Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) No …/.. of […] imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of coke of coal in pieces with a diameter of more than 80 mm (Coke 80+) originating in the People’s Republic of China
Date: 2008-02-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, coal industry, coke, dumping, import, originating product

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 15.2.2008 
COM(2008) 86 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No …/.. 

of […] 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of coke of coal in pieces with a diameter of more than 80 mm (Coke 
80+) originating in the People’s Republic of China 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1)  CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This  proposal  concerns  the  application  of  Article  5  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’). 

•  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 

Not applicable. 

•  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  contains  an 
exhaustive list of conditions that have to be assessed. 

3)  LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

On  20  December  2006,  the  Commission  initiated  an  anti-dumping  proceeding 
concerning  imports  of  coke  of  coal  in  pieces  with  a  diameter  of  more  than  80  mm 
(Coke 80+) originating in the People’s Republic of China. 

The investigation found dumping of the product concerned, which caused injury to the 
Community  industry.  The  investigation  also  evidenced  that  there  was  no  compelling 
Community  interest  aspect  against  the  imposition  of  anti-dumping  measures.  On  this 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
basis, provisional measures were imposed  by means  of Commission Regulation  (EC) 
No  1071/2007.  The  continuation  of  the  investigation  has  confirmed  the  essential 
provisional findings. 

Therefore,  it  is  suggested  that  the  Council  adopts  the  attached  proposal  for  a 
Regulation in order to impose definitive measures on imports of coke of coal in pieces 
with a diameter of more than 80 mm (Coke 80+) originating in the People’s Republic 
of China. 

•  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 instrument: Regulation. 

Other means would not be adequate for the following reason: 

Other  means  would  not  be  adequate  because  the  basic  Regulation  does  not  foresee 
alternative options. 

4)  BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No …/.. 

of […] 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of coke of coal in pieces with a diameter of more than 80 mm (Coke 
80+) originating in the People’s Republic of China 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 

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

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

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

A. 

PROVISIONAL MEASURES 
On 20 December 2006, the Commission published a notice2 initiating an anti-dumping 
proceeding on imports into the Community of coke of coal in pieces with a diameter 
of more than 80 mm (‘Coke 80+’) originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the 
PRC’). On 19 September 2007, the Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 1071/20073 
(‘the provisional Regulation’) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of 
Coke 80+ originating in the PRC. 

It  is  noted  that  the  proceeding  was  initiated  following  a  complaint  lodged  by  three 
Community producers, representing around 40 % of the total Community production 
of Coke 80+. It is noted that an understated figure of 'more than 30 %' was mentioned 
in recital (2) of the provisional Regulation; however, following further investigation it 
was  found  that  the  complainants  in  fact  represented  around  40  %  of  the  total 
Community production. 

As set out in recital (12) of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping 
and  injury  covered  the  period  from  1 October  2005  to  30  September  2006 
(‘investigation  period’  or  ‘IP’).  With  respect  to  the  trends  relevant  for  the  injury 
assessment, the Commission analysed data covering the period from 1 January 2003 to 
the end of the IP (‘period considered’). 

B. 

SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE 

1 

2 
3 

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 C 313, 20.12.2006, p. 15. 
OJ L 244, 19.9.2007, p. 3. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

Following the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of Coke 80+ 
originating in the PRC, several interested parties submitted comments in writing. The 
parties who so requested were also granted the opportunity to be heard.  

The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for 
its definitive findings. In particular, the Commission intensified the investigation with 
regard  to  Community  interest  aspects.  In  this  connection,  one  additional  verification 
visit was carried out after the imposition of the provisional measures at the following 
company: 

– 

La Fonte Ardennaise, Vivier-Au-Court, France – user in the Community. 

In  addition,  an  information  gathering  visit  was  made  to  the  European  Foundry 
Association  (CAEF)  in  Düsseldorf,  Germany.  In  order  to  clarify  certain  alleged 
implementation  problems,  a  visit  was  also  carried  out  to  customs  authorities  in 
Antwerp, Belgium as well as in Duisburg, Germany. 

All  parties  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the  basis  of 
which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty 
on  imports  of  Coke  80+  originating  in  the  PRC  and  the  definitive  collection  of  the 
amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  duty.  They  were  also  granted  a  period 
within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure. 

(8) 

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

C. 

PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

(9) 

(10) 

In the absence of any comments concerning the product concerned and like product, 
recitals (13) to (17) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

In view of the above, it is definitively concluded that the product concerned and Coke 
80+ produced and sold in the analogue country, the USA, as well as the one produced 
and sold by the Community industry on the Community market are alike, within the 
meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation. 

D. 

DUMPING 

(11) 

In the absence of any comments concerning the level of cooperation, the selection of 
the analogue country and the determination of normal value, recitals (18) to (28) of the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

(12)  With  reference  to  price  comparison,  the  sole  cooperating  exporter  objected  to  the 
rejection  by  the  Commission  of  its  claim  relating  to  post-screening  operations  in  the 
dumping calculation, arguing that a similar claim had been taken into consideration for 
the purpose of injury calculations. The claim was therefore accepted and an additional 
adjustment was made to the normal value. 

(13)  The  estimation  of  the  value  of  the  adjustment  made  for  differences  in  physical 
characteristics  at  provisional  stage  has  been  reviewed  to  reflect  the  value  of  the 
differences in calorific value indicators and size spread between the product produced 
in the analogue country and the Chinese exported product. 

(14) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  in  this  respect,  recitals  (29)  to  (31)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

(15)  The  definitive  dumping  margin  was  established  on  the  basis  of  a  comparison  of  a 
weighted  average  ex-works  normal  value  with  a  weighted  average  ex-works  export 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
price,  in  accordance  with  Article  2(11)  and  (12)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  After 
applying  the  adjustments  referred  to  in  recitals  (12)  and  (13)  above,  the  revised 
definitive  country  wide  dumping  margin,  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  CIF 
Community frontier price, duty unpaid, is 61,8 %. 

1.  Community production and Community industry 

E. 

INJURY 

(16) 

In the absence of any comments concerning the definition of Community production 
and  Community  industry,  recitals  (34)  and  (35)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are 
hereby confirmed. 

2.  Community consumption 

(17)  As set out in recital (36) of the provisional Regulation, the Commission continued its 
investigation in particular as regards one component of the Community consumption, 
namely  the  import  volumes  during  the  period  considered.  However,  no  new  and 
substantiated information was received in this respect. Therefore, and in the absence of 
any  arguments  from  any  interested  parties  putting  into  question  the  method  used  to 
establish  the  Community  consumption,  recitals  (36)  and  (37)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3. 

Imports from the country concerned 

(a) Volume and market share of the imports concerned; import prices 

(18)  As  set  out  in  recitals  (36)  and  (41)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the  Commission 
continued  its  investigation  on  the  import  volumes  and  prices  during  the  period 
considered. It is noted that there was a clerical error in recital (42) of the provisional 
Regulation as prices decreased by 43 % from 2004 to the IP and not by 35 %, as stated 
in the said recital. 

(19)  However,  no  new  and  substantiated  information  was  received  regarding  import 
volumes  and  prices.  Therefore,  and  in  the  absence  of  any  arguments  from  any 
interested  parties  questioning  the  method  used  to  establish  the  volume  and  prices  of 
the  imports  concerned,  recitals  (38)  to  (42)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  hereby 
confirmed. 

(b) Price undercutting 

(20)  The cooperating exporting producer and one user have argued that in order to carry out 
the undercutting calculation on a fair basis, when comparing the prices charged by the 
Community  industry  for  the  like  product  and  the  import  prices  of  the  product 
concerned,  an  adjustment  should  be  made  for  differences  in  physical  characteristics. 
Certain  Community  industry  producers,  on  the  other  hand,  argued  that  while  in  a 
hypothetical  situation  Coke  80+  from  some  Community  producers  may  warrant  a 
higher  price  based  on  specific  quality  characteristics,  the  data  available  to  the 
Commission establish that the users do not pay any higher price for the so-called better 
quality characteristics, particularly in an environment of suppressed prices caused by 
predatory  dumping.  According  to  these  Community  industry  producers,  the  user 
industry's  purchase  decisions  are,  instead,  solely  based  on  the  price  quoted  for  the 
Chinese product. Therefore, adjustments for differences in physical characteristics are 
not warranted. However, since the verified information provided by interested parties 
suggests  that  there  are  differences  between  the  moisture,  ash,  volatile  material  and 
sulphur  content  of  the  like  product  and  the  product  concerned,  which  under  normal 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
market  conditions  could  be  expected  to  have  an  effect  on  prices,  the  claim  of  the 
cooperating Chinese producer and the user was accepted and an additional adjustment 
was made to take into account these differences. 

(21)  Furthermore, in order to compare the product concerned and the Coke 80+ produced 
by  the  Community  industry  at  the  same  level  of  trade,  in  addition  to  those  post-
importation  costs  incurred  by  importers  in  the  Community  that  were  mentioned  in 
recital  (43)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  an  adjustment  was  made  in  the  price 
undercutting  calculation  also  for  unloading  costs.  For  the  sake  of  clarity  it  is  also 
mentioned that an adjustment for the profit margin of unrelated importers was made in 
the  price  undercutting  calculation  already  at  the  provisional  stage,  albeit  not 
specifically  mentioned  in  recital  (43)  of  the  provisional  Regulation.  This  adjustment 
has  been  made  on  the  basis  of  the  verified  profitability  reported  by  the  cooperating 
unrelated importer during the IP, being in the range of 5-10 %4. 

(22)  The provisional undercutting margin for the PRC was accordingly amended and it is 
concluded that, during the IP, the product concerned originating in the PRC was sold 
in  the  Community  at  prices  which  undercut  the  Community  industry's  sales  prices, 
when expressed as a percentage of the latter, by 5,7 %.  

4. 

Situation of the Community industry 

(23) 

In  the  absence  of  any  new  and  substantiated  information  or  argument  concerning 
production,  production  capacity  and  capacity  utilisation  rates,  sales  volume,  market 
share, growth, stocks, investments and magnitude of the dumping margin, the findings 
in recitals (46) to (50), (53) to (54) and (60) to (61) of the provisional Regulation are 
hereby confirmed. 

(a) Sales prices in the Community 

(24)  Sales prices in the Community stated in recital (51) of the provisional Regulation were 
corrected  and  are  shown  in  the  table  below.  The  slight  revisions  do  not  affect  the 
conclusions drawn with regard to the Community sales prices in recitals (51) and (52) 
of the provisional Regulation. 

Unit price EC market (EUR/tonne) 

Index (2003 = 100) 

2003 

2004 

2005 

154 

100 

191 

124 

243  

158 

IP 

198 

129 

(b) Profitability, return on investment, cash flow and ability to raise capital 

(25)  The calculation of the profitability figures as laid down in the provisional Regulation 
was  revised  and  an  error  was  corrected.  The  correct  figures,  presented  in  the  table 
below,  do  not  affect  the  conclusions  on  the  general  trend  of  the  evolution  of 
profitability of the Community industry, even though they give an even bleaker picture 
of  the  state  of  the  Community  industry:  the  profitability  of  the  Community  industry 
dropped dramatically from 16,2 % in the 2005 to -3,8 % during the IP. Following that 
correction, also the figures on return on investments (ROI), expressed as the profit in 
percent  of  the  net  book  value  of  investments,  have  been  adjusted.  Cash  flow  figures 

4 

For confidentiality reasons, this figure is given only in ranges. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
remain the same as in the provisional Regulation, but are presented in the table below 
for the sake of clarity.  

2003 

2004 

2005 

IP 

Profitability of EC sales to unrelated 
customers (% of net sales) 

8,1% 

15,0% 

16,2% 

-3,8% 

Index (2003 = 100) 

100 

185 

200 

-47 

ROI (profit in % of net book value of 
investments) 

2,2% 

19,2% 

13,3% 

-13,3% 

Index (2003 = 100) 

100 

460 

340 

-180 

Cash flow (1 000 EUR) 

17 641 

13 633 

34 600 

4 669 

Index (2003=100) 

100 

77 

196 

26 

(26) 

In the absence of any new comments in this particular regard, the conclusions set out 
in  recital  (58)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  on  the  Community  industry's  ability  to 
raise capital are confirmed. 

(c) Employment, productivity and wages 

(27)  Productivity figures of the Community industry's workforce stated in recital (59) of the 
provisional  Regulation  were  also  corrected  and  are  shown  in  the  table  below.  These 
corrected  figures  show  that  the  productivity  of  the  Community  industry's  workforce, 
measured  as  output  (tonnes)  per  person  employed  per  year,  increased  slightly  from 
2003 to the IP. In addition, the annual labour costs per employee are, for the sake of 
clarity, reproduced in more detailed figures than in the provisional Regulation. 

Number of employees  

Index (2003 = 100) 

2003 

2004 

2005 

680 

100 

754 

111 

734 

108 

IP 

767 

113 

Productivity (tonnes/employee) 

1 211 

1 348 

1 299 

1 266 

Index (2003 = 100) 

100 

111 

107 

105 

Annual labour cost per employee 
(EUR) 

28 096 

27 784 

29 453 

30 502 

Index (2003 = 100) 

100 

99 

105 

109 

5.  Conclusion on injury 

(28)  Following disclosure of the provisional Regulation, one user claimed, with reference 
to recitals (64) and (67) of the provisional Regulation, that the Commission had based 
its provisional conclusions on injury – and consequently also causation – exclusively 
on the allegedly negative development of certain market indicators over a very short 
time period instead of assessing injury over a period of three to four years, as was the 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
(29) 

common practice. The user based this argument on an assumption that the Community 
industry  was  not  suffering  any  injury  up  until  the  end  of  2005,  since  the  previous 
measures were allowed to lapse at the end of 2005. Since the IP ended in September 
2006, this would mean that the injurious situation of the Community industry would 
have presented itself only during a few months in 2006. 

In this regard, it is noted firstly that recital (64) of the provisional Regulation, wherein 
reference is made to the development of certain injury indicators from 2005 to the IP, 
must be read in conjunction with the preceding recital (63), where the development of 
injury  indicators  up  to  2005  is  commented.  It  is  clear  from  these  recitals  of  the 
provisional Regulation concerning injury indicators, that the Commission followed its 
usual  practice  and  examined  the  development  of  injury  indicators  over  a  period  of 
almost  four  years,  i.e.,  from  the  beginning  of  2003  to  September  2006.  As  is 
mentioned  in  recital  (63),  the  year  2004  was  an  exceptional  year  in  the  Coke  80+ 
market, resulting from low supply on the market due to low imports from the PRC and 
closure  of  some  plants  previously  producing  Coke  80+  in  the  Community.  The 
exceptional  nature  of  the  market  situation  in  2004,  which  was  still  reflected  in  the 
indicators  of  the  following  year,  has  not  been  disputed  by  any  interested  party.  It  is 
precisely because the peaks experienced in 2004 and 2005 are considered exceptional 
that  the  Commission,  in  this  case,  has  had  to  pay  particular  attention  to  the 
development of injury indicators between 2003 and the IP. It is recalled that the key 
financial  indicators,  in  particular  profitability,  experienced  a  dramatic  drop  not  only 
from 2005 to the IP, but also when comparing 2003 to the IP. 

(30) 

In  addition,  it  should  be  noted  that  drawing  any  conclusions  as  to  the  state  of  the 
Community industry at the end of 2005 from the fact that producers in the Community 
did  not  follow  through  an  application  for  an expiry review  of  the  previous  measures 
would be purely speculative. 

(31)  Therefore,  the  claim  that  the  Commission  has  analysed  the  injury  picture  only 

concerning some months in 2006 must be rejected. 

(32)  The above  revised  factors, i.e. profitability, return on  investment and productivity of 
the  Community  industry,  leave  unaffected  the  trends  as  set  out  in  the  provisional 
Regulation.  Also  the  revised  undercutting  margin  still  remained  well  above  the  de 
minimis  level.  On  this  basis,  it  is  considered  that  the  conclusions  regarding  the 
material  injury  suffered  by  the  Community  industry  as  set  out  in  the  provisional 
Regulation  are  not  altered.  In  the  absence  of  any  other  new  and  substantiated 
information or arguments, they are therefore definitively confirmed. 

1. 

Effect of the dumped imports  

F. 

CAUSATION 

(33)  As mentioned in recital (22) above, it is definitively concluded that during the IP, the 
average  prices  of  imports  from  the  PRC  undercut  the  average  Community  industry 
prices  by  5,7  %.  The  revision  of  the  undercutting  margin  leaves  unaffected  the 
conclusions on the effect of the dumped imports set out in recitals (67) to (69) of the 
provisional Regulation. 

2. 

Exchange rate fluctuations 

(34)  One  user  has  claimed  that  developments  on  the  market  after  the  IP  show  that  the 
situation  prevailing  during  the  IP  was  exceptional  and  the  prices  started  to  increase 
again  after  the  IP.  This  user  claimed  that  the  temporary  drop  in  prices  during  the  IP 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
was largely due to the unfavourable exchange rate from the USD to EUR, the fact that 
prices  for  Coke  80+  are  generally  expressed  in  USD  on  world  markets  and  the 
difficulty  to  adjust  prices,  which  are  generally  negotiated  annually,  to  the  new 
currency situation. In this regard, it is noted that the investigation has shown that the 
sales  prices  of  the  Community  industry  producers  within  the  EU  are  generally 
expressed  not  in  USD,  but  in  EUR  or  other  European  currencies.  Furthermore,  the 
post-IP development of higher prices claimed by this user, which would coincide with 
an  even  weaker  USD  as  compared  to  the  EUR,  does  not  support  the  logic  of  the 
argument that falling Coke 80+ prices were caused by a negative USD-EUR exchange 
rate trend. 

3. 

Self-inflicted injury 

(35)  One user has submitted that the alleged injury of the Community industry caused by 
decreasing prices was mainly attributable to the aggressive pricing policy operated by 
some European producers selling at prices below the Chinese import prices. However, 
the  investigation  has  not  shown  evidence  of  a  general  "aggressive  pricing  policy" 
between  certain  European  producers.  It  was  found  that  competition  between  the 
European  producers  mainly  takes  place  in  the  regional  markets  and  not  on  a 
Community-wide level, since due to considerable transport costs the producers usually 
sell in their geographic proximity. Lower prices possibly charged by some producers 
have thus not caused injury to other European producers. Moreover, the fact that there 
is  competition  between  certain  European  producers  does  not  mean  that  the  Chinese 
dumped import prices have not forced those producers to outbid each other even more 
than  they  would  do  in  a  situation  of  fair  competition  by  the  Chinese  producers,  and 
thus to sell at unsustainable prices. 

(36)  This user has also argued that the biggest share of increase in consumption from 2003 
to  the  IP  was  taken  by  the  Community  producers  and  not  by  the  Chinese  imports. 
While  this  might  be  true  in  absolute  terms,  it  is  not  so  in  relative  terms:  the 
investigation has shown that the Chinese imports, which had a 24 % market share in 
2003, took almost half of the increase in the consumption from 2003 to the IP. 

(37)  The  same  user  also  asserted  that  in  an  environment  of  growing  consumption,  the 
Community  industry  was  unable  to  increase  its  market  share  because  it  did  not 
increase  its  production  capacity.  Therefore,  the  increase  in  Community  consumption 
had to be met by Chinese imports. However, the fact that the Community industry did 
not increase its capacity in pace with the growing consumption can be seen rather as a 
consequence  of  the  uncertain  investment  environment  created  by  the  price  pressure 
from the dumped Chinese imports than a cause for injury for the Community industry. 

(38) 

It  is  noted  that  the  Community  industry  had  about  120.000  tonnes  spare  capacity 
during  the  IP,  the  utilization  of  which  was  not  economically  viable  due  to  the  price 
pressure  from  the  dumped  Chinese  imports.  Furthermore,  one  Community  producer 
cut down its production significantly from 2005 to the IP and has post-IP ceased the 
production  of  Coke  80+.  The  specific  nature  of  this  industry  means  that  temporary 
shutting  down  of  the  production  process  destroys  the  production  equipment  (ovens) 
and  restarting  would  require  large  additional  investments.  In  a  market  situation 
characterised  by  a  significant  price  depression  it  did  not  make  economic  sense  to 
invest in restarting closed-down ovens or building new ones. 

(39)  One interested party also claimed that increased labour costs were a major cause of the 
alleged injury to the Community industry. However, the investigation has shown that 
the overall increase in number of Community industry employees is attributable only 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
to  one  producer,  which  in  parallel  increased  its  productivity.  The  other  Community 
industry  producers  kept  their  level  of  employment  fairly  stable  although  facing 
decreasing production. This can be explained by the nature of the production process 
of  this  industry,  where  the  personnel  needed  to  keep  the  production  facility  running 
remains practically unchanged, regardless of whether the company is operating on full 
capacity or less, causing productivity to decrease in line with the production. 

(40) 

In any case, even if some Community industry producers have incurred unnecessarily 
high  labour  costs  when  decreasing  production,  this  cannot  be  a  significant  cause  of 
injury,  given  the  minimal  effect  the  changes  in  labour  costs  have  had  on  the  overall 
profitability of the Community industry. By way of illustration, the increase in labour 
costs (EUR 1,8 million) explains less than 1 percentage point loss of the Community 
industry's overall profitability, which plummeted from 16,2 % to -3,8 % from 2005 to 
the IP (around EUR 39 million reduction in profits). 

4. 

Prices  of  raw  materials;  natural  disadvantages  in  terms  of  access  to  raw 
materials  

(41)  With  regard  to  prices  of  raw  material  as  further  described  in  recital  (75)  of  the 
provisional Regulation, it is noted that revised calculations have shown that during the 
period considered, the basic raw material used in the production of Coke 80+, coking 
coal, represented around 60 % of the Community industry's cost of manufacturing of 
Coke 80+. 

(42)  One interested party argued that the increased costs of the main raw material, coking 
coal, hit the Community industry relatively harder than the Chinese industry due to the 
latter's  easy  access  to  the  raw  material,  thus  making  the  Community  industry 
uncompetitive even in the absence of dumped imports. In this regard, it is firstly noted 
that  in  view  of  the  very  limited  cooperation  from  Chinese  exporting  producers,  no 
general  conclusions  can  be  drawn  as  to  the  facility  of  access  to  raw  materials  by 
Chinese  exporting  producers.  It  must  also  be  noted  that  one  Community  industry 
producer,  which  accounts  for  a  significant  portion  of  the  total  Community  industry 
production,  uses  locally  sourced  coking  coal.  In  addition,  as  was  already  noted  in 
recital  (76)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  up  to  the  IP  the  Community  industry  was 
able to pass on the increase in raw material prices to the sales prices. Additionally, it is 
noted that according to available market information, also China is partly resorting to 
imported raw materials, currently importing significant quantities of coking coal from 
Australia. 

(43)  Another interested party implied that the causation analysis is incorrect, since it doubts 
how  the  Community  industry,  which  was  profitable  in  2003,  could  have  suffered 
losses during the IP and no longer be able to cover the high cost of raw materials, even 
though the increase of Community industry's sales prices between 2003 and the IP was 
far more significant than the impact of the increase in raw material prices. 

(44) 

In  this  regard  it  is  noted  that  while  it  is  true  that  the  sales  prices  of  the  Community 
industry  were  higher  during  the  IP  than  in  2003  (see  recital  (51)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation),  the  raw  material  prices,  which  are  the  main  component  of  the  cost  of 
production,  were  proportionally  even  higher  (see  recital  (75)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation as well as recital (41) above). The claim is therefore rejected. 

5.  Conclusion on causation 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
(45) 

(46) 

In the absence of any further new and substantiated information or argument, recitals 
(67) to (80) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed, with the exception of 
the revisions made to recitals (67) and (75) as stated above.  

In the light of the above, the provisional finding  of existence of causal link between 
the  material  injury  suffered  by  the  Community  industry  and  the  dumped  Chinese 
imports is confirmed. 

G. 

COMMUNITY INTEREST 

1.  Developments after the investigation period 

(47)  Comments  relating  to  the  need  to  take  into  consideration  certain  important  post-IP 
developments have been received both from certain Community industry producers as 
well as from the cooperating exporting producer and users. These comments relate in 
particular to significant increases of the market price of Coke 80+, as regards the price 
of Chinese imports as well as the Community industry's sales prices. 

(48)  The  said  interested  parties  have  attributed  the  increase  of  import  prices  mainly  to 
certain  measures  put  recently  in  place  by  the  Chinese  government  to  discourage  the 
export  of  energy-intensive  materials,  including  coke,  such  as  an  export  tax  hike  and 
restrictive distribution of export licenses. One user has argued that those measures are 
likely to be long-lasting in view of the structural changes in Chinese policy, whereby 
semi-raw energy goods such as Coke 80+ are retained for domestic market to generate 
locally sourced added value. Community industry producers have, on the other hand, 
asserted  that  the  current  high  price  level  is  temporary  and  subject  to  changes  at  any 
time  at  the  sole  discretion  of  the  PRC  government.  The  same  user  has  also  claimed 
that  the  profitability  of  the  Community  producers  is  currently  at  high  levels  due  to 
significantly  increased  sales  prices  after  the  investigation  period.  According  to  this 
user, the sales prices of the Community industry are set for a long-term upward trend 
due to significant increase in consumption in the stone wool industry, absence of any 
increases  in  production  capacity  in  the  EU  and,  especially,  dramatic  changes  in 
Chinese policy having significantly reduced exports from the PRC. 

(49) 

In  so  far  as  this  user  implied  that  the  alleged  longevity  of  (i)  the  restricted  Chinese 
exports  and  (ii)  the  allegedly  high  level  of  profitability  of  the  Community  industry 
negates  the  justification  of  imposing  anti-dumping  measures,  it  is  noted  firstly  that 
while it is true that the Chinese government has put in place measures that discourage 
the  export  of  energy-intensive  materials,  no  information  is  available  to  draw 
conclusions  on  the  permanence  of  these  measures.  On  the  contrary,  experience 
gathered  in  the  past,  notably  in  2004  and  2005,  showed  that  the  policy  to  influence 
exports could be reversed rather quickly. Secondly, in accordance with Article 6(1) of 
the basic Regulation, information concerning dumping and injury relating to a period 
subsequent to the investigation period shall, normally, not be taken into account. 

(50)  Significant  increases  observed  in  the  prices  of  Chinese  imports  of  Coke  80+  have, 
however, been acknowledged in recital (112) of the provisional Regulation and have 
been taken into account in the choice of minimum import price ('MIP') as the form of 
the measure. The continuing trend of high import prices beyond injurious levels also 
after the provisional Regulation is confirmed by published market reports as well by 
information  available  to  the  Commission  concerning  imports  of  Coke  80+  from  the 
PRC carried out after the imposition of the provisional measures. This circumstance is 
again  reflected  in  the  choice  of  the  proposed  definitive  measure,  a  minimum  import 
price, as set out in recital (75) below. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
(51)  Certain Community industry producers have claimed that the high import price levels 
observed after the IP were attributable also to the ocean freight rates for bulk carriage, 
which  increased  significantly  after  the  IP,  inflating  the  CIF  price  of  the  product 
concerned. They argued that since the minimum import price is determined on a CIF 
basis, it does not address the issue of imports at dumped prices, as the import prices 
meet the MIP when they include the ocean freight. In this regard, it is noted firstly that 
in  accordance  with  Article  6(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  post-IP  information 
concerning  dumping  shall,  normally,  not  be  taken  into  account.  In  addition,  the  said 
Community  industry  producers  have  even  failed  to  elaborate  how  the  alleged  ocean 
freight rate increases should, in their view, be taken into account in this regard.  

(52)  The said Community industry producers have also argued that a MIP based on the cost 
of  raw  material  during  the  IP  fails  to  adequately  remove  the  injury  caused  by  the 
dumped imports, since a significant increase in ocean freight rates after the IP would 
affect the cost of the principal raw material, the coking coal, which is mainly sourced 
overseas  by  the  Community  industry.  In  this  regard,  it  is  again  reiterated  that  in 
accordance  with  Article  6(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  post-IP  information  shall, 
normally,  not  be  taken  into  account.  In  addition,  the  Community  industry  producers 
have not quantified the effect the alleged increase of ocean freight rates would have on 
the Community industry's cost of production of Coke 80+, except for providing some 
published market reports on ocean freight rates. These do not, however, allow making 
sufficiently  detailed  calculations  on  the  impact  for  the  Community  industry  as  a 
whole,  taking  into  account  in  particular  that  the  Community  industry  producers 
acquire  their  raw  material  from  several  different  sources  and  since  one  of  the  major 
Community industry producers would not be affected by the ocean freight increases, 
since  it  uses  locally sourced raw  material. The argument of the Community industry 
producers must thus be rejected. 

2. 

Interest of the Community industry 

(53) 

In  addition  to  the  comments  related  to  post-IP  developments  addressed  above  in 
recitals  (47)  to  (50),  one  user  also  claimed  that  the  analysis  of  the  interest  of  the 
Community industry for the imposition of measures rests exclusively on the findings 
relating  to  the  IP,  without  reflecting  the  entire  injury  investigation  period.  In  this 
regard,  it  is  noted  that  the  analysis  of  possible  consequences  for  the  Community 
industry  of  imposing  anti-dumping  measures  or  not  imposing  them  is  deduced  from 
the injury analysis, which the Commission has, as elaborated in recitals (28) and (29), 
conducted  regarding  the  development  of  injury  indicators  over  the  whole  period 
considered. This claim is therefore rejected. 

(54) 

In the absence of any new and substantiated information or argument in this respect, 
the conclusion made in recitals (82) to (84) of the provisional Regulation regarding the 
interest of the Community industry are hereby confirmed. 

3. 

Interest of unrelated importers/traders in the Community 

(55) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  from  importers/traders,  the  conclusions  made  in 
recitals (85) to (87) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4. 

Interest of users 

(a) Stone-wool producers 

(56) 

In the absence of any new and substantiated information or argument in this particular 
respect,  recitals  (89)  to  (91)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  hereby  confirmed. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
Consequently, it is also confirmed that a duty at the level of the underselling margin 
would  have  a  very  limited  effect  on  the  cost  of  production  of  the  cooperating  stone 
wool  producer,  with  a  hypothetical  maximum  increase  of  around  1  %,  as  stated  in 
recital (98) of the provisional Regulation. 

(b) Foundries 

(57)  After the provisional stage, the Commission intensified the investigation as regards the 
possible impact of measures on users, in particular foundries. To this end, additional 
information  was  requested  from  CAEF  and  national  foundry  associations.  The 
information  received  confirms  the  provisional  finding,  based  on  users'  questionnaire 
responses as mentioned in recitals (93) and (94) of the provisional Regulation, that the 
effect of Coke 80+ in the total cost of production of foundries is relatively moderate. 
While the share of Coke 80+ in the users' cost of production depends on the product, it 
was found to range generally between 2 % and 5 %. 

(58)  As  for  the  profitability  of  the  foundries  mentioned  in  recital  (93)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation,  it  was  found  to  range  between  2  %  and  6  %.  This  is  in  line  with  the 
information provided by CAEF, based on a study of the profitability of 93 foundries in 
2006, according to which the average profitability of the foundry industry was 4,4 % 
(the average margin being 2,8 % for foundries producing for the automotive sector and 
6,4 % for those producing for mechanical engineering sector). 

(59)  The  additional  information  mentioned  above  has  also  confirmed  the  provisional 
findings that a duty at the level of the underselling margin would have a very limited 
effect on the foundries' cost of production, with a hypothetical maximum increase of 
around 1 %. It is noted that for a large part of the foundries included in the analysis 
mentioned  in  recital  (93)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  this  percentage  is  even  well 
below 1 %. 

(60)  Some  interested  parties  have,  however,  argued  that  given  the  low  average  profit 
margin  of  European  foundries,  they  cannot  sustain  considerable  price  increases  of 
Coke 80+, which they can hardly pass on to their customers. In this regard it is noted 
that it cannot be excluded that some foundries might not be able to sustain the current 
price  levels  of  Coke  80+.  However,  the  price  increases  after  the  IP  appear  not  to  be 
attributable to the anti-dumping measures, since the MIP imposed by the provisional 
Regulation is well below the current market price level and since the price increases 
started already before the provisional measures were imposed. 

(c) Security of supply 

(61)  Some users have also reiterated their earlier claims relating to the security of supply of 
Coke  80+  and  argued  that  measures  would  dramatically  affect  the  EC  user  industry, 
for which Coke 80+ is a raw material of strategic importance. They have, however, at 
the same time asserted that imposition of anti-dumping measures will only marginally, 
if at all, affect Chinese exports. Moreover, the form and the level of the anti-dumping 
measures  adopted  in  this  case  is  designed  to  function  as  a  safety-net  for  the 
Community industry but without artificially distorting the market to the detriment of 
the user industry. The investigation has shown that any risk of scarcity of supply, if at 
all,  may  stem  from  possible  increased  domestic  demand  in  China  and  the  current 
Chinese policy to discourage energy intensive exports but not from the anti-dumping 
measure. 

5.  Conclusion on Community interest 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
(62)  The  above additional analysis concerning the interest of the users in the Community 
has not altered the provisional conclusions in this respect. Even if in certain cases the 
burden  would  need  to  be  fully  borne  by  the  user/importer,  any  negative  financial 
impact  on  the  latter  would  in  any  event  be  negligible.  On  this  basis,  it  is  considered 
that  the  conclusions  regarding  the  Community  interest  as  set  out  in  the  provisional 
Regulation are not altered. In the absence of any other comments, they are therefore 
definitively confirmed. 

H. 

DEFINITIVE MEASURES 

1. 

Injury elimination level 

(63)  The  pre-tax  profit  margin  used  in  the  provisional  Regulation  to  calculate  the  injury 
elimination level was based on the average profit margin attained by the Community 
industry during 2003-2005, provisionally calculated as being 15,3 % of turnover. This 
was considered as the profit margin before tax that could be reasonably achieved by an 
industry of this type in the sector under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the 
absence of dumped imports. 

(64)  Several  interested  parties  contested  the  profit  margin  level  provisionally  used.  One 
user  claimed  that  the  15,3  %  profit  ratio  is  excessive,  arguing  that  the  profit  levels 
achieved by the Community industry in 2004 and 2005 were exceptional, occurring at 
a  time  when  the  shortages  of  Chinese  Coke  80+  were  so  significant  that  the  then 
existing  anti-dumping  measures  were  suspended.  This  user  argued  that  there  was  no 
valid justification for using a profit margin significantly higher that the one found used 
in  the  previous  investigation.  It  is  noted  that  the  profit  margin  used  at  the  definitive 
stage of the previous investigation was 10,5 %. 

(65)  The  cooperating  Chinese  exporting  producer  echoed 

the 
provisionally  used  profit  margin  is  distorted  by  the  high  profits  in  2004  and  2005 
achieved due to exceptional market conditions. This exporting producer claimed that 
Coke 80+ is a commodity type product and that a profit rate of 5 % would be more in 
line with profit rates previously used for commodity type products. 

the  argument 

that 

(66)  Some Community industry producers have, on the other hand, claimed that a 15,3 % 
profit  margin  is  not  adequate  for  injury  elimination,  since  the  said  producers  have 
historically achieved higher profit levels in the absence of price depression caused by 
dumped  imports.  They  have  claimed  that  the  15,3  %  profit  margin  would  not  be 
sufficient  to  allow  the  Community  producers  to  make  investments  required  to  meet 
compulsory  environmental  standards  and  to  rejuvenate  or  reactivate  closed-down 
production  facilities.  It  was  claimed  that  such  revamping  of  the  Community 
production would allow the Community producers to meet the increased demand for 
Coke  80+.  The  Community  producers  in  question  have,  however,  not  presented  an 
exact figure of the profit margin level that they would consider reasonable. 

(67) 

It is firstly noted that in light of the revised profitability findings mentioned in recital 
(25), it was found that the weighted average profitability reached over 2003-2005 was 
actually  13,1  %,  instead  of  the  15,3  %  mentioned  in  recital  (107)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation. 

(68)  Secondly,  the  methodology  used  to  determine  the  injury  elimination  level  was  re-
examined  following  comments  received.  It  was  considered  that  the  years  used  as 
benchmark  could  indeed  be  considered  unrepresentative  in  normal  circumstances  to 
the extent that 2004 was an exceptionally good year in terms of profits (15 %) because 
of  a  significant  shortage  of  Chinese  Coke  80+  on  the  market.  This  exceptional 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
situation  was  reflected  again  in  2005  (16,2  %).  On  the  other  hand,  in  2003  the 
Community industry was likely still in the process of recovering from past dumping, 
reflected  in  a  somewhat  lower  profit  margin  (8,1  %).  Instead,  the  target  profit  of 
10,5 % used in the previous investigation was based on three consecutive years (1995-
1997) at a time before increased market penetration of Chinese imports. Therefore, it 
seems  to  reflect  more  appropriately  the  profitability  that  this  type  of  industry  can 
achieve in the absence of dumped imports. 

(69)  As  for  the  claims  of  certain  Community  producers  for  a  profit  margin  necessary  to 
enable  investments,  it  is  noted  that  such  criterion  is  irrelevant  when  determining  the 
injury  elimination  level.  Indeed,  the  profit  margin  used  when  calculating  the  target 
price that will remove the injury in question must be limited to the profit margin which 
the  Community  industry  could  reasonably  count  on  under  normal  conditions  of 
competition, i.e. in the absence of the dumped imports. 

(70)  On  the  basis  of  the  above,  it  is  concluded  that  the  Community  industry  could 
reasonably  expect  to  achieve  a  pre-tax  profit  margin  of  10,5  %  in  the  absence  of 
dumped imports and this profit margin was used in the definitive findings. 

(71)  The  Chinese  import  prices  as  adjusted  for  the  calculation  of  price  undercutting  (see 
recitals (20) and (21)) were compared, for the IP, with the non-injurious price of the 
like  product  sold  by  the  Community  industry  on  the  Community  market.  The  non-
injurious  price  has  been  obtained  by  adjusting  the  sales  price  of  the  Community 
industry  in  order  to  reflect  the  profit  margin,  as  now  revised  (see  recital  (70)).  The 
difference resulting from this comparison, when expressed as a percentage of the total 
CIF import value, amounted to 25,8 %, i.e. less than the dumping margin found. 

(72)  Given that no exporting producer had requested individual treatment, a single country-

wide injury elimination level was calculated for all exporters in the PRC. 

2.  Definitive measures 

(73) 

In  view  of  the  conclusions  reached  with  regard  to  dumping,  injury,  causation  and 
Community  interest,  and  in  accordance  with  Article  9(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  a 
definitive  anti-dumping  duty  should  be  imposed  at  the  level  of  the  lowest  of  the 
dumping  and  injury  margins  found,  in  accordance  with  the  lesser  duty  rule.  In  this 
case, the duty rate should accordingly be set at the level of the injury found. 

(74)  On the basis of the above, the definitive duty should amount to 25,8 %. 

3. 

Form of the measures 

(75)  The provisional Regulation imposed an anti-dumping duty in the form of a minimum 
import  price.  Given  that  the  considerations  for  choosing  a  MIP  as  the  form  of  the 
measure mentioned in recital (112) of the provisional Regulation are still valid, and in 
the absence of any comments against this choice, the MIP as the form of the measure 
is hereby confirmed. 

(76)  As  set  out  in  recital  (117)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the  Commission  analysed 
further  the  feasibility  of  an  indexation  system  to  be  applied  to  the  MIP.  For  this 
purpose,  the  Commission  looked  into  different  indexation  options,  in  particular  the 
evolution of the price of coking coal, the main raw material of Coke 80+. Also certain 
Community industry producers had claimed that the MIP should be linked to the cost 
of coking coal. However, it was found that the fluctuation of the price of Coke 80+ is 
not  sufficiently  explained  by  the  evolution  of  the  price  of  coking  coal  or  any  other 
major input. Therefore, it was decided that the MIP should not be indexed. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
(77)  The  amount  of  the  minimum  import  price  results  from  the  application  of  the  injury 
margin  to  the  export  prices  used  in  the  calculation  of  the  injury  elimination  level 
during the IP. The definitive minimum import price thus calculated amounts to EUR 
197 per tonne. 

4. 

Implementation 

(78) 

In the absence of any comments concerning the implementation of measures, recitals 
(114) to (116) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

(79)  There was concern as to the applicability of these measures in respect of the method of 
measuring  of  the  Coke  as  to  determine  the  proportions  of  Coke  80+  and  Coke  80- 
present in a mixed shipment. The investigation has shown that importers of Coke 80+ 
impose  strict  criteria  for,  inter  alia,  size  and  moisture  and  that  upon  arrival  of  the 
purchased product in the Community, control measurements are made by the importer 
to  ensure  that  these  criteria  are  respected.  The  main  users  of  Coke  in  the  EC  are 
certified  under  ISO  9001:2000  or  equivalent  quality  management  systems  requiring 
certificates  of  origin  and  certificate  of  conformity  with  each  shipment.  Such 
certificates of conformity confirming also dimensional specifications may be requested 
by the implementing customs authorities for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of 
the particulars contained in the declaration. 

(80)  The two ISO standards applied by the industry are ISO 728:1995 and ISO 18238:2006 
determining  respectively  the  method  of  measuring  and  the  method  of  sampling  of 
Coke  to  be  measured.  The  fact  that  these  standards  are  already  applied  by  the 
importing industry shows that such standards are applicable and therefore relevant for 
the implementation of these measures.  

I. 

DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTY 

(81) 

In  view  of  the  magnitude  of  the  dumping  margin  found  and  given  the  level  of  the 
injury caused to the Community industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts 
secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  imposed  by  the  provisional 
Regulation  should  be  definitively  collected  to  the  extent  of  the  amount  of  definitive 
duties  imposed.  As  the  definitive  duty  is  lower  than  the  provisional  duty,  amounts 
provisionally secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping duty should be 
released, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 
A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of coke of coal in pieces 
larger than 80 mm in maximum diameter (Coke 80+) falling within CN code ex 2704 00 19 
(TARIC code 2704 00 19 10) and originating in the People’s Republic of China. The diameter 
of the pieces shall be determined in accordance with the norm ISO 728:1995. 

2. 
The  amount  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping duty  applicable  for  products  described  in 
paragraph 1 shall be the difference between the minimum import price of EUR 197 per tonne 
and the net, free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, in all cases where the latter is less 
than the minimum import price. 

3. 
The  anti-dumping  duty  shall  also  apply,  pro  rata,  to  coke  of  coal  in  pieces  with  a 
diameter  of  more  than  80  mm  when  shipped  in  mixtures  containing  both  coke  of  coal  in 
pieces with a diameter of more than 80 mm and coke of coal in pieces with smaller diameters 
unless it is determined that the quantity of coke of coal in pieces with a diameter of more than 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
80  mm  does  not  constitute  more  than  20  %  of  dry  net  weight  of  the  mixed  shipment.  The 
quantity of coke of coal in pieces with a diameter of more than 80 mm contained in mixtures 
may  be  determined  in  accordance  with  Articles  68  to  70  of  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No 
2913/925 wherein, inter alia, it is stated that the customs authorities may require the declarant 
to  present  other  documents  for  the  purpose  of  verifying  the  accuracy  of  the  particulars 
contained  in  the  declaration  and  to  examine  the  goods  and  take  samples  for  analysis  or  for 
detailed examination. In cases where the quantity of coke of coal in pieces with a diameter of 
more  than  80  mm  is  determined  on  the  basis  of  samples,  the  samples  shall  be  selected  in 
accordance with the norm ISO 18238:2006.  

4. 
In  cases  where  goods  have  been  damaged  before  entry  into  free  circulation  and, 
therefore,  the  price  actually  paid  or  payable  is  apportioned  for  the  determination  of  the 
customs  value  pursuant  to  Article  145  of  Commission  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2454/936,  the 
minimum import price set out above shall be reduced by a percentage which corresponds to 
the apportioning of the price actually paid or payable. The duty payable will then be equal to 
the  difference  between  the  reduced  minimum  import  price  and  the  reduced  net,  free-at-
Community-frontier price, before customs clearance. 

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

5. 
apply. 

Article 2 

Amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  pursuant  to  Commission 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1071/2007  on  imports  of  coke  of  coal  in  pieces  larger  than  80  mm  in 
maximum  diameter  (Coke  80+)  originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of  China  shall  be 
definitively  collected  at  the  rate  of  the  definitive  duty  imposed  pursuant  to  Article  1.  The 
amounts secured in excess of the amount of the definitive duty shall be released.  

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

Article 3 

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 
[…] 

5 

6 

OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 (OJ 
L 363, 20.12.2006, p. 1). 
OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 214/2007 
(OJ L 62, 1.3.2007, p. 6). 

EN 

18 

   EN