined individually. 

Definitive collection of provisional duties 

(46) 

In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and in the light of the level of 
the  injury  caused  to  the  Community  industry,  it  is  considered  necessary  that  the 
amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty,  imposed  by  the 
provisional  Regulation,  i.e.  Regulation  (EC)  No  1259/2005,  should  be  definitively 
collected  to  the  extent  of  the  amount  of  the  definitive  duties  imposed.  As  definitive 
duties are lower than the provisional duties, amounts provisionally secured in excess 
of the definitive duty rate of anti-dumping duties shall be released. 

(47) 

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: 

(48)  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. Imports not accompanied by such an invoice shall be made subject to 
the residual anti-dumping duty applicable to all other exporters. 

(49) 

In addition, the Commission will monitor the export flows as well as the relevant CN 
code for salts and esters of TA. Should the exports by one of the companies benefiting 
from  lower  individual  duty  rates  increase  significantly  in  volume,  or  should  the 
imports declared under the relevant CN code for salts and esters increase dramatically, 
the individual measures concerned might be considered as being likely insufficient to 
counteract the injurious dumping found. Consequently, and provided that the requisite 
elements  are  met,  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.  

3 

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

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of tartaric acid, falling within 
CN code 2918 12 00, originating in the People’s Republic of China. 

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

Company 

Anti-Dumping Duty 

TARIC Additional Code 

Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical 
Engineering Co., Ltd, Hangzhou, 
People’s Republic of China 

Changmao Biochemical Engineering 
Co., Ltd, Changzhou City, People’s 
Republic of China 

Ninghai Organic Chemical Factory, 
Ninghai, People’s Republic of China 

All other companies 

0.0% 

10.1% 

4.7% 

34.9% 

A687

A688

A689

A999

3.  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 the 
Annex. If no such invoice is presented, the duty rate applicable to all other companies shall 
apply.  

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

Article 2 

Amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  pursuant  to  Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 1259/2005 on imports of tartaric acid, falling within CN code 2918 12 
00, originating in the People’s Republic of China shall be definitively collected, in accordance 
with the rules set out below. The amounts secured in excess of the amount of the definitive 
anti-dumping duties shall be released.  

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

Article 3 

EN 

12 

   EN 

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
Annex 

The  valid  commercial  invoice  referred  to  in  Article  1(3)  of  this  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 tartaric 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 

14 

   EN