Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) and a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96
Date: 2008-06-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Russia, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, chemical compound, chemical fertiliser, chemical product, import, originating product

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 10.6.2008 
COM(2008) 353 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in 
Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) and a partial interim review 
pursuant to Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 

(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 (AN) originating in the Russia.  

General context 

This  proposal  is  made  in  the  context  of  the  implementation  of  the  basic  Regulation 
and  is  the  result  of  two  investigations  which  were  carried  out  in  line  with  the 
substantive and procedural requirements laid out in the basic Regulation. 

Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

By Regulation (EC) No 2022/951, the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty 
on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia falling within CN codes 3102 
30 90 and 3102 40 90. Pursuant to a further investigation, which established that the 
duty  was  being  absorbed,  the  measures  were  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No 
663/982. Following a request for an expiry and an interim review pursuant to Articles 
11(2)  and  11(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  Council,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No 
658/20023,  imposed  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  of  EUR  47.07  per  tonne  on 
imports of ammonium nitrate falling within CN codes 3102 30 90 and 3102 40 90 and 
originating in Russia. Finally, a product scope interim review was carried out and, by 
Regulation (EC) No 945/20054, a definitive anti-dumping duty ranging between 29.26 
EUR  per  tonne  and  47.07  EUR  per  tonne  was  imposed  on  imports  of  fertilisers 
originating  in  Russia  with  an  ammonium  nitrate  content  exceeding  80%  by  weight 
('AN'),  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. 

On 19 April 2007, the Council imposed, by Regulation (EC) No 442/20075 definitive 
anti-dumping measures on imports of AN originating in Ukraine.  

Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

OJ L 198, 23.8.1995, p. 1 
OJ L 93,. 26.3.1998, p.1 
OJ L102, 18.4.2002, p. 1 
OJ L 160, 23.6.2005, p. 1 
OJ L 106, 24.4.2007, p.1 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
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 

a) 

Partial  interim  review  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  in  force  on 
imports  on  AN  from  producer  Open  Joint  Stock  Company  (OJSC) 
"Mineral and Chemical Company EuroChem" (Eurochem) in Russia 

In 2005, the Commission received a request for a partial interim review pursuant to 
Article  11(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation  ('the  interim  review').  The  request,  limited  in 
scope to dumping, was lodged by Eurochem, an exporting producer of AN in Russia. 

Having  determined  that  sufficient  evidence  existed  for  the  initiation  of  the  partial 
interim review, the Commission initiated this review on 30.11.20056. 

b) 

Expiry review of the anti-dumping measures in force on imports of AN 
originating in Russia.  

Following  the  publication  of  a  notice  of  impending  expiry7,  the  Commission,  on  17 
January 2007, received a request for review pursuant to Article 11(2) ('expiry review') 
of the basic Regulation. 

The  request  was  lodged  by  the  European  Fertiliser  Manufacturers  Association 
(EFMA),  on  behalf  of  producers  representing  a  major  proportion,  in  this  case  more 
than 50 %, of the total Community production of AN.  

Having  determined  that  sufficient  evidence  existed  for  the  initiation  of  the  expiry 
review, the Commission initiated this review on 14 April 20078. 

6 
7 
8 

OJ C 300 , 30.11.2005, p.8 
OJ C 167, 19.07.2006, p.17  
OJ C 81, 14.4.2007, p.2 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  enclosed Commission proposal for a Council Regulation contains the definitive 
conclusions  regarding  likelihood  of  a  continuation  and/or  recurrence  of  dumping, 
likelihood of a continuation and/or recurrence of injury and Community interest. 

For  the  interim  Review  Member  States  were  consulted  during  the  Anti-Dumping 
Committee of 16 September 2006. 16 Member States were in favour of the proposed 
course of action, 4 abstained and 5 did not react. 

For  the  expiry  review  Member  States  were  consulted  during  the  Anti-Dumping 
Committee of 27 may 2007. X Member States were in favour of the proposed course 
of action, X opposed, X abstained and X did not react 

It  is  proposed  that  the  Council  adopt  the  attached  proposal  for  a  Regulation  which 
should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 13 July 2008 at 
the latest. 

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 reason(s): 

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

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

Choice of instruments 

Proposed instruments: Regulation. 

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

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

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in 
Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) and a partial interim review 
pursuant to Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 

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 Community9 ('the basic 
Regulation'), and in particular Articles 11(2) and 11(3) thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

A. PROCEDURE 

1. Measures in force 

(1) 

By  Regulation  (EC)  No  2022/9510,  the  Council  imposed  a  definitive  anti-dumping 
duty  on  imports  of  ammonium  nitrate  originating  in  Russia  falling  within  CN  codes 
3102 30 90 and 3102 40 90. Pursuant to a further investigation, which established that 
the  duty  was  being  absorbed,  the  measures  were  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No 
663/9811. Following a request for an expiry and an interim review pursuant to Articles 
11(2)  and  11(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  Council,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No 
658/200212,  imposed  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  of  EUR  47.07  per  tonne  on 
imports of ammonium nitrate falling within CN codes 3102 30 90 and 3102 40 90 and 
originating in Russia. Finally, a product scope interim review was carried out and, by 
Regulation (EC) No 945/200513, a definitive anti-dumping duty ranging between 41.42 
EUR per tonne and 47.07 EUR per tonne was imposed on imports of solid fertilisers 
originating  in  Russia  with  an  ammonium  nitrate  content  exceeding  80%  by  weight 
('AN'),  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. 

9 

10 
11 
12 
13 

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 198, 23.8.1995, p. 1 
OJ L 93,. 26.3.1998, p.1 
OJ L102, 18.4.2002, p. 1 
OJ L 160, 23.6.2005, p. 1 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(2) 

On 19 April 2007, the Council imposed, by Regulation (EC) No 442/200714 definitive 
anti-dumping measures on imports of AN originating in Ukraine. 

2. Request for reviews 

2.1 Partial Interim review of the anti-dumping measures in force on imports of 
AN  originating  in  Russia  and  produced  by  Open  Joint  Stock  Company 
(OJSC)  Mineral  and  Chemical  Company  (‘Eurochem’),  member  of  the 
Eurochem group of companies.  

(3) 

(4) 

On  30  August  2005,  the  Commission  received  a  request  for  a  partial  interim  review 
pursuant  to  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation  ('interim  review').  The  request, 
limited in scope to dumping, was lodged by Eurochem, an exporting producer of AN 
in Russia. 

Eurochem alleged and provided sufficient prima facie evidence that circumstances had 
changed and, in  particular, that a comparison  of  normal  value based  on  its own data 
with export prices of the product concerned  when  sold for  export to  the  Community 
would  lead  to  a  reduction  of  dumping  significantly  below  the  level  of  the  current 
measures. Therefore, the continued imposition of measures at the existing level, which 
was based on the injury margin previously established, would no longer be necessary 
to offset dumping. 

(5) 

Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence 
existed for the initiation of the interim review, the Commission initiated this review on 
30 November 200515. 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

2.2.  Expiry  review  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  in  force  on  imports  of  AN 

originating in Russia 

Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry16, the Commission received 
a request on 17 January 2007 for an expiry review.  

The request was lodged by the European Fertiliser Manufacturers Association (EFMA, 
the  applicant),  on  behalf  of  producers  representing  a  major  proportion,  in  this  case 
more than 50%, of the total Community production of AN.  

The  request  for  the  expiry  review  was  based  on  the  grounds  that  the  expiry  of  the 
measures  would  be  likely  to  result  in  a  continuation  or  recurrence  of  dumping  and 
injury  to  the  Community  industry.  One  party  claimed  that  the  Commission  should 
have opened ex officio a parallel interim review concerning both dumping and injury 
in order to take into account changes in circumstances caused by the EU enlargement 
that  took  place  in  2004  and  2007.  The  Commission,  by  several  notices17  that  were 
published in the Official Journal of the European Union, has invited interested parties 
to request the initiation of interim reviews if they submit evidence that the measures 
would  have  been  significantly  different  if  they  were  based  on  information  including 

14 
15 
16 
17 

OJ L 106, 24.4.2007, p.1 
OJ C 300, 30.11.2005, p. 8  
OJ C 167, 19.07.2006, p.17 
OJ C 91, 15.4.2004, p. 2 and C 297 of 7.12.2006, p. 12 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the  new  Member  States.  No  such  requests  and  substantiated  evidence  have  been 
submitted to the Commission. In this regard, it should be noted that enlargement per 
se, in the absence of such evidence, is not a sufficient basis for a review to be initiated. 
Therefore, this claim had to be rejected 

(9) 

Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence 
existed for the initiation of the expiry review, the Commission initiated this review on 
14 April 200718. 

3. Parties concerned by the investigations 

(10)  The interim review investigation is limited in scope to the examination of dumping as 
far  as  Eurochem  is  concerned.  The  Commission  officially  advised  the  exporting 
producer,  the  representatives  of  the exporting  country  and  the  Community  producers 
of the initiation of the partial interim review.  

(11)  With regard to the expiry review investigation, the Commission officially advised the 
exporting  producers,  the  representatives  of  the  exporting  country,  importers, 
Community producers, users and the applicant (EFMA) of the initiation of the expiry 
review.  

3.1 Sampling of Community producers 

(12) 

In  view  of  the  large  number  of  Community  producers  (23)  and  of  importers  in  the 
Community,  it  was  considered  appropriate  in  the  expiry  review,  in  conformity  with 
Article  17  of  the  basic  Regulation,  to  examine  whether  sampling  should  be  used.  In 
order  to  enable  the  Commission  to  decide  whether  sampling  would  indeed  be 
necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Community producers and importers were 
requested,  pursuant  to  Article  17(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation  to  make  themselves 
known  within  15  days  of  the  initiation  of  the  investigation  and  to  provide  the 
Commission with the information requested in the notice of initiation. 

(13)  After  examination  of  the  information  submitted,  and  given  that  14  Community 
producers  indicated  their  willingness  to  cooperate,  it  was  decided  that  sampling  was 
necessary with regard to Community producers. 

3.2 Sampling of Community importers 

(14)  Only  one  importer  responded  to  the  notice  of  initiation  and  initially  expressed  its 
willingness to cooperate. However, this importer eventually did not provide any of the 
requested information as it stopped importing ammonium nitrate from Russia in 2005. 

4. Questionnaires and verification 

(15)  For  the  interim  review  a  questionnaire  was  sent  to  Eurochem,  which  cooperated  by 

replying to the questionnaire.  

18 

OJ C 81, 14.4.2007, p.2 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(16)  For the expiry review questionnaires were sent to all known exporting producers in the 
countries concerned, related importers, the Community producers in the sample, users 
and the applicant.  

(17)  As for the expiry review replies to the questionnaire were received from 

(18)  Three  exporting  producers/distributors  Russian.  These  companies  were:  Open  Joint 
Stock  Company  (OJSC)  Mineral  and  Chemical  company  Eurochem  ("Eurochem"), 
Acron ("Acron"), and JSC Minudiobreniya ("Minudiobreniya)". 

(19)  Four sampled Community producers: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Grande Paroisse Société Anonyme (Paris, France), 

Terra Nitrogen Limited (Stockton-on-Tees, UK), 

Yara (Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and the UK), 

Zaklady Azotowe Pulawy (Poland). 

(20)  From the 55 addressed potential importers of ammonium nitrate into the Community, 
only  3  companies  replied  indicating  they  had  no  imports  of  the  product  concerned 
during the period considered. 

(21)  Written  comments  were  received  from  the  Committee  of  Professional  Agricultural 
Organisations  in  the  EU  (COPA)  /  General  Confederation  of  Agricultural  Co-
operatives in the EU (COGECA), from the National  Farmers'  Union  of  England  and 
Wales and from the Federation of Swedish farmers.  

(22) 

In  both  investigations  interested  parties  were  given  the  opportunity  to  make  their 
views  known  in  writing  and  to  request  a  hearing  within  the  time  limit  set  out  in  the 
respective  notices  of  initiation.  All  interested  parties  who  so  requested  and  showed 
that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing. 

(23)  The  Commission  sought  and  verified  all  the  information  it  deemed  necessary  for  its 
analysis and carried out verification visits at the premises of the following companies: 

(a)  Exporting producers in Russia 

(24) 

‘Eurochem’and its two related companies19:  

– 

– 

PJSC Azot (‘NAK Azot’), Novomoskovsk, Russia, and  

PJSC  Nevinnomyssky  Azot  (‘Nevinka  Azot’),  Nevinnomyssk, 
Russia; 

(25)  Acron and its three related companies  

– 

Open Joint Stock Company (OJSC) Dorogobuzh 

19 

Only in relation to the interim review 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
– 

– 

JSC Kubanagranova 

ZAO Rostagranova 

(26)  Minudiobreniya  

(b)  Sampled Community producers 

– 

– 

– 

Grande Paroisse Société Anonyme (Paris, France), 

Terra Nitrogen Limited (Stockton-on-Tees, UK), 

Yara Société Anonyme (offices visited in Brussels, Belgium; in Paris, France 

and in Sluiskil, the Netherlands), 

–  Zaklady Azotowe Pulawy (Poland). 

(c) Related importer  

(27)  Eurochem GmbH – Zug (Switzerland) 

(d)  Unrelated importers in the Community 

(28)  No  verification  visits were carried out, because no importer  of  AN  from  the  country 

concerned replied to the questionnaire.  

5. Relevant periods covered by the review investigations 

(29)  The investigation period for the partial interim review pursuant to article 11(3) of the 
basic Regulation concerning imports from Eurochem covered the period from 1 July 
2004 to 30 June 2005 ("interim review investigation period" 'IRIP').  

(30)  The investigation period for the expiry review covered the period from 1 April 2006 to 
31  March  2007  ('expiry  review  investigation  period'  or  'ERIP').  The  examination  of 
trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of 
injury  covered  the  period  from  1  January  2003  up  to  the  end  of  the  ERIP  ('period 
considered').  

6. Disclosure and opportunity to comment 

(31)  All  interested  parties  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the 
basis  of  which  it  was  intended  to  recommend  the  amendment  of  the  anti-dumping 
measures  imposed  on  the  company  Eurochem  and  to  maintain  a  definitive  anti-
dumping  duty  on  AN  originating  in  Russia.  They  were  also  granted  a  period  within 
which they could make representations subsequent to the disclosures. Their comments 
were considered and taken into account where appropriate. 

B. 

PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT  

1. 

Product concerned 

(32)  The product concerned by these reviews is the same as the product defined in Council 
Regulation (EC) No 945/2005, i.e. solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
exceeding  80%  by  weight,  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 and originating in Russia. 

2. 

Like product 

(33)  As in previous investigations, it was found that AN produced and sold on the domestic 
market in Russia and AN exported to the Community from Russia have the same basic 
physical  and  technical  characteristics  and  uses.  Therefore,  they  are  like  products  for 
the  purposes  of  the  present  investigations  within  the  meaning  of  Article  1(4)  of  the 
basic Regulation.  

(34)  The  ammonium  nitrate  produced  by  the  Community  industry  is  a  like-product  as 
regards physical and technical characteristics to the ammonium nitrate exported to the 
Community by Russia.  

C. 

PARTIAL INTERIM REVIEW: DUMPING 

1.  General 

(35)  Since  all  products  sold  by  Eurochem  to  the  Community  during  the  IRIP  were 
exclusively  produced  by  one  related  producer,  NAK  Azot,  the  analysis,  as  regards 
normal value and export price, has been carried out in respect of this producer only. 
The resulting dumping margin and duty, if any, to be applied to imports manufactured 
by NAK Azot should also be applied to the related company, Nevinka Azot.  

2.  Normal value 

(36)  Only  one  product  type  was  exported  to  the  Community,  therefore  normal  value  was 
established  in  relation  to  this  product  type.  It  was  examined  whether  sufficient  sales 
had  been  made  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade  pursuant  to  Article  2(4)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. The domestic selling prices of each transaction were compared to the total 
cost of production. 

(37) 

In  this  respect,  it  should  be  noted  that  energy  costs,  such  as  electricity  and  gas, 
represent a major proportion of the manufacturing cost and a significant proportion of 
the  total  cost  of  production.  For  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  the  ordinary  course  of 
trade test, it had also been examined whether the costs associated with the production 
and sale of the product under consideration were reasonably reflected in the records of 
the parties concerned. 

(38)  The  investigation  showed  no  indication  that  the  electricity  would  not  be  reasonably 
reflected in the records. In this context, it is inter alia noted that electricity prices paid 
by  Eurochem  during  the  IRIP  were  in  line  with  international  market  prices,  when 
compared to other countries, such as Canada and Norway. However, the same could 
not be said with regard to gas prices. 

(39)  As concerns gas supplies, in fact, it was established on the basis of data published by 
internationally recognised sources specialised in energy markets, that the price paid by 
Eurochem  was  around  one  fifth  of  the  export  price  of  natural  gas  from  Russia. 
Moreover,  all  available  data  indicates  that  domestic  gas  prices  in  Russia  were 
regulated prices, which are far below market prices paid for natural gas, for example in 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
(40) 

the USA, Canada, Japan and the EU. These four markets account for a total of 46% of 
world-wide  gas  consumption,  and  the  prevailing  domestic  price  levels  in  these  four 
markets appear to reasonably reflect costs. These gas markets can therefore considered 
representative within the meaning of Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation. Information 
available  also  suggests  that  domestic  sales  prices  of  Russian  gas  do  not  even  cover 
costs of the gas supplier, Gazprom. 

In view of the above, it was considered that the gas prices paid by NAK Azot during 
the investigation period could not be used for the purposes of determining the cost of 
production  of  the  product  concerned  pursuant  to  the  first  sentence  of  Article  2(5)  of 
the  basic  Regulation.  Therefore,  as  provided  for  in  Article  2(5)  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  the  costs,  i.e.  in  this  case,  for  gas  supplies,  of  NAK  Azot  had  to  be 
adjusted to reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of the like product, 
during  the  IRIP.  Given  that  the  current  review  was  limited  to  an  examination  of  the 
level of dumping by Eurochem, an adjustment on the basis of undistorted prices paid 
by  other  producers  or  exporters  in  Russia  could  not  be  made  as  no  such  data  was 
available. In these circumstances, it was considered appropriate to base the adjustment, 
in  accordance  with  Article  2(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  on  information  from  other 
representative markets. In this case, the adjusted price was based on the average price 
of Russian gas when sold for export at the German/Czech border, net of transport costs 
("the adjusted Waidhaus price"). 

(41)  The production cost provided by NAK Azot was therefore recalculated in order to take 
account of the adjusted gas prices. On the basis of this recalculated cost of production, 
all sales of the domestic product which were directly comparable with the sole product 
type  exported  by  the  company  were  found  to  be  non-profitable,  i.e.  not  made  in  the 
ordinary course of trade. Therefore, normal value had to be constructed. This was done 
on  the  basis  of  the  manufacturing  costs  of  the  product  type  exported  to  the 
Community, after the adjustment for the gas cost mentioned above, plus a reasonable 
amount for selling, general and administrative costs (‘SG&A costs’) and for profits, in 
accordance with Article 2(3) and Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation. 

(42)  SG&A costs and profit could not be established on the basis of the chapeau of Article 
2(6) of the basic Regulation because NAK Azot 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 there is only one other producer subject to 
the investigation (Nevinka  Azot).  Article  2(6)(b) was not applicable either, since the 
manufacturing cost of NAK Azot 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  above.  Therefore,  SG&A  costs  and  profit  were  established  pursuant  to 
Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation. 

(43) 

In  accordance  with  Article  2(6)(c)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  SG&A  costs  were 
based  on  a  reasonable  method.  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  reliable  and  complete  public  financial  information  from  listed 
companies  in  this  region  of  the  world.  Therefore,  SG&A  costs  and  profit  were 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
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  (on  average  over  80%  of  the 
turnover of the company/business segment) and their SG&A costs and profit thereby 
representative of those normally incurred by companies operating successfully in that 
business segment.  

(44)  The percentage for SG&A costs was 6.9%. The calculated average profit margin was 
9.1%. It should be noted that the amount for profit so established did not exceed the 
profit  realized  by  the  Russian  producers  on  sales  of  products  of  the  same  general 
category on their domestic market. 

3 

Export price 

(45) 

It was found that Eurochem’s sales of the product concerned to the Community during 
the  IRIP  were  made  on  the  basis  of  an  agent  agreement  through  two  related  traders, 
one located in Switzerland, Eurochem Trading, and the other one in the British Virgin 
Islands, Cumberland. The latter ceased to operate at the beginning of 2005.  

(46)  The  export  price  was  established  in  accordance  with  Article  2(8)  of  the  basic 
regulation, on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable for the product when 
sold for export from the exporting country to the Community.  

4 

Comparison 

(47)  The normal value and export price were compared on an ex-works basis, at the level of 
NAK  Azot.  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,  packing,  credit  and  commissions,  where 
applicable  and  supported  by  verified  evidence.  In  this  respect,  since  export  sales  are 
made via the related traders mentioned above, and as these related traders were found 
to  have  functions  similar  to  those  of  an  agent  working  on  a  commission  basis,  an 
adjustment for each of these traders was made to the export price, pursuant to Article 
2(10)(i)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  In  the  absence  of  cooperation  from  Community 
importers,  this  adjustment  was  made  at  the  level  of  1.5%,  since  this  level  reflected 
commissions  paid  to  independent  agents  involved  in  the  trade  of  the  product 
concerned in the original investigation.  

5 

Dumping margin 

(48)  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. 

(49)  The dumping margin, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Community frontier price, 

duty unpaid, is 28.3%. 

6 

Lasting nature of changed circumstances  

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
(50) 

(51) 

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. 

In  this  regard,  it  should  be  noted  that  normal  value  in  the  original  investigation  was 
established on the basis of profitable sales prices in the USA domestic market, since 
Russia  was  not  a  market  economy  country  at  that time.  In  the context of the  current 
review investigation, Russia is considered a market economy country, and the normal 
value  has  therefore  been  established  on  the  basis  of  Eurochem’s  cost  of  production, 
adjusted  where  necessary.  No  indications  could  be  found  that  the  normal  value 
established during the present review could not be considered to be of a lasting nature. 

(52)  By  comparing  the  normal  values  and  export  prices  of  the  previous  and  the  current 
investigation, it has been established that, account being taken of comparable product 
types,  normal  value  has  considerably  increased,  but  the  average  export  price  has 
increased even more, leading to a decreased level of dumping. As for the export prices 
to other markets, they have been found to be generally in line with export prices to the 
Community. No evidence was found that export sales would not continue to be made 
at dumped prices, however at a lower level than in the original investigation. 

(53)  On  this  basis,  it  is  concluded  that  the  changed  circumstances  with  respect  to  the 
original  investigation  regarding  dumping  (now  based  on  the  comparison  of  the  own 
normal value and export prices of Eurochem) could reasonably be considered to be of 
a lasting nature. 

(54)  According  to  Article  9(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  amount  of  the  anti-dumping 
duty should not exceed the margin of dumping established, but it should be less than 
that  margin  if  such  lesser  duty  would  be  adequate  to  remove  the  injury  of  the 
Community  industry.  As  the  existing  duties  for  Russia  had  been  calculated  on  the 
basis  of  the  injury  margin,  and  as  the  new  dumping  margin  established  during  this 
investigation is lower than the injury margin previously calculated, the duty should be 
adjusted to the dumping margin found in this investigation, namely 28.3%. 

7 

Conclusion 

(55) 

In view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping and the lasting nature of 
the changed circumstances, the individual anti-dumping duty on imports of the product 
concerned  in  respect  of  Eurochem  should  be  amended  in  order  to  reflect  the  new 
dumping margin found. 

(56)  Since  the  dumping  level  found  is  lower  than  the  injury  margin  established  in  the 
previous investigation, the duty rate should be set at the dumping level found. 

(57)  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. Thus, the 
duty  is  EUR  32.82/tonne.  The  duty  should  be  applied,  in  accordance  with  Council 
Regulation  (EC)  No  945/2005,  in  proportion  to  the  content  of  AN  and  of  other 
marginal substances and nutrients, in the case of compounds of AN fertilizers with a 
nitrogen content exceeding 28% by weight. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
(58)  Although  this  duty  has  been  based  on  data  from  NAK  Azot,  as  stated  above,  it  will 
apply to all sales made by Eurochem, regardless of which related factory manufactured 
the product. 

D. EXPIRY REVIEW 

D.1. 

LIKELIHOOD OF A CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF 

DUMPING 

(59)  For reasons of consistency it has been, as a first step, examined whether dumping was 
currently taking place and whether or not the expiry of the measures would be likely to 
lead to a continuation of dumping.  

1.  Dumping of imports during the ERIP 

1.1  Preliminary remark 

(60)  As  mentioned  above, 

three  exporting  producers 

(Eurochem,  Acron  and 

Minudiobreniya) have co-operated in the investigation. 

1.2  Normal value 

(61)  The Commission examined whether the domestic sales could be considered as being 
made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. 
To  this  end,  the  cost  of  production  of  the  product  produced  and  sold  by  the  co-
operating exporting producers on the domestic market was examined. 

(62)  Gas  is  a  main  raw  material  component  in  the  manufacturing  process  of  the  product 
concerned  and  represents  a  significant  proportion  of  the  cost  of  production.  In 
accordance  with  Article  2(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  it  was  examined  whether  the 
costs associated with the production and sales of the product under consideration were 
reasonably reflected in the records of the parties concerned. 

(63) 

It was established, on the basis of data published by internationally recognized sources 
specialized in energy markets that the prices paid by the Russian producers, based on 
governmental regulation, were abnormally low. By way of illustration, they amounted 
to  around  one  fourth  of  the  export  price  of  natural  gas  from  Russia  and  were  also 
significantly lower than the gas price paid by the Community producers.  

(64)  Since  gas  costs  were  not  reasonably  reflected  in  the  cooperating  producers'  records, 
they had to be adjusted accordingly. In the absence of any sufficiently representative 
undistorted  gas  prices  related  to  the  Russian  domestic  market,  it  was  considered 
appropriate  to  base  the  adjustment,  in  accordance  with  Article  2(5)  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  on  information  from  other  representative  markets.  In  this  case,  the 
adjusted price was based on the average price of Russian gas when sold for export at 
the  German/Czech  border,  net  of  transport  costs  and  adjusted  to  reflect  local 
distribution  costs  ('the  adjusted  Waidhaus  price').  Waidhaus  being  the  main  hub  for 
Russian gas sales to the EU and is the largest market for Russian gas. Accordingly, it 
can be considered a representative market 

(65) 

In  relation  to  the  adjusted  Waidhaus  price,  a  number  of  arguments  have  been  put 
forward by Russian exporters. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
(66)  First, it was claimed that any adjustment of their gas price paid on the domestic market 
would  be  unwarranted  alleging  that  their  accounting  records  fully  reflected  the  costs 
associated with the activity of production and sales of the like product in the country 
of  origin.  To  substantiate  this  claim,  a  study  from  an  independent  consultancy  firm 
stating  that  the  gas  price  paid  by  Russian  exporters  reflected  full  cost  of  production 
and sale of gas, as incurred by the gas provider, was provided. It should be noted that, 
as the study itself sets out, the costs of gas as well as the cost of the delivery of the gas 
to Russian producers of AN used for the comparison were estimated costs and thus not 
actual  costs  incurred  during  the  ERIP.  It  is  also  unclear  whether  the  costs  thus 
established were full costs as established in accordance with the basic Regulation, i.e. 
including  full  costs  of  manufacturing  and  full  SG&A  costs  linked  to  the  production 
and  sale  of  gas.  Finally,  it  is  also  noted  that  the  information  available  on  the  gas 
provider’s  costs  could  not  be  verified  within  the  framework  of  this  proceeding  and 
information  available  does  not  suggest  that  domestic  sales  prices  of  Russian  gas 
covered costs of the gas supplier, Gazprom, during the whole ERIP.  

(67) 

In any case, it  is considered  that under Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, the sole 
fact  that  the  price  of  gas  charged  by  the  supplier  to  its  clients  is  cost  covering  is  as 
such not a criterion to establish whether the costs of production of the like product 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  (publications  of  internationally  recognized  sources  specialized  in  energy 
markets and comparison of gas prices in Russia with prices of exported Russian gas) 
this  was  found  not  to  be  the  case.  Second,  the  Russian  producers  of  AN  did  not 
address  the  apparent  significant  difference  between  the  price  for  gas  paid  on  the 
Russian domestic market and the export price of natural gas from Russia on the one 
hand and the one paid by the Community producers on the other hand. They did also 
not address the fact that domestic prices for natural gas were regulated in Russia and 
could not be considered to reasonably reflect a price normally payable in undistorted 
markets.  Therefore,  even  if  the  gas  price  paid  by  the  AN  producer  covered  the  unit 
cost  of  production  and  sales  of  the  gas  incurred  by  its  provider,  these  arguments  are 
irrelevant since the market price of gas is not necessarily directly linked to costs of its 
production  and  sales  and  the  price  at  which  Russian  companies  were  purchasing  the 
gas during the ERIP continue to be State regulated and significantly below the price 
level in non-regulated markets as explained above (price of gas in Russia was during 
the  ERIP  around  one  fourth  of  its  export  price).  This  claim  therefore  had  to  be 
rejected. 

(68) 

It  was  further  claimed  that  by  making  a  gas  adjustment,  de  facto  a  methodology  to 
determine normal value was used which is not foreseen by the basic Regulation. Thus, 
by  replacing  domestic  gas  costs  by  costs  based  on  the  adjusted  Waidhaus  price,  and 
due  to  the  fact  that  these  costs  constitute  major  part  of  the  total  costs  of  the  like 
product and therefore also of the constructed normal value, the normal value would be 
de facto determined by data from a third 'representative' market. In this regard, it was 
argued  that  for  market  economy  countries,  the  basic  Regulation  foresees  only  the 
following  methodologies  to  determine  the  normal  value:  (i)  on  the  basis  of  the 
domestic  price  of  the  like  product  in  the  ordinary  cause  of  trade,  or  alternatively,  in 
case sales are not made in the ordinary course of trade, (ii) on the basis of the cost of 
production in the country of origin (plus a reasonable amount for SG&A costs and for 
profits) or (iii) representative export prices of the like product to an appropriate third 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
country. The Russian exporters concluded that on this basis normal value should not 
be based on data from a third representative market. 

(69) 

In this regard, it should first be noted that normal value was established in accordance 
with  the  methodologies  outlined  in  Article  2(1)  to  (6)  of  the  basic  Regulation. 
However,  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  AN  producer  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. It is therefore wrong to claim that by determining reliable costs in accordance 
with  Article  2(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation  a  new  methodology  to  determine  normal 
value was introduced. The Russian producers' arguments in this respect therefore had 
to be rejected. 

(70)  Additionally it was claimed that, even in case that an adjustment was to be made to the 
cost  of  natural  gas  on  the  domestic  market,  Waidhaus  price  for  Russian  natural  gas 
was not a reliable basis for such an adjustment since that price is set according to long 
term  gas  contracts  under  which  the  price  formula  is  linked  to  oil  product  prices  and 
thus unrelated to the costs of producing and delivering gas to Eurochem in Russia. It 
was  further  argued  that  Waidhaus  price  for  Russian  gas  is  not  reliable  because  it  is 
affected by excessively high and possibly non-competitive domestic pricing on gas in 
Germany, which is being investigated by German Antitrust Authorities. 

(71)  Firstly, it should be noted that one of the primary criteria for the choice of the basis on 
which  to  establish  the  gas  prices  was  that  it  reasonably  reflects  a  price  normally 
payable in undistorted markets. It is undisputed that this condition is met with respect 
to the prices at Waidhaus. Furthermore, by far the greatest volume of gas from Russia 
is imported via the Waidhaus hub which represents therefore an appropriate basis for 
an adjustment. On this basis, Waidhaus was considered as a representative market and 
a reasonable basis for the determination of gas costs within the meaning of Article 2(5) 
of the basic Regulation. Secondly, it is on its own irrelevant whether the price is cost 
driven  as  long  as  it  reasonably  reflects  a  price  normally  payable  in  undistorted 
markets. As regards the price of gas imported at Waidhaus, there are no indications of 
State interference in price forming and this condition is thus met. Finally, as regards 
the  claim  about  non-competitive  domestic  pricing  on  gas  in  Germany  it  should  be 
noted that the Bundeskartellamt investigation is still ongoing and no conclusions were 
reached.  Besides,  this  investigation  concerns  prices  at  which  German  main  gas 
distributors  sell  the  gas  on  the  German  domestic  market  and  not  the  price  at  which 
they  purchase  the  gas  imported  from  Russia.  In  contrast  to  what  was  claimed,  these 
two  prices  are  not  necessarily  related  since  the  economic  interest  of  gas  distributors 
and  their  customers  is  exactly  the  opposite.  Thus,  it  can  be  presumed  that  the 
distributors  aim  to  keep  the  resale  price  at  the  highest  possible  level  whereby  at  the 
same  time  it  is  in  their  economic  interest  to  keep  the  purchase  price  at  the  lowest 
possible  level  in  order  to  maximize  profit  levels.  The  argument  that  the  German 
incumbents do not have an incentive to negotiate low prices for Russian imported gas 
at  Waidhaus  is  a  mere  presumption  without  any  factual  background.  Consequently, 
these arguments were rejected. 

(72) 

It was further claimed that if an adjustment were to be made to the cost of natural gas 
on the domestic market, such adjustment should be based on non-regulated gas prices 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
available in Russia. Firstly, the fact that the Commission could have chosen a different 
basis does not render the choice of Waidhaus unreasonable. The primary criterion for 
the choice of the basis on which to establish the gas price is that it reasonably reflects 
a price normally payable in undistorted markets. It is undisputed that this condition is 
met with respect to the prices at Waidhaus. Secondly, the fact that the volume of gas 
sold at non-regulated prices in the domestic market was only minor during the ERIP 
(less than 2%) and that such prices were significantly closer to the regulated domestic 
price  than  to  the  freely-determined  export  price  strongly  suggests  that  these  non-
regulated  prices  were  distorted  by  the  prevailing  regulated  prices.  Therefore,  the 
unregulated domestic prices could not be used. 

(73)  Moreover, it was argued that domestic prices for natural gas in Russia regulated by the 
State are increasing constantly. Therefore, the price on the domestic market cannot be 
considered as uncompetitive or unreasonably low. In this context, it was indicated that 
the  Russian  Government  has  adopted  a  decree20  establishing  a  state  programme  that 
will lead to multiple increases of gas prices in Russia to industrial users in the years up 
to 2011. 

(74)  This argument has no grounds since the correct standard for choosing a representative 
market is not whether prices are profitable as such or whether they are increasing but 
whether  prices  reasonably  reflect  a  price  normally  payable  in  undistorted  markets. 
This is not the case for prices regulated by the State, even if they are constantly rising. 
Therefore, these arguments were rejected. 

(75) 

It was further proposed the use of Russian export price to the neighbouring markets as 
an  alternative  basis  for  the  adjustment,  however  without  providing  any  further 
information or evidence on such markets. It was considered that Russian export prices 
of  gas  to  the  Baltic  States,  where  some  price  information  was  available,  were  not 
sufficiently representative, due to the relatively low export volumes to these countries. 
Furthermore, necessary data concerning transportation and  distribution cost  were not 
available  and  therefore,  reliable  prices  to  the  Baltic  States  could  in  any  case  not  be 
established. Therefore, these prices could not be used as a basis for the adjustment. 

(76)  Alternatively,  it  was  argued  that  if  the  export  price  at  Waidhaus  was  to  be  used,  the 
Russian  export  duty  payable  for  all  exports  should  have  been  deducted  from  the 
Waidhaus price because it was not incurred domestically. 

(77) 

Indeed  the  market  price  at  Waidhaus,  which  was  considered  to  be  a  representative 
market  within  the  meaning  of  Article  2(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  is  the  price  after 
export taxes and not the price before these taxes. From the perspective of the buyer it 
is  the  price  it  has  to  pay  at  Waidhaus  which  is  relevant,  and  in  this  regard  it  is 
irrelevant what percentage of that price constitutes an export tax and what percentage 
is paid to the gas supplier. The latter, on the other hand will always try to maximize its 
price and therefore charge the highest price its customers are willing to pay. Given that 
this  price  is  always  well  above  its  costs  of  production,  allowing  the  gas  supplier  to 
make  huge  profits,  its  price  setting  is  not  primarily  influenced  by  the  amount  of  the 
export  tax  but  by  what  price  its  customers  are  willing  to  pay.  It  was  therefore 
concluded that the price including the export tax, and not the price before that tax, is 

20 

Russian Government Regulation of 28 May 2007 N° 333. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(78) 

the undistorted market driven price. Consequently, the arguments in this regard were 
rejected. 

In this context, it was also claimed that the mark-up of the local distributor should not 
be added to the export price at Waidhaus claiming that profits of the distributors would 
already  be  included  in  the  price  at  Waidhaus.  In  this  regard,  it  was  argued  that  the 
local  distributors  in  Russia  were  fully  owned  subsidiaries  of  the  gas  supplier  and 
therefore, addition of the profit of these distributors could constitute double counting. 
It was also claimed that natural comparative advantage of Russia should be taken into 
account. It was argued further that, since gas is largely available in Russia but not in 
the Community, domestic prices in Russia would be naturally lower than the price of 
the  exported  gas,  which  should  have  been  taken  into  account  when  determining  the 
adjustment  to  the  gas  prices  paid  on  the  domestic  market.  Moreover,  it  was  claimed 
that one party has not used during the ERIP the local system of low pressure pipelines 
of local distributors to supply natural gas from the main high pressure pipelines to its 
production  sites.  Therefore,  gas  price  adjustments  should  not  include  regional 
transportation prices.  

(79) 

It  is  first  noted  that  the  mark-up  of  local  distributors  do  not  only  include  the  profit 
margin  of  these  companies  but  also  their  costs  between  purchase  and  re-sale  of  the 
natural gas. 

(80)  Secondly, this argument could not be sufficiently verified anymore. This is due to the 
fact that the gas supplier in Russia and its affiliations were not subject to the present 
investigation and that therefore there was insufficient information of the organization 
and  its  cost  structure  available.  It  is  also  noted  that  the  situation  in  Russia  in  this 
regard  due  to,  inter  alia,  the  close  links  between  the  gas  supplier  and  the  Russian 
government  is  not  sufficiently  transparent  to  allow  sufficient  access  to  the  necessary 
evidence. 

(81)  Moreover,  Russian  exporters  were  not  able  to  submit  any  further  information  or 
evidence  which  showed  whether  and  to  what  extend  distribution  costs  were  indeed 
included in the Waidhaus price. However, since domestic customers were purchasing 
the gas from  local suppliers, it had  to be  assumed that they would have to pay local 
distribution  costs,  at  least  for  sales  services,  which  are  not  as  such  included  in  the 
unadjusted Waidhaus price.  

(82) 

In  this  respect,  it  should  be  pointed  out  that,  even  if  gas  price  adjustments  did  not 
include  transportation  costs,  the  impact  on  the  calculation  of  the  dumping  margin 
would be substantial but the resulting dumping margin would still be significant and 
would  not  change  the  conclusions  reached  in  the  expiry  review.  Accordingly,  this 
argument  was  rejected.  However,  if  Russian  producers  supply  sufficient  verifiable 
evidence  that  would  allow  reducing  the  dumping  margin,  the  Commission  may 
consider opening interim review investigations in this regard. 

(83)  As far as the claimed comparative advantages are concerned regarding the availability 
of natural gas in Russia, it should be noted that the primary criterion for the choice of 
Waidhaus prices as a basis on which to establish the gas prices is that they reasonably 
reflect  a  price  normally  payable  in  undistorted  markets.  The  market  conditions 
prevailing  in  the  domestic  market  are  irrelevant  in  this  context.  This  argument  had 
therefore to be rejected. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
(84)  SG&A costs and profit could not be established on the basis of the chapeau of Article 
2(6)  or  Article  2(6)(a)  of  the  basic  Regulation  because  none  of  the  co-operating 
exporters have representative domestic sales of the product concerned in the ordinary 
course of trade. Article 2(6)(b) was not applicable either, since the manufacturing cost 
of  the  exporting  producers  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  (63)  and  (64)  above.  Therefore,  SG&A  costs  and  profit  were  established 
pursuant to Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation. In accordance with Article 2(6)(c) 
of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  SG&A  costs  were  based  on  a  reasonable  method.  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 
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  the  amount  of  SG&A  costs  and  profit  so  established  did  not 
exceed  the  SG&A  costs  incurred  and  the  profit  realized  by  the  Russian  co-operating 
companies.  

1.3  Export price 

(85) 

(86) 

In all cases where 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, namely on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable. 

In  cases  where  sales  were  made  via  a  related  importer,  the  export  price  was 
constructed  on  the  basis  of  the  resale  prices  of  that  related  importer  to  independent 
customers.  Adjustments  were  made  for  all  costs  incurred  between  importation  and 
resale  including  sales,  general  and  administrative  expenses,  and  a  reasonable  profit 
margin, in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.  

1.4  Comparison 

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

1.5  Dumping margin 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
(88)  The  dumping  margin  was  established  on  the  basis  of  a  comparison  of  weighted 
average normal value with a weighted average export price, in accordance with Article 
2(11) and (12) of basic Regulation. 

(89)  The investigation showed that dumping took place during the ERIP. When comparing 
weighted  average  actual  export  prices  with  a  weighted  average  normal  value,  this 
comparison  showed  a  dumping  margin  of  over  74%  for  Eurochem,  over  54%  for 
Acron and over 92% for Minudiobreniya.  

2 

Development of imports should measures be repealed 

(90) 

Imports from Russia decreased from ca. 785 000 tonnes in 2003 to ca. 155 891 tonnes 
in  the  ERIP.  Their  market  share  (ca.  2%)  is  still  significant.  This  decrease  has  been 
influenced by the incorporation to the Community of 10 new member States in 2004 
and  two  new  member  States  in  2007  that  were  importing  from  Russia  without  anti-
dumping duties before these dates and by the current level of the duties in force.  

2.1  Past behaviour 

(91) 

(92) 

(93) 

It should be recalled that Russian exporters have already tried to unlawfully increase 
their exports to the Community, in two ways. In 1998, by Regulation (EC) No 663/98 
duties were increased to their current level (€47/ tonne, or ca. 40 % of Russian current 
export  price)  because  it  was  found  that  exporters  engaged  in  absorption  (i.e.,  export 
prices were decreased, thereby increasing dumping).  

In  June  2005,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  945/2005,  duties  were  extended  to  other  AN 
forms  exported  by  Russia,  which  although  declared  as  "compound  fertilisers"  were 
essentially AN. This shows that Russian exporters are systematically trying to increase 
their export volumes of AN to the Community at dumped prices. 

It  should  also  be  noted  that  during  the  ERIP,  around  50%  of  the  exports  to  the 
Community  of  the  Russian  co-operating  producers  were  made  to  Bulgaria  and 
Romania (which were not subject to anti-dumping duties until 1.1.2007). The fact that 
exports  to  those  countries  before  enlargement  were  dumped,  are  an  indication  that, 
should measures disappear, dumping is likely to take place.  

2.2  Price behaviour by Russian exporters when selling to third countries 

(94)  The investigation has shown that Russian exporters are dumping when selling to third 
country markets. Export prices to such markets are, at most, in line with export prices 
to the Community. 

(95) 

In  addition,  imports  of  AN  from  Russia  are  subject  to  significant  anti-dumping 
measures in Australia and in the USA. The foregoing indicates a structural propensity 
to practise dumping, and a likelihood that exports to the Community would be made at 
dumped prices, should measures lapse. 

2.3 Spare capacities and likely use thereof by exporters 

(96)  During the ERIP, the spare capacity of known Russian exporters was estimated to be 
in the range of 1.7 to 2.3 million tonnes. This quantity would correspond to almost one 
fourth  of  total  Community  consumption  of  AN.  No  factors  were  detected  in  the 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
investigation which could prevent the activation of this capacity in the short term. The 
likely use of this spare capacity was analysed. 

(97)  To begin with, some of the largest export markets for AN in the world are protected 
from  Russian  imports.  In  particular,  imports  of  AN  from  Russia  are  subject  to 
significant  anti-dumping  measures  in  Australia  and  in  the  USA  as  well  as  outright 
bans  in  China.  Therefore,  it  was  concluded  that  such  spare  capacity  would,  in  all 
likelihood, not be absorbed by these markets.  

(98) 

It has been argued by Russian exporters that consumption in CIS countries is steadily 
increasing  since  2005  and  is  expected  to  continue  to  do  so  in  the  coming  years,  and 
that  Russian  production  of  AN  will  be  primarily  directed  at  the  full  satisfaction  of 
those  markets.  These  allegations  were  not  adequately  substantiated  by  verifiable 
evidence. In addition, they appeared incomplete in the sense that they did not take into 
account the existence of AN production in other CIS states, which could well compete 
with  Russian  sales  to  those  markets.  In  any  event,  the  alleged  evolution  of  CIS 
consumption,  according  to  IFA's  statistics21.  would  still  leave  significant  available 
spare capacities in the short and medium term. Finally, given the existing price level in 
the  Community,  which,  according  to  the  data  supplied  by  co-operating  companies  is 
substantially higher than in Russia and in CIS markets, Russian companies are likely 
to have an incentive to use spare capacity for exports to the Community rather than for 
sales in the domestic market or the CIS markets.  

(99)  No allegations were made regarding the likelihood of other sales to other third country 
markets absorbing the aforementioned spare capacity. In any event, the investigation 
analysed other third country markets on the basis of the information provided by co-
operating parties and found that, on the basis of their consumption, sources of AN and 
price levels, they were not likely to absorb additional Russian exports to an extent that 
the  spare  capacities  available  for  export  to  the  Community  would  cease  to  be 
significant. 

(100)  Finally, it was confirmed that the Community is the most important AN market in the 
world,  that  proximity  to  Russia  facilitates  logistical  considerations,  and  that  Russian 
exporters have well established distribution channels therein. 

(101)  In  conclusion,  it  was  found  that  a  substantial  amount  of  additional  exports  to  the 
Community,  on  the  basis  of  the  use  of  available  spare  capacities,  would  in  all 
likelihood be made by Russian exporters, should the current measures be repealed. 

2.4  Incentives to redirect sales volumes to the Community 

(102)  The aforementioned differentials between price levels in the Community and those in 
third country markets underline that it would be more profitable for Russian exporters 
to  redirect  export  volumes  from  third  countries  to  the  Community.  Therefore, 
significant export quantities could also emanate from this source.  

2.5  Conclusion 

21 

International Fertiliser Industry Association  

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(103)  It  is  therefore  concluded  that,  given  the  relative  levels  of  prices,  the  spare  capacities 
and the incentives observed above, there is a likelihood: (i) of dumping and (ii) of a 
substantial increase of the quantities exported to the Community, should anti-dumping 
measures in force be lifted.  

D.2. 

LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF 

INJURY 

1. Definition of Community production and Community industry 

(104)  Within  the  Community,  the  like  product  is  manufactured  by  twenty-three  producers 
whose  output  constitutes  the  total  Community  production  of  the  like  product  within 
the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.  

(105)  Eleven Community producers co-operated with the investigation :  

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Achema A.B. (Jonavos, Lithuania), 

Zaklady Azotowe Anwil S.A., (Wlocklawek, Poland), 

BASF A.G. (Ludwigshafen, Germany), 

DSM Agro B.V. (Sittard, The Netherlands), 

Fertiberia S.A. (Madrid, Spain), 

Grande Paroisse S.A. (Paris, France), 

Kemira  Growhow  Oyj  (Corporate  office  in  Helsinki,  Finland,  production  in 
U.K. and Belgium), 

Terra Nitrogen Limited (Stockton-on-Tees, UK), 

Yara  S.A.(Corporate  offices 
Netherlands, France, Germany, the UK and Italy), 

in  Brussels,  Belgium  (production 

in 

the 

Zaklady Azotowe Pulawy S.A. (Pulawy, Poland), 

Neochim PLC, (Dimitrovgrad, Bulgaria).  

(106)  As  these  eleven  Community  producers  accounted  for  more  than  75%  of  the  total 
Community  production  during  the  ERIP,  it  is  therefore  considered  that  they  account 
for a major proportion of the total Community production of the like product. They are 
therefore deemed to constitute the Community industry within the meaning of Article 
4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation and will hereinafter be referred to as the 
‘Community industry’. 

(107)  As indicated above, a sample consisting of four companies was selected. All sampled 
Community producers cooperated and sent questionnaire replies within the deadlines. 
In addition, the remaining co-operating producers provided certain general data for the 
injury analysis. 

2. 

Situation on the Community market 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
2.1 Consumption on the Community market 

(108)  The  apparent  Community  consumption  was  established  on  the  basis  of  the  sales 
volumes of the Community industry on the Community market, the sales volumes of 
the other Community  producers  on the  Community market, and Eurostat data for  all 
EU imports. Given the enlargement of the European Union in 2004 and 2007, for the 
sake  of  clarity  and  consistency  of  the  analysis,  the  all  injury  indicators  were 
established on the basis of the EU-27 market throughout the period considered. 

(109)  Between  2003  and  2006,  Community  consumption  decreased  by  16%  in  order  to 
rebound partially in the ERIP. Altogether, a downwards trend is noted, mirrored by a 
total decrease of 10% between 2003 and the ERIP.  

Table 1 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

ERIP 

Total  EC  consumption  in 
tonnes 

Index  total  EC  consumption 
(2003=100) 

8 296 644

7 834 089

7 861 796

6 983 467  7 463 863

100 

94 

95 

84 

90 

2.2 Development of volumes, market shares and prices of imports from Russia 

(110)  The volumes, market shares and average prices of the imports from Russia developed 
as set out below. The following quantity and price trends are based on Eurostat. 

Table 2 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

ERIP 

Volume of imports (tonnes) 

785 045 

616 394 

328 972 

217 540 

155 891 

Market share 

9.5% 

7.9% 

4.2% 

3.1% 

2.1% 

Prices  of 
tonne) 

imports  (EUR/ 

73 

Index (prices) (2003=100) 

100 

99 

136 

122 

167 

123 

168 

124 

170 

(111)  The  volume  of  imports  from  Russia  decreased  over  the  period  considered.  Their 
market  share  also  dropped  from  9.5%  in  2003  to  2.1%  in  the  ERIP.  Prices  evolved 
from 73 to 124 EUR/ tonne during the period considered. This evolution reflects the 
general  upwards  trend  observed  for  the  world  market—but  not  the  increase  in  the 
prices of the main raw material: gas.  

(112)  The comparison showed that imports from Russia were undercutting the prices of the 
Community industry by more than 30% or at least 60 EUR/ton, not counting the anti-

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
 
dumping  duty  in  place.  Even  when  adding  the  anti-dumping  duty  on  top  of  Russian 
export prices, there is still undercutting of more than 7% or at least 13 EUR/tonne. 

2.3. Volumes and market shares of imports from other countries 

(113)  The  volume  of  imports  from  other  third  countries  during  the  period  considered  are 
shown in the  table below.  The following  quantity and price trends are also based on 
Eurostat. 

Table 3 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

ERIP 

132 091 

65 201 

76 867 

43 270 

32 421 

1.6% 

0.8% 

1.0% 

0.6% 

0.4% 

83 

114 

123 

139 

136 

100 025 

132 457 

153 844 

85 870 

121 590 

1.2% 

1.7% 

2.0% 

1.2% 

1.6% 

113 

137 

164 

177 

176 

262 909 

74 654 

65 965 

124 451 

158 524 

3.2% 

1.0% 

0.8% 

1.8% 

2.1% 

133 

152 

190 

169 

164 

Volume  of 
Ukraine (tonnes) 

imports 

from 

Market share 

Prices of imports from Ukraine 
(EUR/ ton) 

Volume  of 
Georgia (tonnes) 

imports 

from 

Market share 

Prices of imports from Georgia 
(EUR/ tonne) 

Volume  of  imports  from  all 
other countries (tonnes)

Market share 

Prices  of 
other countries (EUR/ tonne) 

imports  from  all 

(114)  Whereas  Georgia  increased  its  export  volumes  from  2003  to  the  ERIP,  Ukraine  and 
other  third  countries  decreased  them  over  the  period  considered.  It  is  noted  that 
imports from Ukraine are subject to an anti-dumping duty ranging between 29.26 EUR 
per  tonne  and  of  33.25  EUR  per  tonne,  which  was  extended  by  Council  Regulation 
(EC)  No  442/200722.  In  this  respect,  it  is  also  noted  that  the  import  prices  from  all 
third countries were consistently higher than those from Russia, throughout the period 
considered.  

3. 

Economic situation of the Community Industry 

22 

OJ L 106, 24.4.2007, p. 1.  

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
 
(115)  Pursuant  to  Article  3(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  Commission  examined  all 
relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Community 
industry.  

3.1 Preliminary remarks 

(116)  Some  of  the  co-operating  Community  industry  producers  were  found  to  use  the  like 
product for further downstream applications. The resulting products do not compete on 
the market with the like product. 

(117)  Such internal captive transfers of ammonium nitrate production do not enter the open 
market and thus are not in direct competition with imports of the product concerned. It 
was  therefore  examined  whether  and  to  what  extent  the  subsequent  use  of  the 
Community industry's production of the like product had to be taken into account in 
the  analysis.  The  investigation  showed  that  the  captive  use  represents  a  not 
insignificant fraction of the Community industry's production, i.e. up to 25% of total 
production  during  the  period  considered.  The  quantities  concerned  were  disregarded 
or,  where  appropriate  and  as  indicated  below,  considered  separately  for  the  sake  of 
analysing the respective injury indicators. 

(118)  Where recourse is made to sampling, in accordance with established practice, certain 
injury  indicators  (production,  production  capacity,  sales,  market  share,  growth, 
employment  and  productivity)  are  analysed  for  the  Community  industry  as  a  whole 
('C.I.' in the enclosed tables), while those injury indicators relating to the performances 
of  individual  companies,  i.e.  prices,  stocks,  costs  of  production,  profitability,  wages, 
investments, return on investment, cash flow, ability to raise capital are examined on 
the  basis  of  information  collected  at  the  level  of  the  sampled  Community  producers 
('S.P.' in the enclosed tables). 

3.2 Data relating to the Community industry as a whole 

(a) Production 

(119)  The  Community  industry’s  total  production,  including  captive  transfers,  remained 
relatively  stable  between  2003  and  2005  at  a  level  of  around  8.4  million  tonnes.  It 
dropped  in  2006  to  about  7.7  million  tonnes  and  increased  in  the  ERIP,  reaching  its 
former  level  of  2003.  As  for  the  production  used  for  captive  transfers,  it  decreased 
between  2003  and  2006  and  increased  in  the  ERIP.  This  increase  in  the  ERIP  was 
mainly  due  to  the  fact  that  one  operator  restructured  in  this  period  in  view  of 
developing its own internal  consumption.  As for the production destined for sales, it 
decreased by 5 % between 2003 and the ERIP. 

Table 4 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

ERIP 

C.I.  Production  (tonnes,  including 
captive transfers) 

8 395 678  8 228 283  8 407 904  7 648 770  8 444 436 

Index (2003 = 100) 

100 

98 

100 

91 

101 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
Of  which  C.I.  production  used  for 
captive transfers 

1 758 139  1 686 280  1 638 705  1 526 039  2 122 099 

Index (2003 = 100) 

100 

96 

93 

87 

121 

Of  which  C.I.  production  used  for 
sales 

6 637 539  6 542 003  6 769 200  6 122 731  6 322 337 

Index (2003 = 100) 

100 

99 

102 

92 

95 

Source:  Information  from  complainants,  sampling  questionnaire  replies  and  verified 
questionnaire replies 

(b) Capacity and capacity utilisation rates 

(120)  Production capacity showed a decreasing trend between 2003 and 2006. It increased in 
the ERIP when one of the Community producers restructured its facilities for captive 
use. As already noted in the original investigation, capacity utilization for this type of 
production and industry can be affected by the production of other products which can 
be produced on the same production equipment and is therefore less meaningful as an 
injury indicator. 

Table 5 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

ERIP 

C.I.  Production  capacity 
(tonnes) 

12 624 286

12 460 988

12 459 886

12 366 776  12 826 621

C.I. Capacity utilisation 

67% 

66% 

67% 

62% 

66% 

(c) Sales volume  

(121)  Sales volumes by the Community industry on the Community market decreased by 8% 
between  2003  and  the  ERIP.  This  development  is  in  line  with  the  general  trend  of 
decreasing consumption on the Community market. 

Table 6 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

ERIP 

C.I.  EC  sales  volume 
(tonnes)  

5 752 934 

5 566 383 

5 708 591 

4 917 321 

5 300 075 

Index (2003 = 100) 

100 

97 

99 

85 

92 

(d) Market share 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
(122)  The market share held by the Community industry increased by 3.3 percentage points 
between 2003 and 2005, to drop thereafter by 1.6 percentage points during the ERIP. 
Overall, there has been an increase of 1.7 percentage points.  

Table 7 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

ERIP 

Market 
Community industry 

share 

of 

69.3% 

71.1% 

72.6% 

70.4% 

71.0% 

Index (2003 = 100) 

100 

102 

105 

102 

102 

(e) Growth  

(123)  As  the  decrease  in  sales  was  slightly  lower  than  the  decrease  in  consumption,  the 

Community industry gained some market share.  

(f) Employment 

(124)  The level of employment of the Community industry decreased by 8% between 2003 
and  the  ERIP,  and  thus  more  importantly  than  did  production.  This  mirrors  the 
concern of the industry to continuously increase its productivity and competitiveness. 

Table 8 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

ERIP 

C.I. Employment product concerned 

2 449 

2 403 

2 369 

2 256 

2 262 

Index (2003 = 100) 

100 

98 

97 

92 

92 

(g) Productivity  

(125)  The output per person employed by the Community industry per year increased by 9% 
between  2003  and  the  ERIP,  showing  thus  the  combined  positive  impact  of  reduced 
employment and increase in production of the Community industry.  

Table 9 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

ERIP 

Productivity 

C.I. 
employee) 

(tonnes 

per 

3 428 

3 425 

3 549 

3 391 

3 734 

Index (2003 = 100) 

100 

100 

104 

99 

109 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(h) Magnitude of dumping margin  

(126)  Imports from Russia were made at significantly dumped prices. Volumes amounted to 
a market share of about 2%, which, for commodity-like products such as AN can have 
a  significant  impact  on  the  Community  industry  as  a  whole.  However,  the  measures 
appear to have neutralised most of this impact in the case at hand.  

3.3 Data relating to the sampled Community producers 

(a) Sales prices and factors affecting domestic prices 

(127)  The  sampled  Community  industry  producers'  average  net  sales  price  increased 
substantially  between  2003  and  the  ERIP  reflecting  the  prevailing  favourable 
international market conditions of AN during the same period but also the pressure to 
increase its sales prices due to higher input costs (in particular gas). 

Table 10 

S.P. Unit price EC market (EUR/ tonne) 

Index (2003 = 100) 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

ERIP 

125 

100 

139 

111 

160 

129 

177 

142 

178 

143 

S.P.  sales  volume  to  third  countries 
(tonnes) 

287 696  338 001  314 876  324 795  385 287 

Index (2003 = 100) 

100 

117 

109 

113 

134 

(b) Stocks  

(128)  The level of closing stocks of the sampled producers more than doubled between 2003 
and the ERIP. This may reflect increasing difficulties to sell in a context of decreasing 
consumption. 

Table 11 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

ERIP 

Closing 

S.P. 
(tonnes) 

stocks 

136 769 

105 162 

174 197 

281 922 

281 656 

Index (2003 = 100) 

100 

77 

127 

206 

206 

(c) Wages  

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
(129)  Between 2003 and the ERIP, the average wage per employee increased by 13%, as the 
table  below  shows.  In  the  light  of  the  inflation  rate  and  the  overall  reduced 
employment, this increase of wages is considered to be moderate. 

Table 12 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

ERIP 

S.P.  Annual 
employee (000 EUR) 

labour 

cost 

per 

49.9 

50.3 

53.3 

56.6 

56.6 

Index (2003 = 100) 

100 

101 

107 

113 

113 

(d) Investments  

(130)  Annual investments in the like product made by the four sampled producers developed 
positively during the period considered, i.e. increased by 121%, although they showed 
some  fluctuations.  These  investments  related  mainly  to  the  modernisation  of 
machinery. This shows the efforts of the Community industry to continuously improve 
its productivity and competitiveness. 

Table 13 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

ERIP 

S.P. Net investments (000 EUR) 

20 016 

23 142 

44 719 

38 258 

44 305 

Index (2003 = 100) 

100 

116 

223 

191 

221 

(e) Profitability on sales and return on capital employed 

(131)  In general, profitability has been in the 8% range. This range is defined as the level to 
be obtained in the absence of injurious dumping. This shows that measures have had a 
positive  effect.  However,  2006  and  the  ERIP  have  shown  less  favourable  results, 
underlining  that  there  is  a  certain  underlying  fragility  in  this  respect.  The  return  on 
capital employed (ROCE), expressed as the profit in percent of the net book value of 
assets  (after  depreciation),  broadly  followed  the  profitability  trend  over  the  whole 
period considered.  

Table 14 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

ERIP 

S.P.  Profitability  of  EC  sales 
customers (% of net sales price) 

to  unrelated 

5.8% 

8.9% 

9.6% 

5.0% 

7.2% 

Index (2003 = 100) 

100 

152 

163 

86 

123 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
S.P.  ROCE  (profit  in  %  of  net  book  value  of 
investment) 

11.5% 

21.5% 

25.8% 

13.0% 

19.5% 

Index (2003 = 100) 

100 

187 

224 

113 

169 

(f) Cash flow and ability to raise capital  

(132)  Cash-flow  has  slightly  decreased  by  6%  during  the  period  considered,  after  showing 
some  fluctuations  and  reaching  a  particular  low  level  in  2006.  It  is  noted  that 
profitability  on  net  sales  also  reached  its  lowest  level  in  2006  in  order  to  rebound 
somewhat in the ERIP. 

Table 15 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

ERIP 

S.P. Cash flow (000 EUR) 

65 390 

77 896 

77 326 

26 434 

61 528 

Index (2003 = 100) 

100 

119 

118 

40 

94 

(133)  The  investigation  did  not  reveal  any  difficulties  encountered  by  the  sampled 
Community  producers  in  raising  capital.  In  this  respect,  it  should  be  noted  that  as 
several of these companies are part of large groups, they finance their activities within 
the group to which they belong either through cash-pooling schemes or through intra-
group loans granted by the mother companies.  

3.4 Conclusion on the situation of the Community industry 

(134)  Between 2003 and the ERIP, injury indicators showed an improvement, with nuances. 
Market  share  increased,  albeit  not  significantly  and  not  because  of  sales  (which 
decreased) but rather due to an over-proportional decrease in consumption. Unit sales 
prices increased, but to a large extent due to input cost rises, and less than could have 
been  expected  in  the  general  context  of  high  fertiliser  prices.  Production  has  not 
decreased  even  though  consumption  has  dropped—apparently  not  due  to  the 
Community industry’s improved market position, but rather to an increase of captive 
transfers,  which  seemingly  reflects  a  defensive  reaction  to  slackening  demand. 
Profitability has also improved in general, but shown a certain fragility in 2006 and the 
ERIP.  

(135)  Cash-flow mirrored to some extent the trends observed for profits. Wages developed 
moderately  and  the  Community  industry  continued  to  invest.  The  productivity 
increased, reflecting the efforts of the Community industry to rationalise its operations 
and improve them through investments.  

(136)  The applicant further alleged that, in the case of the fertiliser industry, return on sales 
is  not  an  appropriate  indicator  of  injury  as  regards  profits,  and  that  return  on  capital 
employed  and/or  return  on  investment  are  qualitatively  more  adequate  for  such  an 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
assessment.  Furthermore, it was  argued that, on the basis of the latter indicators,  the 
Community industry was suffering injury.  

(137)  Given  the  particular  characteristics  of  the  fertiliser  industry  (inter  alia,  its  capital-
intensiveness) and the nature of the fertiliser market (the volatility of its raw materials 
prices and of final product prices), it is agreed that return on sales, on its own, may not 
necessarily  be the most telling indicator regarding profitability, and that  it  should be 
complemented  with  indicators  such  as  return  on  capital  employed  and  return  on 
investment.  However,  the  applicant  has  not  submitted  any  evidence  that,  in  the 
absence  of  the  dumped  imports,  the  Community  industry  would  have  been  able  to 
obtain returns at the level requested. Neither did the applicant show what profit margin 
would have been achieved by the Community industry but for the dumped imports, as 
the Court of First Instance, in its judgment in Case T-210/9523 established should be 
done. In paragraph 60 therein, it was confirmed that ‘… the profit margin to be used 
by the Council 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,  in  the  absence  of  the  dumped 
imports’  This  claim  was  therefore  rejected.  The  extent  of  the  removal  of  injury 
witnessed  over  the  period  is  to  a  large  degree  due  to  the  existence  of  measures.  By 
increasing  resale  prices  in  the  Community,  measures  have  prevented  an  increase  in 
export  volumes  at  very  low  prices,  thereby  allowing  the  Community  industry  to 
achieve the aforementioned improvement. 

4. 

Likelihood of continuation/recurrence of injury 

4.1 General 

(138)  In  this  context,  two  main  parameters  were  analyzed:  (i)  likely  export  volumes  and 
prices  of  the  country  concerned  and  (ii)  the  likely  effect  of  those  projected  volumes 
and prices from the country concerned on the Community industry.  

4.2 Likely export volumes and prices of the country concerned 

(139)  There is a known spare capacity of around 2 million tonnes of the Russian producers, 
representing about a quarter of the Community market. This directly available surplus 
capacity indicates that Russian producers have the possibility to increase in the short 
term their current production and thus also their exports of AN.  

(140)  Moreover, given that demand on the Russian market has been stagnant at a relatively 
low level for many years, Russian producers are heavily depending on exports to third 
countries. As explained above, these exports were made at prices substantially lower 
than the exports to the Community. 

(141)  In  the  above  context,  the  Community  market  would  appear  to  be  attractive  for  the 
Russian  exporting  producers  in  terms  of  prices  as  compared  to  all  other  export 
markets.  On  this  basis,  it  is  reasonably  expected  that  a  considerable  part  of  the 
volumes  exported  to  third  countries  would  be  very  likely  directed  toward  the 
Community market, should the measures be allowed to lapse. The relative proximity 
of  the  Community  market,  as  compared  to  other  export  markets  other  than  the  CIS 

23 

European Court reports 1999 Page II-03291 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
                                                 
countries,  would  also  render  the  Community  market  more  attractive  and  would 
therefore  lead  to  the  re-direction  to  the  Community  of  current  exports  by  Russian 
producers to third countries. 

(142)  One  party  claimed  that,  to  some  extent,  the  Community  market  has  lost  its 
attractiveness  to  Russian  producers.  It  argued  that  after  the  EU  enlargement  of  2004 
and 2007 the Community market would be supplied by the Community producers to a 
larger  degree  than  previously.  In  addition,  some  Member  States  started  applying 
restrictions  on  the  usage  of  AN  according  to  that  party.  These  arguments  had  to  be 
rejected. The impact of any more restricted use would equally affect Community and 
Russian producers. Self-supply of the Community market may have increased after the 
enlargement  in  2004  and  2007,  also  because  the  new  Member  States  started 
benefitting  from  the  anti-dumping  duty  in  place.  Indeed,  imports  from  Russia  saw 
declines between 2005 and the ERIP. However, despite any alleged self-supply, prices 
have  gone  up  in  the  Community  during  the  same  period.  Prices  went  up  in  the 
Community significantly for the reason that input costs (gas) increased drastically. The 
Community industry was able to pass on these increased costs only because the anti-
dumping  measures  in  place  showed  some  effect.  In  turn,  because  of  the  prevailing 
high  price  level  the  Community  market  should  be  very  attractive  for  Russian 
producers  that  yield  significantly  lower  prices  both  on  their  domestic  and  on  third 
countries' exports markets. 

(143)  A  claim  was  made  that  Community  producers  were  increasingly  less  exposed  to  the 
alleged  gas  price  gap.  It  was  argued  that  Community  producers  have  imported 
increased quantities of cheap ammonium over the period considered and that therefore 
they were less dependent on gas. Also, in some cases, it was argued that Community 
producers were able to buy natural gas at conditions more favourable than Waidhaus 
conditions. These claims were unfounded. Although ammonium imports were on the 
rise, the investigation has not detected a significantly increased use for the production 
of  AN.  The  main  share  of  ammonium  imports  was  apparently  used  for  other 
applications.  Neither  did  the  investigation  uncover  any  significant  conditions  more 
favourable than Waidhaus. Gas price differentials as described above continued to be 
very  substantial,  with  the  significant  impact  on  cost  (and  hence  price  levels) 
mentioned  above.  This  creates  a  situation  where  the  price  levels  in  the  Community 
would be structurally more attractive for Russian exporters in the foreseeable future. 

(144)  In  order  to  increase  their  market  share  in  this  commodity-like  product  where  price 
conditions are a key factor, the Russian exporters would be likely to compete in terms 
of price. As outlined above, there are a number of facts pointing to the likelihood of 
very low export price levels by Russian exporters. Given that even with measures in 
place, a certain degree of undercutting exists, such undercutting would only increase in 
view of the likely drop in prices. 

(145)  In addition, it is underlined that Russian producers (to the extent they benefit from the 
gas price gap generated by dual pricing) can very well export AN at very low, dumped 
prices to the Community and still obtain robust profits on these dumped exports. This 
factor  also  adds  to  the  attractiveness  of  the  Community  market  for  Russian 
producers—even at very low export prices. 

(146)  On  the  basis  of  the  above,  it  would  therefore  be  likely  that  significant  additional 
volumes of AN produced in Russia would be exported to the Community (both from 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
the  use  of  available  spare  capacity  and/or  from  redirection  of  existing  exports)  at 
dumped prices which substantially undercut Community industry’s prices, if measure 
are allowed to lapse. 

4.3  Likely  Impact  on  the  Community  industry  of  the  projected  export  volumes  and 

price effects in case of repeal of measures  

(147)  In view of the above established likelihood of significant increase of export volumes 
from  Russia  into  the  Community  market  at  dumped  and  undercutting  prices,  the 
Community  industry  would  in  all  likelihood  have  to  significantly  decrease  its  sales 
prices  to  maintain  its  customers.  This  is  particularly  true  as  AN  is  a  volatile 
commodity  for  which  prices  can  be  significantly  affected  by  an  import  volume  at 
dumped  prices  undercutting  the  Community  industry's  prices.  As  a  consequence, 
profits would strongly decrease. 

(148)  With  regard  to  the  favourable  market  conditions  shown  by  some  indicators  during 
2006 and the ERIP, it should be noted that they played an important role in keeping 
the prices at a high level, in addition to the applicable anti-dumping measures. Indeed, 
during  that  period,  a  tight  worldwide  supply/demand  balance  in  combination  with 
increased input costs (gas) resulted in high prices for all nitrogen fertilisers. AN is, like 
the  other  nitrogen  fertilisers,  a  commodity  whose  pricing  is  influenced  by  numerous 
factors going from the volatile gas price having a considerable impact on the supply as 
being the most important costing element, to the weather conditions, crops and grain 
stock  levels  resulting  in  reduced  or  increased  demand.  With  particular  regard  to  the 
Community market, the demand of AN is expected to slightly decrease in the years to 
come. In fact, total consumption has already shown a downwards trend over the period 
considered.  Given  that  the  prices  charged  by  the  Russians  were  significantly 
undercutting  the  prices  of  the  Community  industry,  the  likely  increase  in  import 
volumes from Russia will force the Community industry either to lower significantly 
its prices, thereby its profits, or to lose significant market share and thus revenue, or 
both. The successful restructuring process of the Community industry could probably 
only  partially  counterbalance  such  a  likely  price  depression  and  the  whole  recovery 
process  would  be  put  in  jeopardy.  Therefore,  a  deterioration  of  the  Community 
industry's overall performance is likely to result from any repeal of the measures. 

4.4 Conclusion on likelihood of recurrence of injury 

(149)  The  above  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  should  measures  lapse,  exports  from  the 
country  concerned  would  very  likely  occur  in  significant  volumes  and  at  dumped 
prices  that  would  undercut  the  Community  industry’s  prices.  This  would  in  all 
likelihood have the effect of introducing a price-depressive trend on the market, with 
an  expected  negative  impact  on  the  economic  situation  of  the  Community  industry. 
This would, in particular, impede the financial recovery that was partly achieved in the 
period considered, leading to a likely recurrence of injury. 

E. COMMUNITY INTEREST 

1. 

Preliminary remarks 

(150)  According to Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether maintenance 
of the existing anti-dumping measures would be against the interest of the Community 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
as a whole. The determination of the Community interest was based on an appreciation 
of all the various interests involved. 

(151)  It should be recalled that, in the original investigation, the adoption of measures was 
considered not to be contrary to the interest of the Community. Furthermore, the fact 
that  the  present  investigation  is  a  review,  thus  analysing  a  situation  in  which  anti-
dumping  measures  have  already  been  in  place,  allows  the  assessment  of  any  undue 
negative impact on the parties concerned by the current anti-dumping measures. 

(152)  On  this  basis,  it  was  examined  whether, despite  the conclusions  on the likelihood of 
recurrence of injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed which would lead to the 
conclusion  that  it  is  not  in  the  Community  interest  to  maintain  measures  in  this 
particular case. 

2. 

Interest of the Community industry 

(153)  The  Community  industry  has  proven  to  be  a  structurally  viable  industry.  This  was 
confirmed by the relatively positive development of its economic situation throughout 
the period considered. In particular, the Community industry maintained viable profit 
margins against a background of rising input costs (in particular gas) and was able to 
increase its market share over the period considered. 

(154)  It  can  thus  reasonably  be  expected  that  the  Community  industry  will  continue  to 
benefit from the measures currently imposed and further recover by maintaining and 
stabilising  its  profitability.  Should  the  measures  not  be  maintained,  it  is  likely  that 
increased  imports  at  dumped  prices  from  the  country  concerned  will  occur,  thereby 
causing  injury  to  the  Community  industry  by  exerting  a  downward  pressure  on  the 
sales prices which will endanger its currently positive financial situation.  

3. 

Interest of importers 

(155)  As  mentioned  in  recital  (23),  no  unrelated  importer  originating  in  the  country 

concerned co-operated with the present investigation. 

(156)  It  is  recalled  that  in  previous  investigations  it  was  found  that  the  impact  of  the 
imposition of measures would not be significant to the extent that as a rule, importers 
do not only deal in AN but also, to a significant extent, in other fertilisers. The lifting 
of antidumping measures on other fertilisers can only reinforce the foregoing. In that 
context,  anti-dumping  measures  applicable  on  imports  of  urea  originating  in  Russia 
and  in  Belarus,  Croatia,  Libya  and  Ukraine  were  lifted  in  August  2007  and  March 
2008  respectively.24  The  downward  trend  in  imports  from  the  country  concerned 
during the period considered leads to the conclusion that some importers may indeed 
have suffered negative consequences of the imposition of measures. However, in the 
absence of co-operation of importers and thus of any conclusive evidence allowing to 
assess  any  significant  negative  consequences,  it  was  concluded  that  there  are  no 
compelling reasons against the maintenance of the current anti-dumping measures. 

(157)  There  is  no  reliable  information  available  indicating  that  the  maintenance  of  the 

measures will have a significant negative effect on importers or traders. 

24 

OJ L 198, 31.7.2007, p. 4 and OJ L 75, 18.3.2008, p. 33 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4. 

Interest of users 

(158)  Users  of  AN  are  farmers  in  the  Community.  Some  farmers  associations  made 
submissions,  claiming  that  farmers'  incomes  have  been  under  pressure  because 
fertiliser prices have risen over the last years, some of their output products have seen 
price  decreases  and  environmental  regulation  has  increased  the  cost  burden.  These 
claims, however, were not substantiated.  

(159)  EFMA provided substantiated  agronomic and economic evidence which showed that 
AN represents a small part of total production costs for the farmers. Therefore, it was 
found  that,  on  balance,  the  measures  currently  in  force  did  not  have  any  substantial 
negative  effect  on  their  economic  situation;  and  that  the  continuation  of  measures 
would not adversely affect the financial interests of the farmers. 

5.  Conclusion on Community Interest 

(160)  Given  the  above,  it  is  concluded  that  there  are  no  compelling  reasons  against  the 

maintenance of the current anti-dumping measures. 

F.UNDERTAKINGS 

(161)  The Commission on 19 December 200625 initiated a partial interim review following a 
request lodged by OJSC Acron and OJSC Dorogobuzh, members of ‘Acron’ Holding 
Company. The results of that interim review were set out in Council Regulation (EC) 
No  236/2008  of  10  March  2008.26  During  the  interim  review  Acron  expressed  an 
interest in offering a price undertaking but failed to submit a duly substantiated offer 
within  the  deadline  as  set  out  in  Article  8(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  However,  as 
stated  in  recitals  (61)  and  (62)  of  the  above  mentioned  Council  Regulation,  the 
Council  considered  that  Acron  should  exceptionally  be  allowed  to  complete  its 
undertaking offer within 10 calendar days from entry into force of that Regulation due 
to 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.  Subsequent  of  the 
publication  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  236/2008  and  within  the  deadline  as  set 
out in that Regulation Acron submitted an acceptable price undertaking in accordance 
with Article 8(1) of the basic Regulation. 

(162)  During  the  course  of  the  partial  interim  review  initiated  on  30  November  200527, 
Eurochem offered an acceptable price undertaking in accordance with Article 8(1) of 
the basic Regulation. 

(163)  The  Commission  by  Decision  [INSERT]28,  accepted  the  undertakings  offers.  The 
Decision sets out in more detail the reasons accepting these undertakings. The Council 
recognises that the undertakings offers eliminate the injurious effect of dumping and 
limits to a sufficient degree the risk of circumvention. 

25 
26 
27 
28 

OJ C 311, 19.12.2006., p. 55 
OJ L 75, 18.3.2008., p. 1. 
OJ C 300, 30.11.2005, p. 8. 
OJ L [INSERT NUMBER, DATE, PAGE] 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(164)  To further enable the Commission and the customs authorities to effectively monitor 
the compliance of the companies with the undertakings, when the request for release 
for free circulation is presented to the relevant customs authority, exemption from the 
anti-dumping  duty  is  to  be  conditional  on  (i)  the  presentation  of  an  undertaking 
invoice, which is a commercial invoice containing at least the elements listed and the 
declaration  stipulated  in  the  Annex;  (ii)  the  fact  that  the  imported  goods  are 
manufactured,  shipped  and  invoiced  directly  by  the  said  companies  to  the  first 
independent customer in the Community; and (iii) the fact that the goods declared and 
presented  to  customs  correspond  precisely  to  the  description  on  the  undertaking 
invoice.  Where  the  above  conditions  are  not  met  the  appropriate  anti-dumping  duty 
shall  be  incurred  at  the  time  of  acceptance  of  the  declaration  for  release  into  free 
circulation. 

(165)  Whenever  the  Commission  withdraws,  pursuant  to  Article  8(9)  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  its  acceptance  of  an  undertaking  following  a  breach  by  referring  to 
particular  transactions  and  declares  the  relevant  undertaking  invoices  as  invalid,  a 
customs debt shall be incurred at the time of acceptance of the declaration for release 
into free circulation of these transactions.  

(166)  Importers should be aware that a customs debt may be incurred, as a normal trade risk, 
at  the  time  of  acceptance  of  the  declaration  for  release  into  free  circulation  as 
described  in  recitals  (164)  and  (165)  even  if  an  undertaking  offered  by  the 
manufacturer from whom they were buying, directly or indirectly, had been accepted 
by the Commission.  

(167)  Pursuant  to  Article  14(7)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  customs  authorities  should  inform 
the Commission immediately whenever indications of a violation of the undertakings 
are found. 

(168)  For  the  reasons  stated  above,  the  undertakings  offered  by  Eurochem  and  Acron  are 
therefore  considered  acceptable  by  the  Commission  and  Eurochem  and  Acron  have 
been  informed  of  the  essential  facts,  considerations  and  obligations  upon  which 
acceptance is based. 

(169)  In the event of a breach or withdrawal of the undertakings, or in case of withdrawal of 
acceptance of undertaking by the Commission, the anti-dumping duty which has been 
imposed  by  the  Council,  in  accordance  of  Article  9(4)  shall  automatically  apply  by 
means of Article 8(9) of the basic Regulation. 

G.FINAL PROVISIONS 

(170)  All  parties  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the  basis  of 
which  it  was  intended  to  recommend  that  the  existing  measures  on  imports  from 
Russia  be  maintained  and  that  the  level  of  the  measures  would  be  amended  where 
warranted.  They  were  also  granted  a  period  to  submit  comments  and  claims 
subsequent to disclosure. No comments were received which would warrant a change 
in the above conclusions. 

1. 

Interim review limited to Eurochem  

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
(171)  In view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping and the lasting nature of 
the changed circumstances, the individual anti-dumping duty on imports of the product 
concerned  in  respect  of  Eurochem  should  be  amended  in  order  to  reflect  the  new 
dumping margin found. 

(172)  Since  the  dumping  level  found  is  lower  than  the  injury  margin  established  in  the 
previous investigation, the duty rate should be set at the dumping level found. 

(173)  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. Thus, the 
duty  is  EUR  32.82/tonne.  The  duty  should  be  applied,  in  accordance  with  Council 
Regulation  (EC)  No  945/2005,  in  proportion  to  the  content  of  AN  and  of  other 
marginal substances and nutrients, in the case of compounds of AN fertilizers with a 
nitrogen content exceeding 28% by weight. 

(174)  Although  this  duty  has  been  based on data from  NAK  Azot,  as  stated in recital (35) 
above,  it  will  apply  to  all  sales  made  by  Eurochem,  regardless  of  by  which  related 
factory the product has been manufactured. 

2. 

Expiry review 

(175)  The anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of AN originating in Russia should 

be maintained pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.  

3. 

Final consideration 

(176)  Given  that  two  exporters  were,  in  the  context  of  partial  interim  reviews  given  the 
opportunity to offer undertakings, special consideration will be given, as appropriate, 
to  the  initiation  of  interim  reviews  in  accordance  with  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic 
Regulation, to examine any further undertaking offers, should the Commission receive 
sufficient evidence that such reviews are warranted.  

H. DUTIES 

(177)  In view of the conclusions reached with regard to continuation of dumping, likelihood 
of recurrence of injury and Community interest, the anti-dumping measures on imports 
of AN originating in Russia should be maintained in order to prevent a recurrence of 
injury being caused to the Community industry by the dumped imports.  

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

The  partial  interim  review  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  applicable  to  imports  of  solid 
fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate  content  exceeding  80%  by  weight  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  and  originating  in  Russia 
from  producer  Open  Joint  Stock  Company  (OJSC)  "Mineral  and  Chemical  Company 
EuroChem",  is  hereby  terminated  and  Article 1(2)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  658/2002,  as  last 
amended by Regulation (EC) No 945/2005, shall be replaced by the following: 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty shall be a fixed amount as specified below: 

(a)  For  Open  Joint  Stock  Company  (OJSC)  Mineral  and  Chemical  Company 
‘Eurochem’,  member  of  the  Eurochem  group  of  companies,  Moscow,  Russia,  for 
goods produced by its related company JSC NAK Azot, Novomoskovsk, Russia, or 
by  its  related  company  JSC  Nevinka  Azot,  Nevinnomyssk,  Russia,  and  sold  by 
Eurochem Trading GmbH, Zug, Switzerland, to the first independent customer in the 
Community (TARIC additional code A522): 

Product description 

CN code 

TARIC 
code 

Fixed 
amount of 
duty 
(Euro per 
tonne) 

- Ammonium  nitrate  other  than  in  aqueous 
solutions 
- Mixtures of ammonium nitrate with calcium 
carbonate  or  other  inorganic  non-fertilising 
substances, with a nitrogen content exceeding 
28% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content exceeding 80% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content exceeding 80% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content exceeding 80% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  with  no 
phosphorus and no potassium content 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 and/or 
a potassium content evaluated as K2O of less 
than 3% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 and/or 
a potassium content evaluated as K2O of 3% 
by weight or more but less than 6% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 and/or 
a potassium content evaluated as K2O of 6% 
by weight or more but less than 9% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 and/or 
a potassium content evaluated as K2O of 9% 
by weight or more but not exceeding 12% by 
weight 

3102 30 90 

-- 

32,82 

3102 40 90 

3102 29 00 

3102 60 00 

3102 90 00 

-- 

10 

10 

10 

32,82 

32,82 

32,82 

32,82 

3105 10 00 

10 

32,82 

3105 10 00 

20 

31,84 

3105 10 00 

30 

30,85 

3105 10 00 

40 

29,87 

3105 10 00 

50 

28,88 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus  content  evaluated  as  P2O5  and  a 
potassium  content  evaluated  as  K2O  of  less 
than 3% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus  content  evaluated  as  P2O5  and  a 
potassium content evaluated as K2O of 3% by 
weight or more but less than 6% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus  content  evaluated  as  P2O5  and  a 
potassium content evaluated as K2O of 6% by 
weight or more but less than 9% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus  content  evaluated  as  P2O5  and  a 
potassium content evaluated as K2O of 9% by 
weight  or  more  but  not  exceeding  12%  by 
weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of less 
than 3% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of 3% 
by weight or more but less than 6% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of 6% 
by weight or more but less than 9% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of 9% 
by weight or more but not exceeding 10.40% 
by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of less 
than 3% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of 3% 
by weight or more but less than 6% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of 6% 
by weight or more but less than 9% by weight 

3105 20 10 

30 

31,84 

3105 20 10 

40 

30,85 

3105 20 10 

50 

29,87 

3105 20 10 

60 

28,88 

3105 51 00 

10 

31,84 

3105 51 00 

20 

30,85 

3105 51 00 

30 

29,87 

3105 51 00 

40 

29,41 

3105 59 00 

10 

31,84 

3105 59 00 

20 

30,85 

3105 59 00 

30 

29,87 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of 9% 
by weight or more but not exceeding 10.40% 
by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
potassium  content  evaluated  as  K2O  of  less 
than 3% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
potassium content evaluated as K2O of 3% by 
weight or more but less than 6% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
potassium content evaluated as K2O of 6% by 
weight or more but less than 9% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
potassium content evaluated as K2O of 9% by 
weight  or  more  but  not  exceeding  12%  by 
weight 

3105 59 00 

40 

29,41 

3105 90 91 

30 

31,84 

3105 90 91 

40 

30,85 

3105 90 91 

50 

29,87 

3105 90 91 

60 

28,88 

(b) For all other companies (TARIC additional code A999):  

Product description 

CN code 

TARIC 
code 

Fixed 
amount of 
duty 
(Euro per 
tonne) 

- Ammonium  nitrate  other  than  in  aqueous 
solutions 
- Mixtures of ammonium nitrate with calcium 
carbonate  or  other  inorganic  non-fertilising 
substances, with a nitrogen content exceeding 
28% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content exceeding 80% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content exceeding 80% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content exceeding 80% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  with  no 
phosphorus and no potassium content 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 

3102 30 90 

-- 

47,07 

3102 40 90 

3102 29 00 

3102 60 00 

3102 90 00 

-- 

10 

10 

10 

47,07 

47,07 

47,07 

47,07 

3105 10 00 

10 

47,07 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 and/or 
a potassium content evaluated as K2O of less 
than 3% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 and/or 
a potassium content evaluated as K2O of 3% 
by weight or more but less than 6% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 and/or 
a potassium content evaluated as K2O of 6% 
by weight or more but less than 9% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 and/or 
a potassium content evaluated as K2O of 9% 
by weight or more but not exceeding 12% by 
weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus  content  evaluated  as  P2O5  and  a 
potassium  content  evaluated  as  K2O  of  less 
than 3% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus  content  evaluated  as  P2O5  and  a 
potassium content evaluated as K2O of 3% by 
weight or more but less than 6% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus  content  evaluated  as  P2O5  and  a 
potassium content evaluated as K2O of 6% by 
weight or more but less than 9% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus  content  evaluated  as  P2O5  and  a 
potassium content evaluated as K2O of 9% by 
weight  or  more  but  not  exceeding  12%  by 
weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of less 
than 3% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of 3% 
by weight or more but less than 6% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 

3105 10 00 

20 

45,66 

3105 10 00 

30 

44,25 

3105 10 00 

40 

42,83 

3105 10 00 

50 

41,42 

3105 20 10 

30 

45,66 

3105 20 10 

40 

44,25 

3105 20 10 

50 

42,83 

3105 20 10 

60 

41,42 

3105 51 00 

10 

45,66 

3105 51 00 

20 

44,25 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of 6% 
by weight or more but less than 9% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of 9% 
by weight or more but not exceeding 10.40% 
by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of less 
than 3% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of 3% 
by weight or more but less than 6% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of 6% 
by weight or more but less than 9% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of 9% 
by weight or more but not exceeding 10.40% 
by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
potassium  content  evaluated  as  K2O  of  less 
than 3% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
potassium content evaluated as K2O of 3% by 
weight or more but less than 6% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
potassium content evaluated as K2O of 6% by 
weight or more but less than 9% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
potassium content evaluated as K2O of 9% by 
weight  or  more  but  not  exceeding  12%  by 
weight 

3105 51 00 

30 

42,83 

3105 51 00 

40 

42,17 

3105 59 00 

10 

45,66 

3105 59 00 

20 

44,25 

3105 59 00 

30 

42,83 

3105 59 00 

40 

42,17 

3105 90 91 

30 

45,66 

3105 90 91 

40 

44,25 

3105 90 91 

50 

42,83 

3105 90 91 

60 

41,42' 

Article 2 

1. 

A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of solid fertilisers with 
an  ammonium  nitrate  content  exceeding  80%  by  weight  falling  within  CN  codes 
3102 30 90,  3102 40 90,  ex  3102 29 00,  ex  3102 60 00,  ex  3102 90 00,  ex 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3105 10 00,  ex  3105 20 10,  ex  3105 51 00,  ex  3105 59 00  and  ex  3105 90 91  and 
originating in Russia.  

2. 

The  rate  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  shall  be  a  fixed  amount  as  specified 
below:  

(a)  For  Open  Joint  Stock  Company  (OJSC)  Mineral  and  Chemical  Company 
‘Eurochem’,  member  of  the  Eurochem  group  of  companies,  Moscow,  Russia,  for 
goods produced by its related company JSC NAK Azot, Novomoskovsk, Russia, or 
by  its  related  company  JSC  Nevinka  Azot,  Nevinnomyssk,  Russia,  and  sold  by 
Eurochem Trading GmbH, Zug, Switzerland, to the first independent customer in the 
Community (TARIC additional code A522): 

Product description 

CN code 

TARIC 
code 

Fixed 
amount of 
duty 
(Euro per 
tonne) 

- Ammonium  nitrate  other  than  in  aqueous 
solutions 
- Mixtures of ammonium nitrate with calcium 
carbonate  or  other  inorganic  non-fertilising 
substances, with a nitrogen content exceeding 
28% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content exceeding 80% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content exceeding 80% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content exceeding 80% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  with  no 
phosphorus and no potassium content 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 and/or 
a potassium content evaluated as K2O of less 
than 3% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 and/or 
a potassium content evaluated as K2O of 3% 
by weight or more but less than 6% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 and/or 
a potassium content evaluated as K2O of 6% 
by weight or more but less than 9% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 

3102 30 90 

-- 

32,82 

3102 40 90 

3102 29 00 

3102 60 00 

3102 90 00 

-- 

10 

10 

10 

32,82 

32,82 

32,82 

32,82 

3105 10 00 

10 

32,82 

3105 10 00 

20 

31,84 

3105 10 00 

30 

30,85 

3105 10 00 

40 

29,87 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 and/or 
a potassium content evaluated as K2O of 9% 
by weight or more but not exceeding 12% by 
weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus  content  evaluated  as  P2O5  and  a 
potassium  content  evaluated  as  K2O  of  less 
than 3% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus  content  evaluated  as  P2O5  and  a 
potassium content evaluated as K2O of 3% by 
weight or more but less than 6% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus  content  evaluated  as  P2O5  and  a 
potassium content evaluated as K2O of 6% by 
weight or more but less than 9% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus  content  evaluated  as  P2O5  and  a 
potassium content evaluated as K2O of 9% by 
weight  or  more  but  not  exceeding  12%  by 
weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of less 
than 3% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of 3% 
by weight or more but less than 6% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of 6% 
by weight or more but less than 9% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of 9% 
by weight or more but not exceeding 10.40% 
by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of less 
than 3% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of 3% 
by weight or more but less than 6% by weight 

3105 10 00 

50 

28,88 

3105 20 10 

30 

31,84 

3105 20 10 

40 

30,85 

3105 20 10 

50 

29,87 

3105 20 10 

60 

28,88 

3105 51 00 

10 

31,84 

3105 51 00 

20 

30,85 

3105 51 00 

30 

29,87 

3105 51 00 

40 

29,41 

3105 59 00 

10 

31,84 

3105 59 00 

20 

30,85 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of 6% 
by weight or more but less than 9% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of 9% 
by weight or more but not exceeding 10.40% 
by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
potassium  content  evaluated  as  K2O  of  less 
than 3% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
potassium content evaluated as K2O of 3% by 
weight or more but less than 6% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
potassium content evaluated as K2O of 6% by 
weight or more but less than 9% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
potassium content evaluated as K2O of 9% by 
weight  or  more  but  not  exceeding  12%  by 
weight 

3105 59 00 

30 

29,87 

3105 59 00 

40 

29,41 

3105 90 91 

30 

31,84 

3105 90 91 

40 

30,85 

3105 90 91 

50 

29,87 

3105 90 91 

60 

28,88 

(b) For all other companies (TARIC additional code A999):  

Product description 

CN code 

TARIC 
code 

Fixed 
amount of 
duty 
(Euro per 
tonne) 

- Ammonium  nitrate  other  than  in  aqueous 
solutions 
- Mixtures of ammonium nitrate with calcium 
carbonate  or  other  inorganic  non-fertilising 
substances, with a nitrogen content exceeding 
28% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content exceeding 80% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content exceeding 80% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content exceeding 80% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 

3102 30 90 

-- 

47,07 

3102 40 90 

3102 29 00 

3102 60 00 

3102 90 00 

-- 

10 

10 

10 

47,07 

47,07 

47,07 

47,07 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  with  no 
phosphorus and no potassium content 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 and/or 
a potassium content evaluated as K2O of less 
than 3% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 and/or 
a potassium content evaluated as K2O of 3% 
by weight or more but less than 6% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 and/or 
a potassium content evaluated as K2O of 6% 
by weight or more but less than 9% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 and/or 
a potassium content evaluated as K2O of 9% 
by weight or more but not exceeding 12% by 
weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus  content  evaluated  as  P2O5  and  a 
potassium  content  evaluated  as  K2O  of  less 
than 3% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus  content  evaluated  as  P2O5  and  a 
potassium content evaluated as K2O of 3% by 
weight or more but less than 6% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus  content  evaluated  as  P2O5  and  a 
potassium content evaluated as K2O of 6% by 
weight or more but less than 9% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus  content  evaluated  as  P2O5  and  a 
potassium content evaluated as K2O of 9% by 
weight  or  more  but  not  exceeding  12%  by 
weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of less 
than 3% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 

3105 10 00 

10 

47,07 

3105 10 00 

20 

45,66 

3105 10 00 

30 

44,25 

3105 10 00 

40 

42,83 

3105 10 00 

50 

41,42 

3105 20 10 

30 

45,66 

3105 20 10 

40 

44,25 

3105 20 10 

50 

42,83 

3105 20 10 

60 

41,42 

3105 51 00 

10 

45,66 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of 3% 
by weight or more but less than 6% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of 6% 
by weight or more but less than 9% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of 9% 
by weight or more but not exceeding 10.40% 
by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of less 
than 3% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of 3% 
by weight or more but less than 6% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of 6% 
by weight or more but less than 9% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
phosphorus content evaluated as P2O5 of 9% 
by weight or more but not exceeding 10.40% 
by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
potassium  content  evaluated  as  K2O  of  less 
than 3% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
potassium content evaluated as K2O of 3% by 
weight or more but less than 6% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
potassium content evaluated as K2O of 6% by 
weight or more but less than 9% by weight 
- Solid  fertilisers  with  an  ammonium  nitrate 
content  exceeding  80%  by  weight,  and  a 
potassium content evaluated as K2O of 9% by 
weight  or  more  but  not  exceeding  12%  by 
weight 

3105 51 00 

20 

44,25 

3105 51 00 

30 

42,83 

3105 51 00 

40 

42,17 

3105 59 00 

10 

45,66 

3105 59 00 

20 

44,25 

3105 59 00 

30 

42,83 

3105 59 00 

40 

42,17 

3105 90 91 

30 

45,66 

3105 90 91 

40 

44,25 

3105 90 91 

50 

42,83 

3105 90 91 

60 

41,42' 

3. 

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 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4. 

5. 

1. 

the  customs  value  pursuant  to  Article  145  of  Commission  Regulation  (EEC)  No 
2454/93(12),  the  amount  of  anti-dumping  duty  mentioned  in  paragraph  2  shall  be 
reduced by a percentage which corresponds to the apportioning of the price actually 
paid or payable. 

Notwithstanding the first paragraph, the definitive anti-dumping duty shall not apply 
to imports released for free circulation in accordance with Article 3. 

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

Article 3 

Imports  declared  for  release  into  free  circulation  which  are  invoiced  by  companies 
from  which  undertakings  are  accepted  by  the  Commission  and  whose  names  are 
listed  in  the  Commission  Decision  [2008/…./EC],  as  from  time  to  time  amended, 
shall be exempt from the anti-dumping duty imposed by Article 2, on condition that: 

– 

they are manufactured, shipped and invoiced directly by the said companies to 

the first independent customer in the Community; and 

– 

such imports are accompanied by an undertaking invoice which is a 

commercial invoice containing at least the elements and the declaration 

stipulated in the Annex of this Regulation; and 

– 

the goods declared and presented to customs correspond precisely to the 

description on the undertaking invoice. 

2. 

A  customs  debt  shall  be  incurred  at  the  time  of  acceptance  of  the  declaration  for 
release into free circulation: 

– 

whenever it is established, in respect of imports described in paragraph 1, that 

one or more of the conditions listed in that paragraph are not fulfilled; or 

– 

when the Commission withdraws its acceptance of the undertaking pursuant to 

Article 8(9) of the basic Regulation in a Regulation or Decision which refers to 

particular transactions and declares the relevant undertaking invoices as 

invalid. 

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

Article 4 

EN 

48 

   EN 

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 
[…] 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
The  following  elements  shall  be  indicated  in  the  commercial  invoice  accompanying  the 
company's sales to the Community of goods which are subject to the undertaking: 

ANNEX  

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

The  heading  "COMMERCIAL  INVOICE  ACCOMPANYING  GOODS  SUBJECT 
TO AN UNDERTAKING". 

The name of the company issuing the commercial invoice. 

The commercial invoice number. 

The date of issue of the commercial invoice. 

The TARIC additional code under which the goods on the invoice are to be customs-
cleared at the Community frontier. 

The exact description of the goods, including: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

the product code number (PCN) used for the purpose of the undertaking, 

plain language description of the goods corresponding to the PCN concerned, 

the company product code number (CPC), 

Taric code, 

quantity (to be given in tonnes). 

7. 

The description of the terms of the sale, including: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

price per tonnes, 

the applicable payment terms, 

the applicable delivery terms, 

total discounts and rebates. 

8. 

9. 

Name  of  the  company  acting  as  an  importer  in  the  Community  to  which  the 
commercial invoice accompanying goods subject to an undertaking is issued directly 
by the company.  

The name of the official of the company that has issued the commercial invoice and 
the following signed declaration: 

“I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for direct export to the European Community 
of the goods covered  by  this  invoice is being made within the scope  and under the 
terms  of  the  Undertaking  offered  by  [COMPANY],  and  accepted  by  the  European 
Commission  through  [Decision  2008/XXXX/EC].  I  declare  that  the  information 
provided in this invoice is complete and correct.” 

EN 

50 

   EN