Proposal for a Council Regulation terminating the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of the anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating, inter alia, in Ukraine
Date: 2008-02-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Ukraine, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, fertiliser, import, originating product

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 15.2.2008 
COM(2008) 83 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

terminating the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 
384/96 of the anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating, inter alia, 
in Ukraine 

(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 ammonium nitrate originating in Ukraine. 

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 

The measures currently in force are imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 132/2001, 
as  last  amended  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  442/2007  imposing  a  definitive  anti-
dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Ukraine. 

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 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 19 December 2006, the Commission initiated an interim review of the measures in 
force  in  respect  of  imports  of  ammonium  nitrate  originating  in  Ukraine  further  to  a 
request  made  by  one  exporting  producer  in  Ukraine,  namely  Azot  Cherkassy.  The 
request was based on prima facie evidence that the circumstances on the basis of which 
measures  were  established  have  changed  and  therefore  the  continued  imposition  of 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
measures at the existing levels would no longer be necessary to offset dumping. 

The  attached  proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  is  based  on  the  findings  of  the 
investigation carried out which is limited in scope to the examination of dumping as far 
as the applicant is concerned. 

The investigation showed that dumping took place during the investigation period. The 
level  of  the  dumping  found  was  higher  than  the  one  during  the  investigation  period 
which led to the imposition of the definitive duties. It was also higher than the injury 
elimination level which forms the basis of the current measures in force. Therefore, no 
circumstances  have  changed  in  such  a  way  as  to  no  longer  render  necessary  the 
existing measures to offset dumping. It was also found that the circumstances during 
the current investigation period were of a lasting nature.  

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation 
that  would  terminate  the  review  without  amending  the  anti-dumping  measures 
currently in force, which should be published in the  Official  Journal no later than 18 
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 

terminating the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 
384/96 of the anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating, inter alia, 
in Ukraine 

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 11(3) thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

1. Measures in force 

A. PROCEDURE 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

On  22  January  2001  the  Council  imposed,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  132/20012,  a 
definitive  anti-dumping  duty  (the  "existing  measures")  of  EUR  33,25  per  tonne  on 
imports of ammonium nitrate falling within CN codes 3102 30 90 and 3102 40 90 and 
originating, inter alia, in Ukraine. The investigation that led to these measures will be 
referred to as the "original investigation". 

On  17  May  2004,  following  a  partial  interim  review,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No 
993/20043 the Council exempted from the anti-dumping duties imposed by Regulation 
(EC) No 132/2001 imports to the Community of the product concerned produced by 
companies  from  which  undertakings  would  be  accepted  by  the  Commission.  By 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1001/20044, undertakings were accepted for a period 
of 6 months and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1996/20045 for a further period 
until 20 May 2005. The purpose of these undertakings was to take account of certain 
consequences  of  the  enlargement  of  the  European  Union  to  25  Member  States  on  1 
May 2004. 
By Regulation (EC) No 945/20056, following an interim review limited in scope to the 
definition  of  the  product  concerned,  the  Council  decided  that  the  definition  of  the 
product concerned should be clarified and that the measures in force should apply to 

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 23, 25.1.2001, p.1 
OJ L 182, 19.5.2004, p. 28 
OJ L 183, 20.5.2004, p. 13 
OJ L 344, 20.11.2004, p. 24 
OJ L 160, 23.6.2005, p. 1 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the  product  concerned  when  incorporated  in  other  fertilizers,  in  proportion  to  their 
content of ammonium nitrate, together with other marginal substances and nutrients. 

(4) 

Following an expiry review initiated in January 2006, the Council, by Regulation (EC) 
No  442/20077,  renewed  for  two  years  these  measures  at  their  current  level.  The 
measures consist of specific duties. 

2. Request for a review  

(5) 

(6) 

A request for a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation 
was lodged by Open Joint Stock Company (OJSC) Azot Cherkassy ('the applicant'), an 
exporting producer from Ukraine. The request was limited in scope to dumping as far 
as the applicant is concerned. 

In its request pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, the applicant claimed 
that the circumstances with regard to dumping, on the basis of which the measures in 
force were established, had changed and that these changes were of a lasting nature. 
The applicant further alleged that a comparison of normal value based on its own costs 
or domestic prices and export prices to the Community would lead to a reduction of 
dumping  significantly  below  the  level  of  the  current  measures.  Therefore,  it  claimed 
that  the  continued  imposition  of  measures  at  the  existing  levels  was  no  longer 
necessary to offset dumping. 

3. Investigation 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

Having  determined,  after  consulting  the  Advisory  Committee,  that  the  request 
contained  sufficient  prima  facie  evidence,  the  Commission  announced  on  19 
December 2006 the initiation of a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of 
the basic Regulation by a notice of initiation published in the Official Journal of the 
European Union8. 

The  review  was  limited  in  scope  to  the  examination  of  dumping  in  respect  of  the 
applicant. The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 October 2005 to 30 
September 2006 ('the review investigation period' or 'RIP'). 

The Commission officially informed the applicant, the representatives of the exporting 
country and the association of Community producers about the initiation of the review. 
Interested  parties  were  given  the  opportunity  to  make  their  views  known  in  writing 
and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation. 

(10)  All interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons 

why they should be heard, were granted a hearing. 

(11) 

In  order  to  obtain  the  information  deemed  necessary  for  its  investigation,  the 
Commission sent the questionnaire to the applicant and received the reply within the 
deadline set for that purpose.  

(12)  The  Commission  sought  and  verified  all  information  deemed  necessary  for  the 
determination  of  dumping.  The  Commission  carried  out  verification  visits  at  the 
premises of the applicant in Cherkassy. 

(13) 

Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis 
of  which  it  was  intended  to  recommend  to  terminate  the  present  review  and  to 

7 
8 

OJ L 106, 24.4.2007, p. 1 
OJ C 311, 19.12.2006, p. 57 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
maintain the existing anti-dumping measures on imports of the product concerned by 
the applicant and were given an opportunity to comment. The comments received were 
duly considered and taken into account, where appropriate. 

B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

1. Product concerned 

(14)  The product concerned is the same as in the original investigation as clarified by the 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  945/2005  mentioned  in  recital  (3),  i.e.  solid  fertilizers 
with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight originating in Ukraine, 
falling within CN codes 3102 30 90, 3102 40 90, ex 3102 29 00, ex 3102 60 00, ex 
3102 90 00, ex 3105 10 00, ex 3105 20 10, ex 3105 51 00, ex 3105 59 00 and ex 3105 
90  91  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  "AN").  AN  is  a  solid  nitrogen  fertiliser  commonly 
used in agriculture. It is manufactured from ammonia and nitric acid, and its nitrogen 
content exceeds 28 % by weight in prilled or granular form. 

2. Like product 

(15)  This review investigation confirmed what was established in the original investigation 
-  that  AN  is  a  pure  commodity  product,  and  its  quality  and  basic  physical 
characteristics are identical whatever the country of origin. The AN manufactured and 
sold  by  the  applicant  on  its  domestic  market  in  Ukraine  and  the  one  exported  to  the 
European Community have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and 
essentially the same uses. Therefore, these products are considered to be like products 
within  the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation. Since the present review 
was limited to the determination of dumping as far as the applicant is concerned, no 
conclusions  were  reached  with  regard  to  the  product  produced  and  sold  by  the 
Community industry in the Community market. 

C. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION 

1. Normal value 

(16) 

In order to establish the normal value, it was first verified that the total domestic sales 
of  the  applicant  were  representative  in  accordance  with  Article  2(2)  of  the  basic 
Regulation, i.e. that the total volume of such sales represented at least 5 % of the total 
export sales volume of the applicant to the Community. The investigation showed that 
the  applicant  sold  only  one  type  of  AN  and  that  this  type  was  sold  in  representative 
quantities on the domestic market. 

(17)  The Commission subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of AN could be 
regarded  as  having  been  made  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade  in  accordance  with 
Article  2(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  by  comparing  domestic  net  sales  price  with  the 
calculated cost of production. 

(18)  When  assessing  the  cost  of  production  of  the  applicant,  it  was  found  that  gas  costs 
were  not  reasonably  reflected  in  the  records  of  the  applicant.  It  should  be  noted  that 
energy costs, such as gas, represent a major proportion of the manufacturing cost and a 
significant proportion of the total cost of production.  

(19)  As  regards  gas  costs,  it  was  found  that  Ukraine  is  importing  the  majority  of  the  gas 
consumed  in  the  production  of  AN  from  Russia.  In  this  regard,  all  available  data 
indicates that Ukraine imports natural gas from Russia at prices which are significantly 
below  market  prices  paid  in  unregulated  markets  for  natural  gas.  The  investigation 
revealed  that  the  price  of  natural  gas  from  Russia  when  exported  to  the  European 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
Community was approximately twice as high as the domestic gas price in the Ukraine. 
Therefore, as provided for in Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, the gas costs borne 
by  the  applicant  were  adjusted  on  the  basis  of  information  from  other  representative 
markets.  

(20)  Following disclosure, the applicant argued that any adjustment of its gas price paid on 
the  domestic  market  would  be  unwarranted  because  the  accounting  records  of  the 
company fully reflected the costs associated with the activity of production and sales 
of the like product in the country of origin.  

(21)  However, when examining cost of production of the like product under Article 2(5) of 
the  basic  Regulation,  it  must  be  determined  whether  the  costs  as  booked  in  the 
company's accounts are reasonably reflecting the costs associated with the production 
and  sale  of  the  product  under  investigation.  For  the  reasons  set  out  above  in  recital 
(19), this was found not to be the case. 

(22)  Furthermore, the applicant claimed that its normal value should be based on its sales 
of  the  product  concerned  on  its  domestic  market  alleging  that  there  is  no  reason  to 
consider that these sales were not made in the ordinary course of trade. In this regard, 
it should be noted that in order to establish whether domestic sales were made in the 
ordinary course of trade by reason of price, i.e. whether they were profitable, it must 
first be established whether the costs of the applicant were a reliable basis within the 
meaning  of  Article  2(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  Only  after  costs  have  been  reliably 
established, can it be determined which methodology to establish normal value should 
be  used.  As  outlined  in  recital  (28)  below  and  following,  since  the  comparison  of 
domestic  net sales  price  with the adjusted cost of production during the RIP showed 
that no domestic sales were made in the ordinary course of trade. Therefore, domestic 
prices of the applicant could not be used for the establishment of the normal value.  

(23)  The applicant also argued that the investigation was based on data during the RIP and 
that the conclusions did therefore not take into account developments after this period 
such  as,  in  particular,  the  continuous  increase  of  gas  prices  and  the  increase  in 
domestic  consumption  of  fertilisers  in  Ukraine.  In  this  respect,  it  should  be  recalled 
that  in  accordance  with  Article  6(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  for  the  purpose  of  a 
representative finding, an investigation period shall be selected which, in the case of 
dumping shall, normally, cover a period of not less than six months immediately prior 
to the initiation of the proceeding. It is also recalled that in line with usual Community 
practice, the RIP concerning dumping had a duration of one year.  

(24) 

It was considered whether the development of gas prices in Ukraine subsequent to the 
RIP should have been taken into consideration when determining the dumping margin 
of the applicant. In this regard, it should be noted that in accordance with Article 6(1) 
of  the  basic  Regulation,  information  relating  to  a  period  subsequent  to  the 
investigation period shall, normally, not be taken into account. In line with consistent 
Community practice, this was interpreted as meaning that events relating to a period 
subsequent  to  the  IP  can  only  be  taken  into  account  if  they  are  manifest,  undisputed 
and lasting. In this regard, although an increase in gas prices could be observed after 
the RIP, it could not be established with sufficient certainty that this price increase was 
indeed  of  a  lasting  nature.  It  was  found  that  the  information  available  on  future 
developments  of  gas  prices  in  Ukraine  consisted  in  mere  previsions  rather  than 
verifiable  information  in  relation  to  actual  gas  prices.  Article  6(1)  allows  the  use  of 
information and data outside the IP (or in cases of reviews the RIP) only under very 
exceptional circumstances. The situation in the present case was not considered such 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
as to justify the use of data or information outside the RIP. Furthermore, the applicant 
did  not  substantiate  its  arguments  as  no  evidence  was  submitted  to  show  that  data 
relating to a period after the RIP are more representative than those relating to the RIP. 
The argument was therefore rejected. 

(25)  As  for  the  fact  that  the  consumption  of  fertilisers  in  Ukraine  has  increased  after  the 
RIP,  the  applicant  did  not  explain  or  show  to  what  extent  this  fact  could  have  an 
impact on the findings made on the basis of the information related to the RIP. Thus, 
the applicant did not submit sufficient information on the basis of which meaningful 
conclusions  could  have  been  drawn,  nor  was  any  other  information  available  which 
could have supported the applicant's claim in this regard. Since any conclusions on this 
basis would have been speculative the applicant's claim was rejected. 

(26)  The adjusted gas price was based on the average price of Russian gas when sold for 
export  at  the  German/Czech  border  (Waidhaus),  net  of  transport  costs.  Waidhaus, 
being the main hub for Russian gas sales to the EU, which is both the largest market 
for  Russian  gas  and  has  prices  reasonably  reflecting  costs,  can  be  considered  a 
representative market within the meaning of Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation. 

(27)  The applicant further argued that Ukraine purchases gas at similar market conditions 
as the European Community and that the prices paid for gas by the applicant in 2007 
were  higher  than  the  gas  price  at  the  Ukrainian-Russian  border  in  the  same  period. 
However, the applicant did not submit any evidence to substantiate its claims and has 
thus failed to show that the conditions mentioned above in recital (24) for taking into 
account events relating to a period subsequent to the RIP are fulfilled. The argument 
was therefore rejected. 

(28)  The comparison of domestic net sales price with the adjusted cost of production during 
the  RIP  showed  that  no  domestic  sales  were  made  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade 
pursuant of Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.  

(29) 

It was therefore considered that domestic prices did not provide an appropriate basis 
for  the  establishment  of  the  normal  value  and  another  method  had  to  be  applied.  In 
accordance  with  Articles  2(3)  and  2(6)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  normal  value  was 
constructed by adding to the applicants manufacturing costs of the product concerned, 
adjusted where necessary as mentioned in recital (19) above, a reasonable amount for 
SG&A costs and a reasonable amount for profit. 

(30)  SG&A costs and profit could not be established on the basis of the chapeau of Article 
2(6)  of  the  basic  Regulation  because  the  applicant  did  not  have  representative 
domestic sales of the product concerned in the ordinary course of trade. Article 2(6)(a) 
of the basic Regulation could not be applied, since only the applicant is subject to the 
investigation. Article 2(6)(b) was not applicable either, since the manufacturing cost of 
the applicant for products belonging to the same general category of goods would also 
need  to  be  adjusted  in  respect  of  gas  costs,  for  the  reasons  indicated  in  recital  (19) 
above. Therefore, SG&A costs and profit were established pursuant to Article 2(6)(c) 
of the basic Regulation. 

(31)  The  North  American  market  showed  a  significant  volume  of  domestic  sales  and  a 
considerable level of competition from both domestic and foreign companies. In this 
respect,  consideration  was  given  to  publicly  available  information  relating  to  major 
companies  operating  in  the  fertilizers  business  sector.  It  was  found  that  the 
corresponding  data  from  North  American  (USA  and  Canadian)  producers  would  be 
the most appropriate for the purpose of the investigation, given the large availability of 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
reliable and complete public financial information from listed companies in this region 
of the  world.  Therefore,  SG&A costs and profit were established  on  the basis of the 
weighted average SG&A costs and profit from three North American producers, which 
were found to be amongst the largest companies in the nitrogen fertilizers' sector, with 
regard  to  their  domestic  sales  of  the  same  general  category  of  products  (nitrogen 
fertilizers). These three producers were considered to be representative of the nitrogen 
fertilizers'  business  and  their  SG&A  costs  and  profit  thereby  representative  of  those 
normally  incurred  by  companies  operating  successfully  in  that  business  segment.  It 
should be noted that there were no indications that the amount for profit so established 
exceeded the profit realized by other Ukrainian producers on sales of products of the 
same general category on their domestic market. 

(32)  Following  the  disclosure  the  applicant  alleged  that  there  is  a  significant  difference 
between the market situation between the North America and Ukraine. The applicant 
however failed to explain the alleged difference and to substantiate its claims. It also 
failed to propose any other reasonable basis for calculations in the absence of which 
this argument had to be rejected. 

2. Export price 

(33)  Since  the  product  concerned  was  exported  to  independent  customers  in  the 
Community,  the  export  price  was  established  in  accordance  with  Article  2(8)  of  the 
basic Regulation, i.e. on the basis of the export price actually paid or payable.  

3. Comparison 

(34)  The  normal  value  and  export  price  were  compared  on  an  ex-works  basis  and  at  the 
same level of trade. For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal 
value  and  the  export  price,  due  allowance  in  the  form  of  adjustments  was  made  for 
differences affecting price and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of 
the basic Regulation. Accordingly, adjustments were made for differences in transport, 
handling,  loading  and  ancillary  costs,  where  applicable  and  supported  by  verified 
evidence. 

(35)  After disclosure the association of Community producers argued that the rail tariffs in 
Ukraine  for  transport  of,  inter  alia,  the  product  concerned  when  exported  to  the 
European  Community  were  artificially  low  and  therefore  needed  to  be  adjusted.  The 
investigation  did  not  reveal  however  that  transport  costs  in  Ukraine  were  not 
reasonably  reflected  in  the  records  of  the  applicant.  This  claim  therefore  had  to  be 
rejected.  

4. Dumping margin 

(36)  The  dumping  margin  was  established  on  the  basis  of  a  comparison  of  a  weighted 
average normal value with a weighted average export price, in accordance with Article 
2(11) of the basic Regulation. 

(37)  This  comparison  showed  a  dumping  margin  of  38,2%,  expressed  as  a  percentage  of 

the CIF Community frontier price, duty unpaid.  

5. Lasting nature of the changed circumstances  

(38) 

In accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, an analysis was made as to 
whether the change in circumstances with regard to dumping could reasonably be said 
to be of a lasting nature. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
(39) 

In  this  context,  it  was  noted  that  the  dumping  margin  currently  applicable  to  the 
applicant was established in the original investigation using a normal value determined 
on  the  basis  of  data  obtained  from  a  producer  in  a  market  economy  third  country  in 
accordance with Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation. However, in the present review 
normal value was calculated based on information relating to the applicant's own data 
in accordance with Article 2(1) to (6) of the basic Regulation, following the granting 
of market economy status to Ukraine (amendment of the basic Regulation by Council 
Regulation 2117/20059). 

(40)  There  were  no  indications  that  the  level  of  the  normal  value  or  the  export  price 
established for the applicant in the current investigation could not be considered of a 
lasting nature. It could be argued that the evolution of the prices of natural gas as the 
main  raw  material  could  have  a  significant  influence  on  the  normal  value.  It  was, 
however, considered that the effect of the price increase would affect all actors on the 
market and therefore have an impact on both the normal value and the export price.  

(41)  The export price of the applicant to the Community during the RIP was found to  be 
similar  to  that  of  its  exports  to  other  countries,  where  considerably  higher  quantities 
were sold during the RIP. 

(42)  Therefore, although the dumping margin found in the RIP is based on a relatively low 
volume  of  exports  of  the  applicant  to  the  Community,  there  are  reasons  to  consider 
that the dumping margin found is based on changed circumstances of a lasting nature. 

D. TERMINATION OF THE REVIEW 

(43)  Since,  in  the  original  investigation  the  duty  was  imposed  in  the  form  of  a  specific 
amount per tonne, it should have the same form in the current investigation. The duty 
calculated on the basis of the current margin of dumping would be EUR 47/ton. 

(44) 

It is recalled that, as outlined in recital (59) of Council Regulation (EC) No 132/2001, 
when  imposing  definitive  measures  in  2001,  the  injury  margin  was  used  when 
determining  the  amount  of  the  definitive  duty  to  be  imposed  in  accordance  with  the 
lesser duty rule. As defined by Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 442/2007, the duty 
currently  in  force  depends  on  the  specific  product  type  and  varies  between  EUR 
29,26/ton and EUR 33,25/ton. 

(45)  Since the duty established on the basis of the current margin of dumping is higher than 
the  current  duty,  the  review  should  be  terminated  without  amending  the  level  of  the 
duty  applicable  to  the  applicant,  which  should  be  maintained  at  the  level  of  the 
definitive anti-dumping duty rate established in the original investigation. 

E. UNDERTAKINGS 

(46)  The  applicant  expressed  an  interest  in  offering  an  undertaking  but  failed  to  submit  a 
sufficiently substantiated undertaking offer within the deadlines set in Article 8(2) of 
the  basic  Regulation.  Consequently  no  undertaking  offer  could  be  accepted  by  the 
Commission. However, it is considered that the complexity of several issues, namely 
(1) the volatility of the price of the product concerned which would require some form 
of  indexation  of  minimum  prices,  while  at  the  same  time  the  volatility  is  not 
sufficiently explained by the key cost driver; and (2) the particular market situation for 
the  product  concerned  (inter  alia,  that  there  are  limited  imports  from  the  exporter 

9 

OJ L 340, 23.12.2005, p.17 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
subject  to  this  review)  points  to  the  need  to  consider  whether  an  undertaking 
combining an indexed minimum price and a quantitative ceiling would be workable.  

(47)  As  mentioned  above,  due  to  this  complexity  the  applicant  could  not  formulate  an 
acceptable  undertaking  offer  within  the  statutory  deadline.  In  view  of  the  above,  the 
Council  considers  that  the  applicant  should  exceptionally  be  allowed  to  complete  its 
undertaking  offer  beyond  the  above-mentioned  deadline  but  within  10  calendar  days 
from entry into force of this regulation.  

F. DISCLOSURE 

(48) 

Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of 
which it was intended to terminate the present review and to maintain the existing anti-
dumping  duty  on  imports  of  the  product  concerned  produced  by  the  applicant.  All 
parties were given an opportunity to comment. Their comments were taken into account 
where warranted and substantiated by evidence.  

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Sole Article 

The partial interim of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of solid fertilizers with 
an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight originating in Ukraine, falling within 
CN codes 3102 30 90, 3102 40 90, ex 3102 29 00, ex 3102 60 00, ex 3102 90 00, ex 3105 10 
00,  ex  3105  20  10,  ex  3105  51  00,  ex  3105  59  00  and  ex  3105  90  91,  initiated  pursuant  to 
Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, is hereby terminated without amending the anti-
dumping measures in force.  

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 

11 

   EN