Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of dihydromyrcenol originating in India
Date: 2007-12-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: India, anti-dumping duty, chemical alcohol, chemical product, import, originating product

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 20.12.2007 
COM(2007) 834 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of dihydromyrcenol originating in India 

(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 2117/2005 
of 21 December 2005 (the 'basic Regulation') in the proceeding concerning imports of 
dihydromyrcenol originating in India. 

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 the requirement 
that  the  measures  should  not  be  contrary to  the  "Community  interest"  means  that  the 
assessment  of  the  wider  impact  of  the  measures  forms  an  integral  part  of  the 
investigation. 

3)  LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

305 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
On 11 November 2006, the Commission announced by a notice ('notice of initiation'), 
published  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union,  the  initiation  of  an  anti-
dumping  proceeding  concerning  imports  into  the  Community  of  dihydromyrcenol 
originating in India. 

The  anti-dumping  proceeding  was  initiated  following  a  complaint  lodged  on  29 
September 2006 by two Community producers representing a major proportion of the 
Community  production  of  dihydromyrcenol,  containing  evidence  of  dumping  and  of 
material injury resulting there from. 

On  28  July  2007,  the  Commission  imposed,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  896/2007,  a 
provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  into  the  Community  of  dihydromyrcenol 
originating in India.  

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

Member States were consulted during the Anti-Dumping Committee of 15 November 
2007.  20  Member  States  were  in  favour  of  the  proposed  course  of  action,  1  opposed 
and 6 abstained. 

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 by 26 January 2008 
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 2117/2005 of 21 December 2005. 

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. 

•  Choice of instruments 

341 

Proposed instruments: regulation. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
342 

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. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

of 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of dihydromyrcenol originating in India 

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. 

Provisional measures 

A. 

PROCEDURE 

(1) 

(2) 

On  27  July  2007,  the  Commission  imposed  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  896/20072  (the 
'provisional  Regulation')  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  into  the 
Community of dihydromyrcenol originating in India (the 'country concerned'). 

It is recalled that the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 
October  2005  to  30  September  2006  (the  'investigation  period'  or  'IP').  The 
examination  of  trends  relevant  for  the  injury  analysis  covered  the  period  from  1 
January 2003 to the end of the IP (the 'period considered'). 

(3) 

The  addresses  of  the  Community  producers  listed  in  recital  (7)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are rectified as follows: 

- Destilaciones Bordas Chinchurreta S.A., Dos Hermanas (Sevilla), Spain; 

- Sensient Fragrances S.A., Granada, Spain; 

- Takasago International Chemicals (Europe) S.A., Murcia, Spain. 

1 

2 

OJ  L  56,  6.3.1996,  p.  1.  Regulation  as  last  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  2117/2005  (OJ  L  340, 
23.12.2005, p. 17). 
OJ L 196, 28.7.2007, p. 3. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

Subsequent procedure 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

Following  the  imposition  of  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of 
dihydromyrcenol originating from India, all parties received disclosure of the essential 
facts  and  considerations  on  which  the  provisional  Regulation  was  based  (the 
provisional  disclosure).  All  parties  were  granted  a  period  within  which  they  could 
make written and oral representations in relation to this disclosure.  

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. 

All  interested  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  the 
provisional  duty  (the  'final  disclosure').  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) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  concerning  the  product  concerned  and  the  like 
product, recitals (9) to (12) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

1. 

Normal value 

C. 

DUMPING 

(8) 

(9) 

Following the imposition of provisional measures, the exporting producer referred to 
in recital (17) of the provisional Regulation alleged that the analysis carried out by the 
Commission ignored certain important elements affecting the cost of production and, 
thus, the normal value determination. It claimed that its normal value should be based 
on its own cost of production instead of being determined on the basis of the domestic 
prices in the ordinary course of trade of the other co-operating exporting producer. 

Firstly,  the  aforesaid  allegations  concerning  the  cost  of  production  were  not  found 
justified.  Secondly,  pursuant  to  Article  2  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  methodology 
applied by the Commission in determining the normal value for the exporting producer 
in question (see recital (17) of the provisional Regulation) is considered to be the most 
appropriate  for  the  following  reasons:  (i)  the  exporting  producer  in  question  had  no 
domestic sales of the like product and of the same general category of products in the 
IP,  (ii)  the  products  are  perfectly  interchangeable  and  (iii)  only  one  other  exporting 
producer co-operated in the investigation. Moreover, if the normal value had not been 
based  on  prices  of  the  other  Indian  producer,  it  would  have  been  necessary  to 
determine the amounts for selling, for general and administrative costs and for profits 
pursuant  to  Article  2(6)(c)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  On  balance,  the  use  of  domestic 
sales prices of the other Indian producer appears to be the most representative basis for 
reflecting  prevailing  sales  conditions  on  the  Indian  domestic  market  and  hence  for 
establishing normal value. The claim was therefore rejected. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
(10) 

In  view  of  the  above  and  in  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  concerning  normal 
value, recitals (13) to (17) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2. 

Export price 

(11) 

In the absence of any comments, recital (18) of the provisional Regulation is hereby 
confirmed. 

3. 

Comparison 

(12)  One  exporting  producer  claimed  that  the  Commission,  when  determining  for 
comparison  purposes  the  adjustments  to  the  export  price,  made  certain  non  justified 
deductions  in  relation  to  certain  elements  concerning  transport,  handling  and  credit 
costs.  The  Commission  accepted  the  claim  and  revised  the  relevant  adjustments 
accordingly. 

(13) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  in  this  respect,  recital  (19)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

4. 

Dumping margins 

(14)  Following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  one  party  argued  that  for  those 
exporting  producers  which  did  not  co-operate  a  higher  dumping  margin  should  be 
calculated based on the lowest CIF prices of the co-operating exporting producers. In 
this  respect,  it  is  noted  that  no  indications  were  found  showing  that  the  non-
cooperating companies were dumping in the IP at a higher level than the co-operating 
companies. On the contrary, a comparison between Eurostat data concerning imports 
originating in India and the volume and value of exports to the Community reported 
by the co-operating exporting producers shows that (i) the volume of imports into the 
Community from any non-cooperating exporting producers represented less than 20% 
of  the  total  imports  from  India  in  the  IP  (the  precise  ratio  cannot  be  disclosed  for 
confidentiality reasons), and (ii) the prices charged by any non-cooperating exporting 
producers on the Community market were apparently higher than those charged by the 
co-operating companies. This claim was thus rejected. 

(15)  Following  the  final  disclosure,  the  same  party  reiterated  the  above  claim  concerning 
the dumping margin of any non-cooperating exporting producers. No new arguments 
were brought forward, which could alter the conclusions drawn in recital (14) above. 
The  party  concerned  only  added  that  it  could  not  verify  the  import  data  used  in  the 
analysis  carried  out  by  the  Commission,  since  they  were  allegedly  kept  confidential. 
The company was informed that the import volume and the average import price were 
set  out  in  detail  in  recitals  (38)  and  (39)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  and  that  the 
source statistics, i.e. Eurostat, were open to public. Thus, the company was in no case 
prevented from verifying the Commission's conclusions and defending its rights. The 
claim is therefore rejected. 

(16) 

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

Company 

Definitive dumping margin 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Neeru Enterprises, Rampur 

Privi Organics Limited, Mumbai 

All other companies 

D. 

INJURY 

3,1 % 

7,5 % 

7,5 % 

(17)  Following  the  imposition of provisional measures, one exporting producer submitted 
that the Community producer which had made substantial imports of dihydromyrcenol 
from India in the IP (see recital (25) of the provisional Regulation) should be excluded 
from  the  definition  of  the  Community  industry  and  consequently  the  injury  analysis, 
including the injury elimination level determination. In this respect, it is recalled that 
the Community producer in question did not shift its core business from production to 
importation. Indeed, it had made the aforesaid imports from India in particular in order 
to  maintain  its  own  production  of  the  like  product  viable.  Therefore,  no  grounds  for 
excluding this company from the Community industry exist. Furthermore, it is noted 
that  even  if  the  producer  in  question  was  excluded  from  the  definition  of  the 
Community industry, the injury finding would not have been different. The claim was 
therefore rejected. 

(18)  The  same  exporting  producer  also  argued  that  the  overall  economic  situation  of  the 
Community  producers  was  very  good;  in  particular,  it  had  allegedly  improved 
significantly in 2005 and in the IP and such positive trend would most likely continue 
in  the  near  future  according  to  this  exporter.  These  conclusions  were  based  on  the 
development  of  the  Community  industry's  production  and  sales  volume,  stocks  and 
market  share  presented  in  recitals  (45)  to  (47)  of  the  provisional  Regulation.  This 
argument cannot be accepted because it does not properly take account of the fact that 
there was a dramatic drop in sales prices of dihydromyrcenol in the Community (see 
recitals (47) to (49) of the provisional Regulation), and that the Community industry 
only managed to increase its production and sales volume and, thus, maintain its share 
on the expanding Community market at the price of severe losses, a fall in return on 
investment and cash outflow. The claim was therefore rejected. 

(19)  Following the final disclosure, the exporting producer referred to in recital (17) above 
reiterated  its  claim  and  added  that  the  Commission  had  not  properly  analyzed  the 
situation  of  the  Community  producer  in  question,  i.e.  the  producer  which  had  made 
substantial imports of the product concerned. In particular, the following aspects were 
allegedly  not  analyzed:  (i)  the  percentage  of  the  total  Community  production  of  the 
product concerned that is accounted for by this importing producer; (ii) the nature of 
this importing producer's interest in importation; (iii) the level of long term nature of 
commitment shown by this importing producer to domestic production as opposed to 
continued  importation;  and  (iv)  the  ratio  of  imports  to  domestic  production  for  this 
importing producer.  

(20) 

In this respect, it is noted that all of the points raised concerning the situation of the 
Community producer in question had indeed been properly analyzed; however, certain 
details could not be disclosed in view of their confidential nature. As can be seen from 
recital (25) of the provisional Regulation and recital (17) above, the main reasons for 
non-excluding  the  producer  in  question  from  the  definition  of  the  Community 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
industry,  and  from  the  Community  production,  were  (i)  the  nature  of  its  interest  in 
importation  (i.e.  it  imported  the  product  concerned  in  order  to  maintain  its  own 
production in the Community of the like product viable), and (ii) the marginal impact 
of its situation on the overall situation of the Community industry (i.e. the fact that its 
possible exclusion would not alter the injury findings). Finally, it goes without saying, 
that  by  supporting  the  complaint  and  fully  co-operating  with  the  investigation  this 
producer aimed at  curbing the influx of dumped imports from India.  It has therefore 
clearly demonstrated its commitment to domestic production as opposed to continued 
importation. The allegations cited in recital (19) above are therefore rejected. 

(21)  With  reference  to  recital  (41)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  one  exporting  producer 
submitted  that  the  price  undercutting  should  have  been  based  on  the  average  import 
price from India rather than the import prices of the cooperating exporting producers. 
In  this  respect,  it  is  noted  that  given  the  level  of  co-operation  in  this  case,  i.e.  more 
than 80 %, and given that the total import statistics are based on an ex CN code, i.e. 
they may include certain quantity of products other than dihydromyrcenol (see recital 
(36) of the provisional Regulation), the price comparison based on the average import 
price  would  be  much  less  precise  than  the  individual  company  undercutting  margins 
established. The claim is therefore rejected. 

(22) 

In  view  of  the  above  and  in  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  concerning  injury, 
recitals (23) to (56) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

E. 

CAUSATION 

(23)  Following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  one  exporting  producer  claimed 
that imports from India had not caused injury to the Community industry because their 
price  was  on  the  rise  and  their  market  share  fell  by  2,4  percentage  points  in  the  IP. 
This  line  of  reasoning  omits  several  important  aspects  of  the  development  of  the 
dumped imports from India and of the situation on the Community market. As it was 
demonstrated  in  recitals  (38)  to  (42)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the  volume  of 
dumped  imports  of  the  product  concerned  from  India  into  the  Community  increased 
from  around  25.000  kilograms  in  2003  to  around  760.000  kilograms  in  the  IP.  The 
market share of these imports increased from 0,7 % in 2003 to 17,3 % in the IP. The 
slight  decrease  of  their  share  in  the  IP  was  due  to  a  sudden  expansion  of  the 
Community market in this period, rather than any decline in their volume; indeed, the 
volume of the dumped imports from India continued increasing in the IP, although not 
at  the  same  rate  as  in  the  previous  period.  Overall,  the  presence  of  dumped  imports 
from  India  on  the  Community  market  increased  much  more  significantly  than  the 
Community  consumption  over  the  period  considered.  Finally,  it  is  recalled  that  the 
dumped  imports  from  India  undercut  the  prices  of  the  Community  industry  by 
substantial margins. The surge of dumped imports at prices significantly undercutting 
the Community industry's prices clearly coincided in time with the worsened situation 
of the Community industry. The claim was therefore rejected. 

(24)  The  same  exporting  producer  further  argued  that  any  injury  sustained  by  the 
Community  industry  had  been  self-inflicted.  They  alleged  that  otherwise  it  was  not 
possible  to  suffer  losses  in  an  environment  of  increasing  demand,  increased  prices, 
consequently increasing sales and turnover, and increasing productivity. As a possible 
explanation, this party cited the increased average salary by 24 % from 2003 to the IP. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
(25)  Firstly,  although  the  Community  industry's  sales  price  on  the  Community  market 
increased by 2 % between 2005 and the IP, it was more than 30 % lower than in 2003, 
while the volume of sales of the Community industry only increased by 22 % between 
2003 and the IP (see recital (47) of the provisional Regulation). As a result, the sales 
revenue of the Community industry on the Community market decreased significantly, 
i.e.  by  around  15  %  over  the  period  considered.  Secondly,  the  average  labour  cost 
development must be seen together with the employment and productivity trends. As 
explained  in  recital  (51)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the  24  %  increase  over  the 
period considered of the labour cost per worker was due, inter alia, to the changes in 
employment structure towards a higher share of qualified labour. The figures confirm 
that  these  changes  resulted  in  higher  productivity,  which  in  turn  compensated  the 
increased  average  labour  cost.  As  a  result,  the  total  labour  cost  per  unit  produced 
remained the same. Moreover, production of dihydromyrcenol is not labour-intensive. 
It  is  thus  considered  that  the  increased  salaries  could  not  have  contributed  to  the 
Community industry's losses. The claim was therefore rejected.  

(26)  Following  the  final  disclosure,  the  same  exporting  producer  adduced  several  new 
arguments  concerning  causation.  These  can  be  summarized  as  follows:  (i)  the  injury 
was  self-inflicted  by  imports  of  the  product  concerned  made  by  the  Community 
producer referred to in recital (17) above; (ii) the injury was self-inflicted by massive 
investments made by the Community industry in their new production capacity and by 
the  loans  taken  for  this  purpose  from  financial  institutions;  (iii)  the  development  of 
export  sales  of  the  Community  industry  was  not  analyzed;  (iv)  the  injury  was  self-
inflicted  by  increasing  the  production  capacity  and  hiring  additional  qualified  labour 
and, thus, increasing the production costs.  

(27) 

In respect of these new arguments, it is noted that (i) imports of the product concerned 
made by one of the Community producers could not have affected the overall situation 
of the Community industry because they were minor (see recitals (17) and (20) above). 
In addition, it is recalled that these imports had been made in reaction to the massive 
influx  of  the  dumped  imports  from  India  and  the  losses  caused  to  the  Community 
industry  thereby,  i.e.  after  the  material  injury  had  already  taken  place;  (ii)  no  new 
investments  whatsoever  into  the  production  capacity  took  place  during  the  period 
considered;  on 
investment 
significantly decreased (see recitals (45) and (49) of the provisional Regulation); (iii) 
the export performance of the Community industry was analyzed in recital (68) of the 
provisional  Regulation  and  was  not  found  breaking  the  causal  link;  and  (iv)  no 
additional labour was hired by the Community industry. As can be seen from recital 
(51) of the provisional Regulation, the employment decreased by 15 % between 2003 
and  the  IP.  The  changes  in  employment  structure  were  achieved  by  laying-off 
unqualified  labour.  As  to  the  production  capacity,  it  is  recalled  that  no  expansion 
whatsoever took place. The arguments cited in recital (26) above are thus rejected. 

the  contrary,  capacity  remained  unchanged  and 

(28) 

In view of the above and in the absence of any other comments concerning causation, 
recitals (57) to (76) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

F. 

COMMUNITY INTEREST 

(29)  One  exporting  producer  submitted  that  imposing  measures  would  greatly  disturb 
importers and users in the Community, thereby jeopardizing thousands of jobs and tax 
revenues,  but  did  not  adduce  any  evidence  in  this  respect.  These  allegations  were 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
considered irrelevant. Indeed, none of the importers and users opposed the provisional 
conclusions  concerning  their  interest  (see  recitals  (87)  and  (88)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation),  which  has  shown  that  these  parties  were  not  likely  to  be  substantially 
affected  by  any  anti-dumping  measures.  The  claim  was  therefore  rejected.  The 
exporting  producer  was  also  informed  that  exporting  producers  are  normally  not 
considered parties concerned by the Community interest analysis.  

(30)  Following  the  final  disclosure,  this  exporting  producer  reiterated  its  claim  and 
submitted that it had right to comment on any aspect of the anti-dumping proceeding, 
Community  interest  included.  No  substantiated  arguments  were,  however,  brought 
forward, which could alter the conclusions drawn in recital (29) above. In respect of 
the exporting producers' rights to raise comments on any aspect of the proceeding, it is 
noted that they are indeed not barred from doing so. Nevertheless, according to Article 
21(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  these  parties  are  normally  not  concerned  by  the 
Community  interest  analysis  and  their  comments  may  be  disregarded,  in  particular 
when they are not supported by any factual evidence.  

(31) 

In the absence of any other comments concerning the Community interest assessment, 
recitals (77) to (90) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

G. 

DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 

1. 

Injury elimination level 

(32) 

It  is  recalled  that  one  exporting  producer  submitted  that  the  Community  producer 
which had made substantial imports of dihydromyrcenol  from India in the IP should 
be  excluded  from  the  definition  of  the  Community  industry  and  consequently  the 
injury  elimination  level  determination  should  be  based  on  the  remaining  two 
Community  producers  only.  As  explained  in  recitals  (14)  and  (15)  above,  this  claim 
was  not  found  justified.  In  this  view  and  in  the  absence  of  any  other  comments 
concerning  the  injury  elimination  level,  recitals  (92)  to  (94)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2. 

Form and level of measures 

(33) 

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  both  co-operating  exporting  producers  the  injury 
elimination level was found to be higher than the dumping margin. 

(34)  With reference to recitals (14) and (15) above, it is considered appropriate to set the 
duty  for  any  other  companies,  which  had  not  co-operated  in  the  investigation,  at  the 
level of the higher duty to be imposed on the co-operating companies.  

(35)  On the basis of the above, the definitive duty rates are as follows: 

Producer 

Neeru Enterprises, Rampur 

Anti-dumping 
duty 

3,1 % 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
All other companies (including Privi Organics Limited, Mumbai) 

7,5 % 

(36)  Following the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which 
it  was  intended  to  recommend  the  imposition  of  definitive  anti-dumping  measures, 
Neeru Enterprises proposed a price undertaking in accordance with Article 8(1) of the 
basic Regulation. However, it is noted that the product concerned has shown in the last 
years a considerable volatility in prices and therefore it is not suitable for a fixed price 
undertaking.  As  an  alternative  approach,  the  possibility  of  indexing  the  minimum 
import price to the price of the main raw material, namely alpha-pinene, was explored. 
However,  this  alternative  was  also  not  found  workable  for  the  following  reasons:  (i) 
the fluctuation in the price of the product concerned cannot be sufficiently explained 
by  the  fluctuation  in  the  price  of  alpha-pinene,  and  (ii)  alpha-pinene  is  not  a 
commodity  product  for  which  any  generally  accessible  statistics  showing  its  market 
prices would be available. On the basis of the above, it was concluded that any price 
undertaking is impractical in this case and therefore cannot be accepted. The exporter 
concerned was informed accordingly and given an opportunity to comment. However, 
its comments have not altered the above conclusion. 

(37)  The  individual  company  anti-dumping  duty  rate  specified  in  this  Regulation  was 
established  on  the  basis  of  the  findings  of  the  present  investigation.  Therefore,  it 
reflects the situation found during that investigation with respect to this company. This 
duty rate (as opposed to the country-wide duty applicable to ‘all other companies’) is 
thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the country concerned 
and  produced  by  the  company  and  thus  by  the  specific  legal  entity  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 that specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from this rate and shall be subject to the 
duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’. 

(38)  Any  claim  requesting  the  application  of  this  individual  company  anti-dumping  duty 
rate (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of 
new  production  or  sales  entities)  should  be  addressed  to  the  Commission  forthwith 
with  all  relevant  information,  in  particular  any  modification  in  the  company’s 
activities linked to production, domestic 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. 

3. 

Collection of provisional duty 

(39) 

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.  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  896/2007,  be  collected 
definitively to the extent of the amount of the duty definitively imposed by the present 
Regulation. Where the definitive duty is lower than the provisional duty, the duty shall 
be recalculated and the amounts secured in excess of the definitive duty rate should be 
released, 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 

2. 

A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of dihydromyrcenol of 
a purity by weight of 93 % or more, falling within CN code ex 2905 22 90 (TARIC 
code 2905 22 90 10), originating in India.  

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

Producer 

Anti-dumping duty 
(%) 

TARIC 
Additional Code 

Neeru Enterprises, Rampur, India 

All other companies 

3,1 

7,5 

A827 

A999 

3. 

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

Article 2 

Amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  pursuant  to  Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 896/2007 on imports of dihydromyrcenol of a purity by weight of 93 % 
or more, falling within CN code ex 2905 22 90 (TARIC code 2905 22 90 10), originating in 
India, 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 duty shall be released.  

Article 3 

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

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

13 

   EN