Council Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 of 8 July 2008 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 Regulation (EC) No 384/96
Date: 2008-07-08
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Russia, anti-dumping duty, chemical fertiliser, chemical salt, import (EU), originating product

12.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/1

(Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory)

I

REGULATIONS

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 661/2008

of 8 July 2008

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 Regulation (EC) No 384/96

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty
Community,

establishing the European

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 Community (1)
(‘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:

(1)

A. PROCEDURE

1. Measures in force

By Regulation (EC) No 2022/95 (2), 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 663/98 (3). 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
658/2002 (4), 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 Council Regu­
lation (EC) No 945/2005 (5), a definitive anti-dumping
duty ranging between EUR 41,42 per tonne and EUR
47,07 per tonne was imposed on imports of solid ferti­

(1) 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).

(2) OJ L 198, 23.8.1995, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 93, 26.3.1998, p. 1.
(4) OJ L 102, 18.4.2002, p. 1.
(5) OJ L 160, 23.6.2005, p. 1.

lisers originating in Russia with an ammonium nitrate
content exceeding 80 % by weight (‘AN’), falling within
ex 3102 29 00,
CN codes 3102 30 90, 3102 40 90,
ex 3105 10 00,
ex 3102 60 00,
ex 3105 20 10,
and
ex 3105 90 91.

ex 3105 51 00,

ex 3102 90 00,

ex 3105 59 00

(2)

On 19 April 2007, the Council imposed, by Regulation
(EC) No 442/2007 (6) 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
(OJSC)
by Open Joint Stock Company
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 Open
Joint Stock Company (OJSC) Mineral and Chemical
Company
exporting
producer of AN in Russia.

(‘EuroChem’),

‘EuroChem’

an

that

circumstances had changed and,

EuroChem alleged and provided sufficient prima facie
evidence
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.

(6) OJ L 106, 24.4.2007, p. 1.

L 185/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.7.2008

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

after

determined,
that

Having
Committee,
initiation of
initiated this review on 30 November 2005 (1).

consulting
sufficient evidence existed for

the Advisory
the
the Commission

interim review,

the

(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.

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

imports of AN originating in Russia

3.1. Sampling of Community producers

Following the publication of a notice of
expiry (2),
17 January 2007 for an expiry review.

the Commission received a

impending
request on

(12)

The request was lodged by the European Fertiliser Manu­
facturers 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.

expiry

review,

importers
appropriate

in the Community,
in the

In view of the large number of Community producers
it was
(23) and of
considered
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,
to select a
sample, the Community producers and importers were
requested, pursuant to Article 17(2) of the basic Regu­
lation to make themselves known within 15 days of the
initiation of
the
Commission with the information requested in the
notice of initiation.

investigation and to provide

the

so,

if

the expiry of

for the expiry review was based on the
The request
the measures would be
grounds that
likely to result
recurrence of
in a continuation or
dumping and injury to the Community industry. One
party claimed that the Commission should have opened
interim review concerning both
ex officio a parallel
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 notices (3)
that were published in the Official
invited interested
Journal of
parties to request
interim reviews if
they submit evidence that
the measures would have
been significantly different if they were based on infor­
mation including the new Member States. No such
requests
been
submitted to the Commission. In this regard, it should
be noted that enlargement per se, in the absence of such
is not a sufficient basis for a review to be
evidence,
initiated. Therefore, this claim had to be rejected.

the European Union, has
the initiation of

substantiated

evidence

have

and

after

determined,
that

Having
Committee,
initiation of
initiated this review on 14 April 2007 (4).

consulting
sufficient evidence existed for

the Advisory
the
the Commission

review,

expiry

the

3. Parties concerned by the investigations

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.

(13) After examination of

the information submitted, and
given that 14 Community producers indicated their will­
ingness 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
to
the interim review a questionnaire was sent
EuroChem, which cooperated by replying to the ques­
tionnaire.

(16)

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

the Community producers

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

received from:

(1) OJ C 300, 30.11.2005, p. 8.
(2) OJ C 167, 19.7.2006, p. 17.
(3) OJ C 91, 15.4.2004, p. 2 and C 297, 7.12.2006, p. 12.
(4) OJ C 81, 14.4.2007, p. 2.

(18)

Three Russian exporting producers/distributors. These
companies were: EuroChem, Acron (‘Acron’), and JSC
Minudiobreniya (‘Minudiobreniya’).

12.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/3

(19)

Four sampled Community producers:

(b) S a m p l e d C o m m u n i t y p r o d u c e r s

— Grande Paroisse Société Anonyme (Paris, France),

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

— Yara (Belgium, Germany, France,

Italy, the Nether­

lands and the UK),

— Zakłady Azotowe Puławy (Poland).

(20)

55

addressed

of
From the
ammonium nitrate into the Community, only three
companies replied indicating they had no imports of
the product concerned during the period considered.

importers

potential

(21) Written comments were received from the Committee of
Professional Agricultural Organisations
EU
(COPA)/General Confederation of Agricultural Coop­
eratives in the EU (Cogeca), from the National Farmers’
Union of England and Wales and from the Federation of
Swedish farmers.

in the

(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
interested parties
who so requested and showed that there were particular
reasons why they should be heard, were granted a
hearing.

initiation. All

(23)

The Commission sought and verified all the information
it deemed necessary for its analysis and carried out veri­
fication visits at the premises of the following companies:

(a) E x p o r t i n g p r o d u c e r s i n R u s s i a

EuroChem and its two related companies (1):

— OJSC Azot (‘NAK Azot’), Novomoskovsk, Russia,

and

— OJSC Nevinnomyssky Azot

(‘Nevinka Azot’),

Nevinnomyssk, Russia.

Acron and its three related companies:

— Grande Paroisse Société Anonyme (Paris, France),

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

— Yara Société Anonyme (offices visited in Brussels,
the

in Paris, France and in Sluiskil,

Belgium;
Netherlands),

— Zakłady Azotowe Puławy (Poland).

(c) R e l a t e d i m p o r t e r

EuroChem GmbH — Zug (Switzerland)

(d) U n r e l a t e d i m p o r t e r s i n t h e C o m m u n i t y

No verification visits were carried out, because no
importer of AN from the country concerned replied to
the questionnaire.

(24)

(25)

5. Relevant periods covered by the review investi­

gations

interim review
The investigation period for the partial
pursuant
the basic Regulation
to Article 11(3) of
concerning imports from EuroChem covered the period
from 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005 (‘interim review
investigation period’

‘IRIP’).

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 exa­
mination of trends relevant for the assessment of the
likelihood of a continuation or
injury
covered the period from 1 January 2003 up to the end
of the ERIP (‘period considered’).

recurrence of

— Open Joint Stock Company (OJSC) Dorogobuzh,

6. Disclosure and opportunity to comment

— JSC Kubanagranova,

— ZAO Rostagranova.

Minudiobreniya

(1) Only in relation to the interim review.

(26) 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 originat­
ing 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.

L 185/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.7.2008

B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

1. Product concerned

(27)

The product concerned by these reviews is the same as
the product defined in Regulation (EC) No 945/2005, i.e.
solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content
falling within CN codes
exceeding 80 % by weight,
ex 3102 29 00,
3102 30 90,
ex 3105 10 00,
ex 3102 60 00,
ex 3105 20 10,
and
ex 3105 90 91 and originating in Russia.

3102 40 90,
ex 3102 90 00,

ex 3105 51 00,

ex 3105 59 00

2. Like product

(28) 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.

(29)

(30)

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

characteristics

to the

C. PARTIAL INTERIM REVIEW: DUMPING

1. General

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

(31) 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
trade
pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. The
domestic
each transaction were
selling prices of
compared to the total cost of production.

in the ordinary course of

(32)

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

trade test,

it had also been
the ordinary course of
examined whether
associated with the
the
production and sale of the product under consideration
were reasonably reflected in the records of the parties
concerned.

costs

(33)

The investigation showed no indication that the elec­
tricity 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.

that domestic gas prices

(34) 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
in Russia were
regulated prices, which are far below market prices
paid for natural gas, for example in the USA, Canada,
Japan and the EU. These four markets account for a total
of 46 % of worldwide gas
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. Infor­
mation available also suggests that domestic sales prices
the gas
of Russian gas do not even cover costs of
supplier, Gazprom.

consumption,

(35)

as

costs

provided

Therefore,

the product

cost of production of

to the first sentence of Article 2(5) of
for
i.e.

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
concerned
the
the
pursuant
in
basic Regulation.
Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, the costs,
in
for gas supplies, of NAK Azot had to be
this case,
adjusted to reflect
associated with the
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 circum­
stances,
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’).

12.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/5

(36)

(37)

(38)

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
the
product
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.

type exported to the Community, after

(39)

(40)

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 realised by the Russian producers on sales of
category on their
the
products of
domestic market.

general

same

3. Export price

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
the
beginning of 2005.

ceased to operate

latter

at

SG&A costs and profit could not be established on the
basis of the chapeau of Article 2(6) of the basic Regu­
lation because NAK Azot did not have representative
concerned in the
the product
domestic
sales of
ordinary course of
the basic
trade. Article 2(6)(a) of
Regulation could not be applied, since there is only
investigation
one other producer
subject
applicable
(Nevinka Azot). Article 2(6)(b) was not
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
to
costs
Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation.

profit were

established

pursuant

to the

and

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 fertilisers’ business sector. It was found that the corre­
sponding 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
information from listed
and complete public financial
companies
the world. Therefore,
region of
in this
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 fertilisers’
sector, with regard to their domestic sales of the same
general category of products (nitrogen fertilisers). These
three producers were considered to be representative of
the nitrogen fertilisers’ 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.

(41)

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

(42)

4. Comparison

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,
in transport,
adjustments were made for differences
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
In the absence of cooperation from
basic Regulation.
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

(43)

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

export price,

(44)

The dumping margin, expressed as a percentage of the
is 28,3 %.
CIF Community frontier price, duty unpaid,

L 185/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.7.2008

6. Lasting nature of changed circumstances

(45)

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.

stances, 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.

(46)

(47)

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
adjusted where
the
necessary. No indications could be found that
review
normal value established during the present
could not be considered to be of a lasting nature.

production,

cost

of

By comparing the normal values and export prices of the
previous and the current investigation, it has been estab­
lished 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.

(48) On this basis, it is concluded that the changed circum­
stances with respect
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.

to the original

(49) 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 investi­
than the injury margin previously
gation is
calculated, the duty should be adjusted to the dumping
margin found in this investigation, namely 28,3 %.

lower

7. Conclusion

(50)

In view of
the conclusions reached with regard to
dumping and the lasting nature of the changed circum­

(51)

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.

(52)

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
in accordance with Regulation (EC) No
applied,
945/2005, in proportion to the content of AN and of
other marginal substances and nutrients, in the case of
compounds of AN fertilisers with a nitrogen content
exceeding 28 % by weight.

(53) 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 manu­
factured the product.

D. EXPIRY REVIEW

D.1. LIKELIHOOD OF A CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE
OF DUMPING

(54)

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

(55) As mentioned

producers
(EuroChem, Acron and Minudiobreniya) have cooperated
in the investigation.

exporting

above,

three

1.2. Normal value

(56)

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 cooperating exporting
producers on the domestic market was examined.

12.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/7

(57) Gas is a main raw material component in the manufac­
turing process of the product concerned and represents a
significant proportion of
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.

the cost of production.

(58)

(59)

It was established, on the basis of data published by
internationally recognised sources specialised 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.

records,

Since gas costs were not reasonably reflected in the coop­
erating producers’
they had to be adjusted
accordingly. In the absence of any sufficiently represen­
tative undistorted gas prices
related to the Russian
domestic market, it was considered appropriate to base
in accordance with Article 2(5) of the
the adjustment,
basic Regulation, on information from other representa­
tive 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 rep­
resentative market.

(60)

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

(62)

(63)

(61)

the like product

it was claimed that any adjustment of their gas
First,
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
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
including full costs of
with the basic Regulation,
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
this
could not be verified within the framework of

i.e.

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.

that

the sole fact

In any case, it is considered that under Article 2(5) of the
the price of gas
basic Regulation,
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 (publi­
cations of internationally recognised sources specialised
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
its export price). This claim
around one-fourth of
therefore had to be rejected.

it was

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
economy
regard,
argued that
the
countries,
following methodologies
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 country. The Russian
exporters concluded that on this basis normal value
should not be based on data from a third representative
market.

the basic Regulation foresees only

to determine

for market

L 185/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.7.2008

(64)

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 metho­
dology 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 Regu­
lation a new methodology to determine normal value
was introduced. The Russian producers’ arguments in
this respect therefore had to be rejected.

(67)

(65) Additionally it was claimed that, even in the 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.

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
the
lowest possible level in order to maximise 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,
arguments
were rejected.

to keep the purchase price at

these

that

the fact

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 available in Russia. Firstly,
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.
is
undisputed that this condition is met with respect to
the
the prices at Waidhaus. Secondly,
volume of gas
in the
domestic market was only minor during the ERIP (less
than 2 %) and that such prices were significantly closer to
freely-
the
these
determined export price strongly suggests that
non-regulated prices were distorted by the prevailing
regulated prices. Therefore,
the unregulated domestic
prices could not be used.

sold at non-regulated prices

regulated domestic price

than to the

the fact

that

It

(66)

It

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
is undisputed that
payable in undistorted markets.
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
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 investi­
gation concerns prices at which German main gas distri­
butors 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

regards

(68) 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 decree (1) establishing a
state programme that will lead to multiple increases of
gas prices in Russia to industrial users in the years up to
2011.

(69)

This argument has no grounds since the correct standard
is not whether
for choosing a representative market
prices are profitable as
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
arguments were
rejected.

such or whether

rising. Therefore,

these

(1) Russian Government Regulation of 28 May 2007, No 333.

12.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/9

(70)

States, where

evidence on such markets.

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
It was
considered that Russian export prices of gas to the
Baltic
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.

some price

(71) Alternatively,

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

(72)

(73)

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
that price
is irrelevant what percentage of
regard it
constitutes an export tax and what percentage is paid
to the gas supplier. The latter, on the other hand will
always try to maximise 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 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 distri­
butors to supply natural gas from the main high pressure
pipelines to its production sites. Therefore, gas price
adjustments should not include regional transportation
prices.

(74)

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 resale of the
natural gas.

(75)

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 organisation 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
is not suf­
gas supplier and the Russian government
ficiently transparent
to allow sufficient access to the
necessary evidence.

(76) 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
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,
such included in the unadjusted
which are not as
Waidhaus price.

in the Waidhaus price. However,

(77)

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,
if Russian
this
that
producers
would
the
the
Commission may consider opening interim review inves­
tigations in this regard.

evidence
dumping margin,

supply sufficient verifiable

rejected. However,

allow reducing

argument was

(78) As

far as

it should be noted that

the claimed comparative advantages are
concerned regarding the availability of natural gas in
Russia,
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
argument had
in this
therefore to be rejected.

context. This

irrelevant

L 185/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.7.2008

(79)

(80)

(81)

indicated in recitals

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 cooperating
the
exporters have representative domestic sales of
trade.
product concerned in the ordinary course of
Article 2(6)(b) was not applicable either, since the manu­
facturing 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
(58) and (59) above.
reasons
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 fertilisers’ business sector. It was found that the corre­
sponding 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
information from listed
and complete public financial
companies
the world. Therefore,
region of
in this
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 fertilisers’
sector, with regard to their domestic sales of the same
general category of products (nitrogen fertilisers). These
three producers were considered to be representative of
the nitrogen fertilisers’ business and their SG&A costs
those normally
and profit
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 realised by the
Russian cooperating companies.

thereby representative of

1.3. Export price

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
that related importer to independent
resale prices of
all
customers. Adjustments were made
costs
for
including
incurred between importation and resale
expenses,
and administrative
sales,
and a
reasonable
accordance with
in
Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.

profit margin,

general

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
loading and ancillary
transport,
costs, commissions, packing and credit, where applicable
and supported by verified evidence.

insurance, handling,

1.5. Dumping margin

(83)

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

export price,

(84)

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.

(85)

(86)

2. Development of

imports should measures be

repealed

Imports from Russia decreased from around 785 000
tonnes in 2003 to around 155 891 tonnes in the
ERIP. Their market share (around 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
the
duties in force.

level of

2.1. Past behaviour

their

exports

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

in

1.4. Comparison

(82)

The normal value and export price were compared on an
the purpose of ensuring a fair
ex-works basis. For

(87)

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.

12.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/11

(88)

It should also be noted that during the ERIP, around
50 % of the exports to the Community of the Russian
to Bulgaria and
cooperating producers were made
Romania (which were not
to anti-dumping
subject
duties until 1 January 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

(89)

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.

(90)

imports of AN from Russia are subject to
In addition,
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

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

(92)

(93)

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.

is

has

been

argued

exporters

by Russian

that
It
consumption in CIS countries
steadily increasing
since 2005 and is expected to continue to do so in
the coming years, and that Russian production of AN
the full satisfaction of
will be primarily directed at
those markets. These allegations were not adequately
substantiated by verifiable evidence.
they
appeared incomplete in the sense that
they did not
take into account the existence of AN production in
compete with
other CIS states, which could well

In addition,

Russian sales to those markets. In any event, the alleged
according to IFA’s
evolution of CIS consumption,
statistics (1) would still
leave significant available spare
capacities in the short and medium term. Finally, given
in the Community, which,
the existing price level
according
cooperating
by
data
to
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
in the domestic
Community rather
market or the CIS markets.

than for

supplied

sales

the

(94) No allegations were made regarding the likelihood of
other sales to other third country markets absorbing
the aforementioned spare capacity.
the
investigation analysed other third country markets on
the basis of the information provided by cooperating
parties
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.

that, on the basis of

In any event,

found

and

(95)

(96)

(97)

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

considerations,

facilitates

logistical

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

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 quan­
tities could also emanate from this source.

2.5. Conclusion

(98)

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
the quantities exported to the
Community, should anti-dumping measures in force be
lifted.

increase of

(1) International Fertiliser Industry Association.

L 185/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.7.2008

D.2. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR
RECURRENCE OF INJURY

— Zakłady Azotowe Puławy SA (Puławy, Poland),

1. Definition

of Community

production

and

Community industry

— Neochim PLC, (Dimitrovgrad, Bulgaria).

(99) Within the Community, the like product is manufactured
by 23 producers whose output constitutes the total
Community production of the like product within the
meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.

(100) Eleven Community producers cooperated with the inves­

tigation:

— Achema AB (Jonavos, Lithuania),

— Zakłady Azotowe Anwil SA (Włockławek, Poland),

— BASF AG (Ludwigshafen, Germany),

— DSM Agro BV (Sittard, The Netherlands),

— Fertiberia SA (Madrid, Spain),

— Grande Paroisse SA (Paris, France),

— Kemira Growhow Oyj (Corporate office in Helsinki,

Finland, production in UK and Belgium),

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

(101) As these 11 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
industry within the meaning of
the Community
the basic Regulation
Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of
and will hereinafter be referred to as the ‘Community
industry’.

(102) As

sample

consisting of

indicated above,

a
selected. All

four
companies was
sampled Community
producers cooperated and sent questionnaire replies
within the deadlines. In addition, the remaining coop­
erating producers provided certain general data for the
injury analysis.

2. Situation on the Community market

2.1. Consumption on the Community market

(103) 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.

— Yara SA (Corporate offices

in Brussels, Belgium
(production in the Netherlands, France, Germany,
the UK and Italy),

(104) 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

8 296 644

7 834 089

7 861 796

6 983 467

7 463 863

Index total EC consumption
(2003 = 100)

100

94

95

84

90

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

(105) 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.

12.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/13

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 imports (EUR/tonne)

Index (prices) (2003 = 100)

73

100

99

136

122

167

123

168

124

170

(106) 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 EUR 73 to EUR 124/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.

(107) The comparison showed that imports from Russia were undercutting the prices of the Community
industry by more than 30 % or at least EUR 60/tonne, not counting the 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 EUR 13/tonne.

2.3. Volumes and market shares of imports from other countries

(108) 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 %

83

0,8 %

114

1,0 %

123

0,6 %

139

0,4 %

136

100 025

132 457

153 844

85 870

121 590

1,2 %

113

1,7 %

137

2,0 %

164

1,2 %

177

1,6 %

176

262 909

74 654

65 965

124 451

158 524

3,2 %

133

1,0 %

152

0,8 %

190

1,8 %

169

2,1 %

164

Volume of imports from Ukraine
(tonnes)

Market share

Prices of imports from Ukraine
(EUR/tonne)

Volume of imports from Georgia
(tonnes)

Market share

Prices of imports from Georgia
(EUR/tonne)

Volume of imports from all other
countries (tonnes)

Market share

Prices of imports from all other
countries (EUR/tonne)

L 185/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.7.2008

(109) 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 EUR 29,26 per tonne and of EUR 33,25 per tonne,
which was extended by Regulation (EC) No 442/2007. 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

(110) 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

(111) Some of the cooperating 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.

(112) 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.

(113) 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 (‘CI’
in the enclosed tables), while those injury
i.e. prices, stocks, costs of
indicators relating to the performances 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 (‘SP’ in the enclosed tables).

individual companies,

3.2. Data relating to the Community industry as a whole

(a) P r o d u c t i o n

(114) 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.

12.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/15

Table 4

CI production (tonnes, including
captive transfers)

2003

2004

2005

2006

ERIP

8 395 678

8 228 283

8 407 904

7 648 770

8 444 436

Index (2003 = 100)

100

98

100

91

101

Of which CI 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 CI 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) C a p a c i t y a n d c a p a c i t y u t i l i s a t i o n r a t e s

(115) 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 utilisation 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

CI production capacity (tonnes)

12 624 286

12 460 988

12 459 886

12 366 776

12 826 621

CI capacity utilisation

67 %

66 %

67 %

62 %

66 %

(c) S a l e s v o l u m e

(116) 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

CI 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) M a r k e t s h a r e

(117) 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.

L 185/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.7.2008

Table 7

2003

2004

2005

2006

ERIP

69,3 %

71,1 %

72,6 %

70,4 %

71,0 %

Market share of Community
industry

Index (2003 = 100)

100

102

105

102

102

(e) G r o w t h

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

industry gained some market share.

(f) E m p l o y m e n t

(119) 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.

2003

CI employment product concerned

2 449

Index (2003 = 100)

100

Table 8

2004

2 403

98

2005

2 369

97

2006

2 256

92

ERIP

2 262

92

(g) P r o d u c t i v i t y

(120) 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

3 428

2004

3 425

2005

3 549

2006

3 391

ERIP

3 734

CI productivity (tonnes per
employee)

Index (2003 = 100)

100

100

104

99

109

(h) M a g n i t u d e o f d u m p i n g m a r g i n

(121)

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.

12.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/17

3.3. Data relating to the sampled Community producers

(a) S a l e s p r i c e s a n d f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g d o m e s t i c p r i c e s

(122) 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

2004

139

111

2003

125

100

2005

160

129

2006

177

142

ERIP

178

143

287 696

338 001

314 876

324 795

385 287

SP unit price EC market (EUR/tonne)

Index (2003 = 100)

SP sales volume to third countries
(tonnes)

Index (2003 = 100)

100

117

109

113

134

(b) S t o c k s

(123) 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

SP closing stocks (tonnes)

136 769

105 162

174 197

281 922

281 656

Index (2003 = 100)

100

77

127

206

206

(c) W a g e s

(124) 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

49,9

2004

50,3

2005

53,3

2006

56,6

ERIP

56,6

SP annual labour cost per employee
(thousand EUR)

Index (2003 = 100)

100

101

107

113

113

L 185/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.7.2008

(d) I n v e s t m e n t s

(125) 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

SP net investments (thousand EUR)

20 016

23 142

44 719

38 258

44 305

Index (2003 = 100)

100

116

223

191

221

(e) P r o f i t a b i l i t y o n s a l e s a n d r e t u r n o n c a p i t a l e m p l o y e d

(126)

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

5,8 %

2004

8,9 %

2005

9,6 %

2006

5,0 %

ERIP

7,2 %

SP profitability of EC sales to
unrelated customers (% of net sales
price)

Index (2003 = 100)

100

152

163

86

123

SP 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) C a s h - f l o w a n d a b i l i t y t o r a i s e c a p i t a l

(127) Cash-flow has slightly decreased by 6 % during the period considered, after showing some fluc­
tuations 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

SP cash-flow (thousand EUR)

65 390

77 896

77 326

26 434

61 528

Index (2003 = 100)

100

119

118

40

94

12.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/19

(128) The

any

reveal

investigation did not

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

rather due

(129) 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
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.

(133)

First Instance, in its judgment in Case T-210/95 (1) estab­
lished 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 compe­
tition, 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 afore­
mentioned improvement.

4. Likelihood of continuation/recurrence of injury

4.1. General

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

and prices of

the

4.2. Likely export volumes and prices of the country concerned

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

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

capacity

surplus

(131) 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 quali­
tatively more
an assessment.
such
Furthermore,
it was argued that, on the basis of the
latter indicators, the Community industry was suffering
injury.

adequate

for

(132) Given the particular

its capital

characteristics of

fertiliser
the
industry (inter alia,
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

(135) 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.

(136)

to be attractive

the Community market would
In the above context,
appear
the Russian exporting
for
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
countries, would also render the Community market
more attractive and would therefore lead to the redir­
ection to the Community of current exports by Russian
producers to third countries.

(1) European Court reports 1999 Page II-03291.

L 185/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.7.2008

any more

some Member States

restricted use would equally

(137) 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,
started applying
restrictions on the usage of AN according to that
party. These arguments had to be rejected. The impact
of
affect
Community and Russian producers. Self-supply of the
Community market may have increased after the enlar­
in 2004 and 2007, also because the new
gement
from the
Member
anti-
States
dumping duty in place.
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
for
should be
Russian producers that yield significantly lower prices
both on their domestic and on third countries’ exports
markets.

started benefiting

attractive

Indeed,

very

favourable

in some cases,

conditions more

(138) 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
therefore they were less
period considered and that
dependent on gas. Also,
it was argued
that Community producers were able to buy natural
gas at
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
(and
hence price levels) mentioned above. This creates a
in the Community
situation where the price levels
would be
for Russian
exporters in the foreseeable future.

structurally more

impact on cost

attractive

(139)

share

to increase

their market

In order
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.

(140)

it is underlined that Russian producers (to
In addition,
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.

(141) 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 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
repeal of

export volumes and price effects in case of
measures

(142)

from Russia

export volumes

In view of the above established likelihood of significant
increase of
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.

(143) 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
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

important costing element,

12.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/21

force

from Russia will

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
the Community
volumes
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

(144) 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.

2. Interest of the Community industry

development

(148) The Community industry has proven to be a structurally
viable industry. This was confirmed by the relatively
positive
situation
the
throughout
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.

the period considered.

In particular,

economic

its

of

(149)

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
increased imports at
be maintained,
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.

is likely that

it

3. Interest of importers

(150) As mentioned in recital (23), no unrelated importer orig­
inating in the country concerned cooperated with the
present investigation.

E. COMMUNITY INTEREST

1. Preliminary remarks

(145) 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
the
Community as a whole. The determination of
Community interest was based on an appreciation of
all the various interests involved.

(151)

(146)

in the original

investigation,
It should be recalled that,
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.

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 anti-dumping 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 (1). 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
in the absence of cooperation of
measures. However,
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.

(147) 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.

(152) There is no reliable information available indicating that
the maintenance of the measures will have a significant
negative effect on importers or traders.

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

L 185/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.7.2008

4. Interest of users

(153) 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 en­
vironmental regulation has increased the cost burden.
These claims, however, were not substantiated.

(154) EFMA provided substantiated agronomic and economic
evidence which showed that AN represents a small part
it
of total production costs for the farmers. Therefore,
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
financial
measures would not
interests of the farmers.

adversely affect

the

5. Conclusion on Community interest

(155) Given the above,

it

is concluded that

compelling reasons against
current anti-dumping measures.

the maintenance of

there are no
the

F. UNDERTAKINGS

the

(156) The Commission on 19 December 2006 (1) initiated a
partial
lodged by
interim review following a request
OJSC Acron and OJSC Dorogobuzh, members of
‘Acron’ Holding Company. The results of that interim
in Council Regulation (EC) No
review were set out
236/2008 (2). During
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 Regu­
lation. However, as stated in recitals (56) and (57) of the
abovementioned Council Regulation,
the Council
considered that Acron should exceptionally be allowed
to complete its undertaking offer within 10 calendar days
that Regulation due to the
from entry into force of
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 to the
publication of Regulation (EC) No 236/2008 and within
the deadline as
in that Regulation, Acron
submitted an acceptable price undertaking in accordance
with Article 8(1) of the basic Regulation.

set out

in
acceptable
Article 8(1) of the basic Regulation.

undertaking

price

accordance with

(158) The Commission by Decision 2008/577/EC (4), accepted
the undertaking’s offers. The Decision sets out in more
the reasons accepting these undertakings. The
detail
offers
the
Council
eliminate the injurious effect of dumping and limits to
a sufficient degree the risk of circumvention.

undertaking’s

recognises

that

the compliance of

(159) To further enable the Commission and the customs auth­
orities to effectively monitor
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.

(160) 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 under­
taking 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.

(161)

Importers should be aware that a customs debt may be
incurred, as a normal trade risk, at the time of acceptance
the declaration for release into free circulation as
of
described in recitals (159) and (160) even if an under­
taking offered by the manufacturer from whom they
were buying, directly or indirectly, had been accepted
by the Commission.

(157) During the course of the partial interim review initiated
on 30 November 2005 (3), EuroChem offered an

(1) OJ C 311, 19.12.2006, p. 55.
(2) OJ L 75, 18.3.2008, p. 1.
(3) OJ C 300, 30.11.2005, p. 8.

(162) 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.

(4) See page 43 of this Official Journal.

12.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/23

(163) 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 obli­
gations upon which acceptance is based.

2. Expiry review

(170) The anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of AN
originating in Russia should be maintained pursuant to
Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

(164)

In the event of a breach or withdrawal of the under­
takings, or in case of withdrawal of acceptance of under­
taking 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

(165) 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

(166)

In view of
the conclusions reached with regard to
dumping and the lasting nature of the changed circum­
stances, 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.

(167) 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.

(168) Since in the original investigation the duty was imposed
it should
in the form of a specific amount per tonne,
have the same form in the current investigation. Thus,
the duty is EUR 32,82/tonne. The duty should be
applied,
in accordance with 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 fertilisers with a nitrogen content
exceeding 28 % by weight.

(169) Although this duty has been based on data from NAK
Azot, as stated in recital (30) above, it will apply to all
sales made by EuroChem, regardless of by which related
factory the product has been manufactured.

3. Final consideration

(171) Given that two exporters were, in the context of partial
interim reviews given the opportunity to offer under­
takings, special consideration will be given, as appro­
priate, 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
are
warranted.

such reviews

sufficient

evidence

that

H. DUTIES

(172)

In view of the conclusions reached with regard to conti­
nuation of dumping,
likelihood of recurrence of injury
and Community interest, the anti-dumping measures on
imports of AN originating in Russia should be main­
tained in order to prevent a recurrence of injury being
caused to the Community industry by the dumped
imports,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

3102 30 90,

interim review of

The partial
the anti-dumping measures
applicable to imports of solid fertilisers with an ammonium
nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight falling within CN
ex 3102 29 00,
codes
ex 3105 10 00,
ex 3102 60 00,
ex 3105 20 10,
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 shall be replaced by the following:

ex 3102 90 00,

ex 3105 51 00,

ex 3105 59 00

3102 40 90,

The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty shall be a

‘2.
fixed amount as specified below:

“EuroChem”, member
companies, Moscow, Russia,

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

and

of

L 185/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.7.2008

Product description

CN code

TARIC code

Fixed amount of duty
(EUR per tonne)

— Ammonium nitrate other than in aqueous solutions

3102 30 90

of

ammonium nitrate with

— Mixtures
calcium
carbonate
non-fertilising
substances, with a nitrogen content exceeding 28 %
by weight

inorganic

other

or

3102 40 90

— Solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content

3102 29 00

exceeding 80 % by weight

— Solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content

3102 60 00

exceeding 80 % by weight

— Solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content

3102 90 00

exceeding 80 % by weight

— Solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content
exceeding 80 % by weight with no phosphorus and
no potassium content

3105 10 00

—

—

10

10

10

10

32,82

32,82

32,82

32,82

32,82

32,82

— 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

3105 10 00

20

31,84

3105 10 00

30

30,85

3105 10 00

40

29,87

3105 10 00

50

28,88

3105 20 10

30

31,84

3105 20 10

40

30,85

3105 20 10

50

29,87

12.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/25

Product description

CN code

TARIC code

Fixed amount of duty
(EUR per tonne)

— 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

— 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 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

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

L 185/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.7.2008

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

Product description

CN code

TARIC code

Fixed amount of duty
(EUR per tonne)

— Ammonium nitrate other than in aqueous solutions

3102 30 90

of

ammonium nitrate with

— Mixtures
calcium
non-fertilising
carbonate
substances, with a nitrogen content exceeding 28 %
by weight

inorganic

other

or

3102 40 90

— Solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content

3102 29 00

exceeding 80 % by weight

— Solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content

3102 60 00

exceeding 80 % by weight

— Solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content

3102 90 00

exceeding 80 % by weight

— Solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content
exceeding 80 % by weight with no phosphorus and
no potassium content

3105 10 00

—

—

10

10

10

10

47,07

47,07

47,07

47,07

47,07

47,07

— 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

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

12.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/27

Product description

CN code

TARIC code

Fixed amount of duty
(EUR per tonne)

— 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

— 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 20 10

60

41,42

3105 51 00

10

45,66

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’

L 185/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.7.2008

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 3105 59 00 and
ex 3105 90 91 and originating in Russia.

ex 3102 90 00,

ex 3105 10 00,

ex 3105 20 10,

ex 3105 51 00,

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,
independent customer in the
Community (TARIC additional code A522):

to the first

Product description

CN code

TARIC code

Fixed amount of duty
(Euro per tonne)

— Ammonium nitrate other than in aqueous solutions

3102 30 90

of

ammonium nitrate with

— Mixtures
calcium
non-fertilising
carbonate
substances, with a nitrogen content exceeding 28 %
by weight

inorganic

other

or

3102 40 90

— Solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content

3102 29 00

exceeding 80 % by weight

— Solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content

3102 60 00

exceeding 80 % by weight

— Solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content

3102 90 00

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

— 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

—

—

10

10

10

10

20

32,82

32,82

32,82

32,82

32,82

32,82

31,84

3105 10 00

3105 10 00

3105 10 00

30

30,85

3105 10 00

40

29,87

3105 10 00

50

28,88

3105 20 10

30

31,84

12.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/29

Product description

CN code

TARIC code

Fixed amount of duty
(Euro per tonne)

— 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

— 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

3105 20 10

40

30,85

3105 20 10

50

29,87

3105 20 10

60

28,88

3105 51 00

3105 51 00

10

20

31,84

30,85

3105 51 00

30

29,87

3105 51 00

40

29,41

3105 59 00

3105 59 00

10

20

31,84

30,85

3105 59 00

30

29,87

3105 59 00

40

29,41

3105 90 91

3105 90 91

30

40

31,84

30,85

L 185/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.7.2008

Product description

CN code

TARIC code

Fixed amount of duty
(Euro per tonne)

— 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 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
(EUR per tonne)

— Ammonium nitrate other than in aqueous solutions

3102 30 90

of

ammonium nitrate with

— Mixtures
calcium
carbonate
non-fertilising
substances, with a nitrogen content exceeding 28 %
by weight

inorganic

other

or

3102 40 90

— Solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content

3102 29 00

exceeding 80 % by weight

— Solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content

3102 60 00

exceeding 80 % by weight

— Solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content

3102 90 00

exceeding 80 % by weight

— Solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content
exceeding 80 % by weight with no phosphorus and
no potassium content

3105 10 00

—

—

10

10

10

10

47,07

47,07

47,07

47,07

47,07

47,07

— 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

3105 10 00

20

45,66

3105 10 00

30

44,25

3105 10 00

40

42,83

3105 10 00

50

41,42

12.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/31

Product description

CN code

TARIC code

Fixed amount of duty
(EUR per tonne)

— 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

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

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

L 185/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.7.2008

Product description

CN code

TARIC code

Fixed amount of duty
(EUR per tonne)

— 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

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 the customs
to Article 145 of Commission Regulation
value pursuant
(EEC) No 2454/93 (1),
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-
4.
dumping duty shall not apply to imports released for free circu­
lation in accordance with Article 3.

Unless otherwise

5.
concerning customs duties shall apply.

specified,

the provisions

in force

Article 3

1.
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 Decision
shall be
2008/577/EC, as
exempt from the anti-dumping duty imposed by Article 2, on
condition that:

from time to time amended,

— they are manufactured, shipped and invoiced directly by the
said companies to the first independent customer in the
Community, and

(1) OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1.

— such imports are accompanied by an undertaking invoice
the
which is a commercial
elements and the declaration stipulated in the Annex of
this Regulation, and

invoice containing at

least

— the goods declared and presented to customs correspond
precisely to the description on the undertaking invoice.

A customs debt shall be incurred at the time of acceptance

2.
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 trans­
actions and declares the relevant undertaking invoices as
invalid.

Article 4

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

12.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/33

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

Done at Brussels, 8 July 2008.

For the Council
The President

C. LAGARDE

L 185/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.7.2008

ANNEX

The following elements shall be indicated in the commercial
Community of goods which are subject to the undertaking:

invoice accompanying the company’s sales to the

1. The heading ‘COMMERCIAL INVOICE ACCOMPANYING GOODS SUBJECT TO AN UNDERTAKING’.

2. The name of the company issuing the commercial invoice.

3. The commercial invoice number.

4. The date of issue of the commercial invoice.

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

frontier.

6. 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 tonne,

— the applicable payment terms,

— the applicable delivery terms,

— total discounts and rebates.

8. 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.

9. 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 2008/577/EC. I declare that the information provided in this invoice
is complete and correct.’