Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain manganese dioxides originating in South Africa
Date: 2008-02-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: South Africa, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), manganese, originating product

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 13.2.2008 
COM(2008) 75 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of certain manganese dioxides originating in South Africa 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

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 2117/2005  of  21  December  2005  ('the  basic  Regulation')  in  the  proceeding 
concerning imports of certain manganese dioxides (EMD) originating in South Africa. 

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) N° 1066/2007 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty 
on imports of certain manganese dioxides originating in South Africa. 

Consistency with the other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

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. 

Legal elements of the proposal 

Summary of the proposed action 

On  21  December  2006,  the  Commission  opened  an  anti-dumping  investigation 
regarding  imports  into  the  Community  of  certain  manganese  dioxides  originating  in 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
South Africa. 

By Regulation (EC) N° 1066/2007 of 17 September 2007, the Commission imposed a 
provisional anti-dumping duty 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 margin and 
consequently the duty. 

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 14 March 2008. 

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.  

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 reasons: 

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: 

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

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 certain manganese dioxides originating in South Africa 

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) 

A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES 

The  Commission,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1066/20072  (the  ‘provisional  Regulation’) 
imposed  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  electrolytic  manganese 
dioxides ("EMD") (i.e. manganese dioxides produced through an electrolytic process) 
not  heat-treated  after  the  electrolytic  process,  falling  within  CN  code  ex  2820  10  00 
(TARIC code 2820 10 00 10) and originating in South Africa. 

It  is  recalled,  as  set  out  in  recital  (8)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  that  the 
investigation  of  dumping  and  injury  covered  the  period  from  1 October  2005  to 
30 September  2006  (‘investigation  period’  or  ‘IP’).  The  examination  of  the  trends 
relevant  for  the  assessment  of  injury  covered  the  period  from  1 January  2002  to  the 
end of the investigation period (‘period considered’). 

B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE 

Following the imposition of a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of electrolytic 
manganese  dioxides  originating  in  South  Africa,  all  interested  parties  received 
disclosure  of  the  facts  and  considerations  on  which  the  provisional  measures  were 
based.  They  were  also  granted  an  opportunity  to  be  heard.  Some  interested  parties 
submitted comments in writing and one party which asked to be heard was granted a 
hearing. 

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 243, 18.9.2007, p. 7. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(4) 

The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for 
its  definitive  findings.  After  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  an  on-spot 
verification visit was carried out at the premises of Delta EMD Australia Pty Ltd. in 
order to verify their profits on the domestic market.  

(5) 

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

C. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

Product concerned 

One user argued that because carbon zinc EMD cannot be used in alkaline batteries, 
alkaline  and  carbon  zinc  EMD  are  not  interchangeable  and  therefore  not  a  single 
product.  It  should  be  recalled  that,  unlike  natural  manganese  dioxides,  chemical 
manganese  dioxides  or  heat-treated  electrolytic  manganese  dioxides,  the  carbon-zinc 
grade  EMD  and  alkaline  grade  EMD  share  the  same  basic  physical,  chemical  and 
technical  characteristics.  Though  they  are  not  interchangeable  for  alkaline  battery 
production, they are both used for essentially the same purposes, i.e. in dry-cell battery 
manufacture. Therefore, the above argument had to be rejected. 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  and  evidence,  recitals  (9)  to  (13)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

Like product 

In the absence of any comments concerning the like product, recitals (14) and (15) of 
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

D. DUMPING 

Normal value 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  concerning  the  methodology  used  to  determine  the 
normal value, recitals (16) to (26) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

1. 

(6) 

(7) 

2. 

(8) 

1. 

(9) 

(10)  Following comments received with regard to the establishment of profit as described 
in  recitals  (27)  and  (28)  and  further  on-spot  verification,  the  methodology  has  been 
revised.  In  particular,  it  was  found  that  the  profit  achieved  by  the  related  company 
Delta EMD Australia Pty Ltd could not be used, since it did not relate to the product 
concerned. With regard to the USA, it was considered that the profit margin might be 
affected  by  other  factors.  In  these  circumstances,  it  has  been  considered  more 
appropriate  to  base  the  profit  margin  on  data  relating  to  the  country  under 
investigation,  and  in  particular  the  long  term  lending  commercial  interest  rate  of 
10.75% applied in South Africa during the IP. In the absence of any other reliable data 
relating  to  the  profit  margin  achievable  for  the  product  concerned  this  method  was 
considered  conservative,  reasonable  and  the  most  appropriate  within  the  meaning  of 
Article  2(6)(c)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  Furthermore,  it  is  in  the  same  range  as  the 
profit found in India for the like product. 

(11)  Following  the  provisional  disclosure,  the  exporting  producer  claimed  a  number  of 
adjustments  related  to  the  costs  included  in  the  normal  value,  in  particular  waste 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
treatment,  the  purchase  price  of  raw  materials  and  some  allocation  in  the  SG&A 
reported for the group expenses. None of these claims were considered justified, since 
they were either unverifiable or in contradiction with the accounting.  

(12)  The  company  also  claimed  a  reduction  in  the  SG&A  expenses  used  to  construct 
normal value to remove a provision for a compensation claim made on a sale prior to 
the IP. This claim was verified based on evidence provided and the SG&A expenses 
were adjusted as claimed. 

2. 

Export prices 

(13) 

In the absence of any comments concerning the export prices, the export prices as set 
out in recitals (29) and (30) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed. 

3. 

Comparison 

(14) 

In the absence of any comments concerning the comparison, the comparison as set out 
in recital (31) of the provisional Regulation is confirmed. 

4. 

Dumping margin 

(15) 

In the light of the above, the definitive weighted average dumping margin expressed as 
a percentage of the CIF Community frontier price, duty unpaid, is: 

Company 

Dumping margin 

Delta E.M.D. (Pty) Ltd. 

17.1% 

(16) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  concerning  the  countrywide  dumping  margin 
applicable  to  all  other  exporters  in  South  Africa,  the  methodology  for  the 
determination  of  the  countrywide  dumping  margin  as  set  out  in  recital  (34)  of  the 
provisional Regulation is confirmed. 

1. 

Community production and Community industry 

E. INJURY 

(17) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  concerning  the  Community  production  and 
Community industry, recitals (35) to (38) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed. 

2. 

Community consumption 

(18) 

In the absence of any comments concerning the Community consumption, recitals (39) 
and (40) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed. 

3. 

Imports into the Community from the country concerned 

(19) 

In the absence of any comments concerning the imports into the Community from the 
country  concerned,  recitals  (41)  to  (46)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  hereby 
confirmed. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
4. 

Situation of the Community industry 

(20) 

In the absence of any comments concerning the situation of the Community industry, 
recitals (47) to (65) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

5. 

Conclusion on injury 

(21) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  concerning  this  aspect,  recitals  (66)  to  (72)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

1. 

Effect of the imports from South Africa 

F. CAUSATION 

(22) 

In the absence of new information or arguments in this respect, recitals (73) to (78) of 
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2. 

Effect of other factors 

Imports from other third countries 

(23)  Several  parties  argued  that  although  the  volume  of  EMD  imports  from  the  People's 
Republic  of  China  (PRC)  during  the  IP  were  negligible,  their  mere  presence  as  a 
source of cheap EMD and the global oversupply of EMD in the world has put prices 
under pressure in the Community market and worldwide. 

(24) 

(25) 

It should be noted that the investigation also showed, as stated by some other parties in 
their submissions, that EMD imports from the PRC are currently not an alternative for 
users,  especially  in  the  small  cell  battery  sector.  Indeed,  switching  from  one  EMD 
source to another (so-called qualification) is time- and finance-intensive. This prevents 
the users from being flexible in their choice of EMD source. 

It should be noted that this conclusion is confirmed by the low level of EMD imports 
from the PRC, which shows that this source of imports, despite prices much below the 
average import prices, has not been considered by users as an alternative during the IP 
and  could  not  have  contributed  to  the  injury  suffered  by  the  Community  industry. 
Therefore, the argument is rejected and the findings in recitals (79) to (81) are hereby 
confirmed. 

Export performance of the Community industry 

(26) 

It was argued by some parties that the decrease in domestic sales during the IP by the 
Community industry was due to the fact that the Community industry concentrated on 
the  export  market.  This  argument  had  to  be  rejected,  since  it  was  found  that  even 
though  the  export  volume  of  the  Community  industry  increased  by  9%  during  the 
whole period considered (2002 to IP), the export  performance could in no way have 
contributed to the injury suffered by the Community industry, as explained below. 

(27)  Firstly, as established provisionally, the export sales of the Community industry were 
profitable  throughout  the  period  considered.  Furthermore,  the  volume  of  exports 
decreased during the IP by -18 percentage points (compared to 2005), while the ratio 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
of  exports  in  the  production  volume  of  the  Community  industry  remained  constant 
throughout the period considered. 

(28) 

In the absence of new information or other arguments in this respect, recitals (82) and 
(83) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

Other Community producers 

(29)  After  the  provisional  disclosure  Delta  argued  that  the  non-cooperation  of  the  other 
Community  producer  CEGASA  was  an  indication  that  it  was  not  injured.  This 
argument  was  rejected  as  it  is  a  pure  allegation.  Firstly,  the  aforementioned 
Community  producer  is  primarily  a  captive  user  of  EMD  for  its  own  battery 
production,  hence  the  sales  of  EMD  are  not  its  primary  business.  Secondly,  as  this 
Community  producer  did  not  cooperate,  no  conclusions  on  the  injury  factors  or 
motives  for  non-cooperation  can  be  drawn.  Moreover,  from  the  user  questionnaire 
replies,  it  could  be  established  at  the  provisional  stage  that  the  sales  of  other 
Community  producers  decreased  in  parallel  with  the  increased  volume  of  dumped 
imports from South Africa. 

(30) 

In  the  absence  of  new  information  in  this  respect,  recitals  (84)  to  (86)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

Contraction in demand 

(31) 

It  was  argued  by  some  parties  that  the  loss  in  sales  volumes  by  the  Community 
industry was caused by the offshoring of parts of production by one of the users that 
purchased from the Community industry. Thus the contraction in demand would have 
caused the loss in sales volumes. 

(32)  Although one of the main users did indeed relocate some parts of its production to the 
PRC in 2005 and 2006 and in parallel the Community industry's sales volumes to this 
user decreased in the IP, this loss accounted for a small part of the total loss in volume 
during  the  IP.  Moreover,  the  volume  sold  by  the  Community  industry  to  this  user 
during  the  IP  remained  at  the  same  level  as  two  years  before  -  in  2004  -  and  then 
increased in 2005, when offshoring started, while the total EC sales of the Community 
industry  decreased  dramatically  by  -61  percentage  points  from  2004  to  the  IP  (-39 
percentage points in 2005 and -22 in the IP). Therefore the argument was rejected. 

(33) 

In the absence of new information or other arguments in this respect, recital (87) of the 
provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

Increase in raw material prices 

(34) 

It was argued by the exporting producer that due to its competitive advantage of being 
located  close  to  the  manganese  ore  mines  and  advantageous  contractual  conditions 
with  the  supplier,  a  related  company,  it  did  not  have  any  difficulty  absorbing  the 
increase in the price of raw materials. 

(35)  This  argument  was  rejected as irrelevant to the causality examination, as it has been 
established  that  despite  its  alleged  competitive  advantages,  the  exporting  producer 
practiced dumped pricing. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
(36) 

In the absence of new information or other arguments in this respect, recitals (88) to 
(90) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

Global oversupply of EMD 

(37) 

In the absence of new information or other arguments in this respect and taking into 
account the findings under recitals (23), (24) and (25) above, the recitals (91) to (92) 
of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

Increasing competition among battery producers 

(38)  After  the  provisional  disclosure  Delta  contested  the  finding  that  the  EMD  producers 
had  significant  power  to  negotiate  prices  with  the  battery  producers  because  of  the 
limited uses of EMD, i.e. only in battery production. Thus it was alleged that due to 
competition pressure channelled through the negotiating power the battery producers 
imposed low prices on EMD producers. 

(39)  Though it cannot be denied that the limited use of EMD could to some extent restrict 
the  price-setting  power  of  the  EMD  producers,  it  is  far  from  offsetting  the  power  of 
EMD  producers  deriving  from  the  EMD  users'  limited  flexibility  in  switching  the 
supply sources and the availability of high purity EMD (see recitals (23), (24) and (25) 
above). The only considerable power in negotiations for battery producers with regard 
to  the  price  could  come  from  the  relative  transparency  of  the  EMD  market,  as  they 
engage  in  annual  supply  negotiations  with  various  EMD  producers  simultaneously. 
However, the benefits of transparency were again outweighed by the limited choice of 
EMD producers whose EMD was already qualified by battery producers – Delta and 
Tosoh. Therefore, the argument was rejected. 

(40)  Several  users  have  argued  that  the  prices  Delta  charged  them  were  not  dumped  and 
that they did not exert pressure on the Community industry. In this regard it should be 
noted  that  the  injury  to  the  Community  industry  is  assessed  as  a  whole;  particular 
companies cannot be singled out as their situation is outweighed by the others. 

(41) 

In  the  absence  of  other  arguments  in  this  respect,  recitals  (93)  and  (94)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

Self inflicted injury 

(42) 

(43) 

It has been argued by Delta that the injury to the Community industry has been self-
inflicted  because  of  Tosoh's  restructuring  decisions  and  investments  which  led  to  a 
decrease in employment and profitability. 

It was established in the provisional Regulation that the decrease in employment was 
mainly  due  to  Tosoh's  restructuring.  However,  the  allegation  that  profitability 
decreased  because  of  investment  has  to  be  rejected.  Firstly,  most  of  Tosoh's 
restructuring  and  investment  took  place  in  2004,  a  year  which  was  accompanied  by 
positive profitability and a good return on investment. As a result of these investments 
Tosoh considerably reduced its unit cost of production. However, despite these efforts 
Tosoh  was  unable  to  benefit  from  its  investments  in  the  following  years.  Due  to 
increasing  volume  of  dumped  imports  from  South  Africa  made  at  prices  below  the 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
cost of production Tosoh's profitability, return on investment and cash flow decreased, 
reaching strongly negative levels as established in the provisional Regulation. 

(44)  Delta  has  further  argued  that  the  injury  to  profit  was  self-inflicted  because  of  the 
management decisions by the Community industry involving "unusually long payment 
deferrals  to  the  customers"  and  "excessively  high  commissions  to  its  agent".  These 
arguments were rejected on the following basis. 

(45) 

It  was  not  found  that  payment  deferrals  had  a  substantial  impact  on  the  liquidity  or 
cash flow of the Community industry. Moreover, the extended payment deferrals were 
granted in an attempt to obtain slightly higher prices and therefore mitigate the impact 
of  dumped  imports  on  prices.  Therefore,  extended  payment  deadlines  cannot  be 
considered as causing self-inflicted injury. 

(46)  Furthermore, apart from the fact that the commission paid to the agent was not found 
to be unusual for the sector, this argument is not relevant since the cost of production 
and  profitability  of  the  Community  industry  was  calculated  on  the  basis  of  costs 
incurred  by  both  Tosoh  and  its  related  companies  receiving  a  commission.  The 
commission itself is an intra-company payment and therefore its level has no impact 
on the consolidated profit which was used in the injury calculation. 

3. 

Conclusion on causation 

(47) 

In the absence of new information or other arguments in this respect, recitals (95) to 
(97) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

G. COMMUNITY INTEREST 

1. 

Interest of the Community industry 

(48) 

In the absence of new information or other arguments in this particular respect, recitals 
(100) to (104) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2. 

Interest of users 

(49) 

It has been argued by some parties that the disappearance of Tosoh will not harm the 
battery  industry  given  Delta's  existence  as  an  alternative  source  and  hence  that  the 
maintenance  of  a  Community  producer  is  not  in  the  Community  interest.  This 
argument was rejected on the following grounds. 

(50)  Firstly, the low prices practiced by Delta cannot be regarded as sustainable, as they are 
below the cost  of production.  Secondly, taking into account the limited flexibility of 
the users to switch from one source of EMD to another as they have to test (qualify) 
the suitability of the "new" EMD for their battery production, they have only a limited 
negotiating  power  against  the  EMD  producers,  which  will  be  weakened  even  more 
should Tosoh disappear. 

(51) 

It was established in the provisional Regulation that the cost of EMD constitutes 10-
15%  of  the  total  cost  of  battery  production.  Two  out  of  three  cooperating  users 
contested this finding but no evidence was provided to support their claim. As the user 
who did not contest this figure was the only one whose data could be verified in this 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
proceeding, the provisional findings in recital (107) of the provisional Regulation are 
hereby confirmed. 

(52)  The users of EMD have argued repeatedly that they will not be able to absorb the anti-
dumping duty as an increase in the cost of EMD. They are under pressure because of 
increases  in  the  costs  of  other  important  raw  materials  and  claim  they  cannot  afford 
further pressure from an increase in the cost of EMD. 

(53)  However, notwithstanding the findings in recital (107) of the provisional Regulation, 
the  level  of  the  anti-dumping  duty  does  not  seem  to  be  even  comparable  to  the  cost 
increase  in  the  other  materials  used  in  battery  production  which  took  place  between 
Jan/06 and Jan/07 (the price of copper rose by + 119.73%, nickel +252.89% and zinc 
+181.10%).  Therefore,  it  can  be  confirmed  definitively  that  the  measures  will  have 
little impact on the competitiveness of this industry. 

(54) 

It  was  also  argued  that  the  financial  situation  of  the  Community  users  varies 
significantly.  In  this  regard  it  should  be  noted  that  the  situation  of  users  in  the 
Community interest test is assessed as a whole. 

(55)  Several  users  submitted  that  the  battery  producers  employ  far  more  people  than  the 
Community industry and that due to the anti-dumping measures they may be forced to 
lay  off  workforce  and  even  to  relocate  the  production  plants.  While  it  has  been 
confirmed that the number of employees of battery producers is much larger than that 
of  the  Community  industry,  no  evidence  has  been  submitted  that  the  imposition  of 
duties  would  result  in  loss  of  employment.  Therefore,  against  the  background  of 
findings under recital (52) and the provisional Regulation, that the duties will not have 
a significant impact on the users, the argument was rejected.  

(56) 

It  was  argued  by  several  parties  that  the  Community  industry  could  not  meet  the 
Community  demand.  This  argument  was  rejected.  Given  the  level  of  the  duty 
proposed, imports from South Africa will continue to be able to enter the Community 
market, albeit at non-dumped prices. 

(57) 

In the absence of other arguments in this particular respect, recitals (105) to (109) of 
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed 

4. 

Interest of unrelated importers/traders in the Community 

(58)  The  importer  Traxys  France  (agent  of  Delta)  argued  that  the  measures  will  force  its 
supplier  Delta  out  of  business  which  will  result  in  the  loss  of  5-25%  of  profits  and 
jobs. This argument was rejected on the grounds that, given the limited impact on the 
players  (battery  producers)  the  measures  will  not  force  Delta  out  of  business  but 
simply  counteract  the  unfair  competition,  preserve  Tosoh  on  the  Community  market 
and  create  a  level  playing  field  to  the  benefit  of  all  EMD  suppliers  and  the  battery 
producers. 

(59) 

In the absence of new information or evidence in this respect, recitals (110) and (111) 
of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

5. 

Conclusion on Community interest 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
(60) 

In the absence of new information or other arguments in this respect, recitals (112) to 
(114) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

H. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 

1. 

Injury elimination level 

(61) 

(62) 

In view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, resulting injury, causation 
and  Community  interest,  definitive  measures  should  be  imposed  in  order  to  prevent 
further injury being caused to the Community industry by the dumped imports. 

In the absence of new information or other arguments in this respect, recitals (115) to 
(117)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  hereby  confirmed.  The  injury  margin  was 
significantly higher than the dumping margin found.  

2. 

Definitive measures 

(63) 

(64) 

In the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in accordance with Article 9 of the 
basic Regulation, a definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed at the level of the 
dumping margin since it is lower than the injury margin calculated above. 

In view of the magnitude of the dumping margin and in the light of the injury 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  should  be 
definitively collected. 

(65)  On the basis of the above, the proposed definitive duty rates are: 

Delta E.M.D (Pty) Ltd.  

All other companies 

3. 

Undertaking 

17.1% 

17.1% 

(66)  Following the disclosure of essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it 
was  intended  to  recommend  the  imposition  of  definitive  anti-dumping  duties,  the 
exporting  producer  in  South  Africa  offered  a  price  undertaking  in  accordance  with 
Article 8(1) of the basic Regulation. The Community industry was informed about this 
offer and submitted its comments. 

(67)  The offer was examined and it has been decided to reject it on the following grounds. 

(68) 

It is noted that there are only a limited number of suppliers in the Community EMD 
market and that the South African exporter holds a significant market share (60-70%). 
This  grew  by  81%  during  the  period  considered  for  injury  assessment  and  was 
achieved  by  the  aggressive  pricing  of  exports  at  levels  below  the  exporter's  costs  of 
production during the IP.  

(69)  Additionally, despite the volatility of the prices of the main inputs, such as manganese 
ore  and  energy,  the  prices  of  the  product  concerned  and  the  like  product  were 
relatively stable. It is considered that due to the dumping practices, the volatility in the 
costs of production was not reflected in the prices of the product concerned.. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
(70)  Therefore,  measures  based  on  a  fixed  minimum  price  may  not  be  effective  in 
addressing changes in the price of EMD that might result from changes in the prices of 
the main raw materials once the pressure exerted on prices by the dumped products is 
initially remedied by the measure itself. Moreover, as there is only a limited number of 
EMD  buyers  in  the  Community  market,  there  is  a  risk  that  any  measure  based  on  a 
minimum  price  could  become  a  reference  price  on  the  market  and  thereby  reduce 
competition, which would not be in the Community interest. 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1.  A  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  is  hereby  imposed  on  imports  of  electrolytic  manganese 
dioxides (i.e. manganese dioxides produced through an electrolytic process) not heat-treated 
after the electrolytic process, falling within CN code ex 2820 10 00 (TARIC code 2820 10 00 
10) and originating in South Africa.  

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 below shall be: 

Company 

Anti-Dumping Duty 

TARIC Additional 
Code 

Delta E.M.D. (Pty) Ltd. 

All other companies 

17.1% 

17.1% 

A828 

A999 

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

3. 
apply. 

Article 2 

Amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  pursuant  to  Commission 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1066/2007  on  imports  of  electrolytic  manganese  dioxides  (i.e. 
manganese  dioxides  produced  through  an  electrolytic  process)  not  heat-treated  after  the 
electrolytic process, falling within CN code ex 2820 10 00 (TARIC code 2820 10 00 10) and 
originating in South Africa shall be definitively collected.  

This Regulation shall enter into force on the next 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, […] 

EN 

For the Council 
The President 

13 

   EN