Council Regulation (EC) No 1187/2008 of 27 November 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of monosodium glutamate originating in the People’s Republic of China
Date: 2008-11-27
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, food additive, import, originating product

2.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 322/1

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

I

REGULATIONS

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1187/2008

of 27 November 2008

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on
imports of monosodium glutamate originating in the People’s Republic of China

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

suppliers in the Community after the imposition of the
provisional anti-dumping measures.

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 Article 9 thereof,

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

Whereas:

1. PROCEDURE

1.1. Provisional measures

(1)

(2)

The Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 492/2008 (2)
(the provisional Regulation) imposed a provisional anti-
dumping duty on imports of monosodium glutamate
(MSG) originating in the People’s Republic of China
(PRC).

1.2. Subsequent procedure

several

Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and
considerations on the basis of which it was decided to
impose provisional anti-dumping measures (provisional
disclosure),
interested parties made written
submissions making their views known on the pro­
visional
findings. The parties who so requested were
granted an opportunity to be heard. The Commission
continued to seek and verify all information it deemed
necessary for its definitive findings.

(3)

The Commission continued its investigation with regard
to Community interest aspects and carried out an
information provided by some users and
analysis of

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 144, 4.6.2008, p. 14.

(4)

(5)

(6)

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

provisional

the essential

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

It is recalled that the investigation of dumping and injury
covered the period from 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007
(‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’). With respect to the trends
relevant
the Commission
analysed data covering the period from April 2004 to
the end of the IP (‘period considered’).

the injury assessment,

for

2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

(7)

In the absence of any comments concerning the product
concerned and the like product, recitals 12 to 14 of the
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

3. DUMPING

3.1. Application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation

(8)

In the absence of any comments concerning the appli­
cation of Article 18 of
the basic Regulation to one
exporting producer in the PRC, recitals 15 to 18 of the
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

L 322/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.12.2008

3.2. Market economy treatment (MET)

(9)

Following the provisional disclosure,
the two Chinese
exporting producers which were not granted MET
contested the provisional findings.

(10)

(11)

In the case of the first company it was submitted that, in
its opinion, International Accounting Standard (IAS) only
required the preparation of consolidated accounts and
did not require the consolidated accounts to be audited
in line with IAS.

In this regard, it should be recalled that, despite several
requests,
this company did not provide the relevant
consolidated financial statements, including the auditors’
report neither in its MET claim form nor during the on-
spot visit in the PRC. The IAS state and explain inter­
nationally agreed accounting principles and provide
guidance as to how they should be applied. Performing
an audit of accounting records in line with IAS means
that the audit ensures that the accounting records were
prepared and presented in line with IAS and that they
comply therewith. In case of a breach of such principles,
the audit report should mention the impact of the non-
compliance and the reasons why IAS principles were not
applied. IAS 27, in particular, clearly states the conditions
under which firms should prepare and present
their
consolidated accounts. The company does not contest
that
in the
context of the MET investigation.

these conditions were applicable to it

(12) Article 2(7)(c) second indent of

the basic Regulation
clearly provides that
firms applying for MET should
have basic accounting records which are independently
audited in line with IAS and applied for all purposes. It
thus seems clear
that accounts should not only be
prepared but also audited in line with IAS. The absence
of an audit
in line with IAS does not allow the
Commission to establish whether or not the accounts
were prepared in line with IAS. On this basis alone it
could not be concluded that criterion two was fulfilled.

(13)

(14)

The same exporting producer further claimed that in its
view the offsetting of revenues and expenses was not of
material nature and that the non-disclosure could not
influence the economic decision of users taken on the
basis of the financial statements. Therefore there was no
violation of IAS.

This claim however seems to contradict the first one that
accounts should be prepared but not audited in line with
IAS. If this were the case, the firms themselves, and not
competent and independent auditors as
required in
Article 2(7)(c), would assess whether or not offsetting
might not be forbidden, if revenues and expenses were
not of material nature,
if such offsetting could not
influence the economic decision of users and if such
offsetting detracts from the ability of users to understand
the transactions undertaken.

(15) Moreover, while it has to be accepted that the notion
‘materiality’ leaves room for interpretation, paragraph 30
of IAS 1 provides that an item that is not sufficiently
material to warrant separate presentation on the face of
the financial statements may nevertheless be sufficient
material that it should be presented separately in the
notes. Therefore, in view of the fact that the offsetting
was not mentioned in the audit report nor in the notes
to the
is
confirmed that the accounts of the company were not
audited in line with IAS.

statements of

company it

financial

the

(16)

In addition, the offsetting in question were those found
by the Commission investigators. Only an in-depth audit
would have revealed if there were no other cases where
accounts were not prepared and audited in line with IAS.
In the absence of such an audit, the Commission does
not have the material time, nor is it the purpose of the
on-spot visit, to audit the accounts and the presentation
of the accounts of the companies. Therefore, findings of
firms,
the Commission which point
claiming MET, fail to meet the requirement of the basic
Regulations to prepare accounting records and ensure
that the accounts are prepared and audited in line with
IAS leads to the conclusion that criterion two is not
fulfilled.

to the fact

that

(17)

Finally, the same company disagreed with the conclusion
that a negative working capital together with interest-free
borrowings has to be considered as a distortion carried
over from the former non-market economy system but
rather a sign of managerial efficiency.

(18)

alone

It should firstly be noted that the findings relating to the
negative working capital were subsidiary findings and
were not the main ones leading to the conclusion that
the applicant did not fulfil the MET criterion. Secondly, a
negative working capital
can be a sign of
managerial efficiency but only in a business with low
inventory and low accounts receivable, which basically
can only be found in enterprises operating on an
almost cash-only basis, such as department stores and
supermarkets. The analysis of
this
Chinese exporting producer, however, was completely
different. A negative working capital has to be considered
rather as a sign that a company may be facing bank­
ruptcy or serious financial trouble. Under such circum­
stances, being able to receive huge amounts of ‘trade
credits’ without any financial cost would be highly
unlikely in market economy conditions. Therefore, the
company
significant
which represented a significant share of its total short
term liabilities (the latter
total
liabilities) and which resulted to a significant level of
negative working capital has to be considered as not in
line with market economy behaviour.

interest-free borrowings of

representing 80 % of

the situation of

the

2.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 322/3

(19)

the

In particular,

In the case of the second company, no new arguments
were provided which alter the provisional findings on
it has been confirmed that
MET.
the
influence of
State-owned shareholder on the
decision making process of the company was dispropor­
tionately high and that the State agreed to reduce the
established value of
the land use rights by 50 %
without any compensation. It was also confirmed that
the accounts of the company were not audited in line
with IAS.

3.4.2. Methodology applied for the determination of normal

value

(26) One Chinese

exporting producer
the differences

an
claimed that
adjustment
for
raw
in the costs of
In particular this exporting
material should be made.
producer alleged that MSG produced from molasses as
it is the case in the analogue country was more costly
than MSG produced from corn or rice starch.

(20)

In the absence of any other comments concerning MET,
recitals 19 to 26 of the provisional Regulation are hereby
confirmed.

3.3. Individual treatment (IT)

(21) One

interested party

anti-competitive
practices and State interference would encourage circum­
vention of
the
Chinese producers should be granted IT.

the measures and therefore none of

claimed that

(22) However,

this

interested party did not provide any
to how such allegedly anti-competitive
evidence as
practices and alleged State interference would permit
circumvention of measures. Moreover, the investigation
revealed that any theoretical State interference would be
only possible via the China Fermentation Industry As­
sociation of which both exporting producers
are
members. However, all decisions and recommendations
taken by this Association were of a non-binding nature.
Therefore, this claim had to be rejected.

(27) However,

it

the Chinese

appeared that

exporting
producer significantly overstated the ratio between the
input of molasses and the output of MSG in comparison
the cooperating
of what was found and verified at
producer
the
claim that it was more costly to produce MSG in the
analogue country had to be rejected.

in the analogue country. Accordingly,

(28)

In the absence of any other comments concerning the
methodology applied for the determination of normal
value, recital 35 of the provisional Regulation is hereby
confirmed.

3.5. Export price

(29)

In the absence of any comments concerning the export
price, which would alter the findings at the provisional
stage, recitals 36 and 37 of the provisional Regulation
are hereby confirmed.

(23)

In the absence of any other comments with regard to IT,
recitals 27 to 29 of the provisional Regulation are hereby
confirmed.

(30)

In the absence of any other comments concerning the
comparison,
the provisional
Regulation are hereby confirmed.

recitals 38 and 39 of

3.6. Comparison

3.4. Normal value

3.4.1. Analogue country

(24) One interested party contested the choice made by the
Commission to use Thailand as analogue country and, in
particular, the producer Ajinomoto Thailand, which is
related to the Community producer. However,
the
arguments and remarks by this party were submitted
after
submitting
comments (1), but more importantly they were provided
without any substantiation. Therefore, these comments
had to be disregarded.

specific

limit

time

the

for

set

3.7. Dumping margins

(31)

For the companies granted IT,
the weighted average
normal value was compared with the weighted average
export price of the corresponding type of the product
concerned, as provided for in Articles 2(11) and (12) of
the basic Regulation.

(32) On this basis, the definitive dumping margins expressed
as a percentage of the CIF Community frontier price,
duty unpaid, are:

— Fujian Province Jianyang Wuyi MSG Co. Ltd: 36,5 %,

(25)

In the absence of any other comments concerning the
analogue country, recitals 30 to 34 of the provisional
Regulation are hereby confirmed.

— Hebei Meihua MSG Group Co. Ltd

(1) Point 6(c) of the Notice of Initiation, OJ C 206, 5.9.2007, p. 23.

and Tongliao Meihua Bio-Tech Co. Ltd: 33,8 %

L 322/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.12.2008

(33)

The basis for establishing the country-wide dumping
margin was set out in recital 42 of the provisional Regu­
lation, which, in the absence of any comments, is hereby
the country-wide level of
confirmed. On this basis
the CIF
dumping was
Community frontier price, duty unpaid.

established at 39,7 % of

4. INJURY

(38)

4.1. Definition of the Community industry

(34)

In the absence of any comments concerning the defi­
nition of the Community industry, recitals 44 to 46 of
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

4.2. Community consumption

(35)

(36)

absence of

concerning the
In the
Community consumption, recital 47 of the provisional
Regulation is hereby confirmed.

any comments

4.3. Imports into the Community from the PRC

the provisional disclosure, one of

the
Following
Community importers claimed that
the Commission
findings with regard to the fluctuation of the Chinese
export price in the period considered were distorted
due to using financial years rather than calendar years.
The period under consideration started on 1 April 2004
whereas the use of calendar years would have meant
starting this period on 1 January 2004. According to
the data presented by the company, this change in the
starting point would show a 12 % increase in Chinese
export prices between the calendar year 2004 and IP in
contrast to the slight decrease reported in recital 50 of
the provisional Regulation. However, it should be noted
that data presented by the importer was based on its
total purchasing prices which obviously covered only
part of the Chinese exports to the Community. Having
examined the data with regard to the average prices of all
imports of MSG from the PRC, based on Eurostat, it was
found that the relevant Chinese prices increased by only
0,5 % from January 2004 to the end of the IP and not by
12 % as claimed by the importer. The difference in price
trends between that found for the period considered (a
decrease of 2 %) and that found for the period from
January 2004 to the end of
the IP (an increase of
0,5 %) is not such as to alter the conclusions drawn in
regard to the effect of these prices on the situation of the
Community industry. Therefore this claim had to be
rejected.

to 52 of
confirmed.

the provisional Regulation are hereby

4.4. Economic situation of the Community industry

running

Certain interested parties questioned the analysis of the
trends of the injury indicators. They claimed that the use
of 12-month periods
in line with the
complainant’s financial year rather than calendar years
effectively shortened the period under consideration to
to a big
three years as the financial year 2007 is,
extent, overlapping with the IP. These parties claimed
that in order to make a proper appraisal of the trends
of the injury indicators, the period considered should be
prolonged to cover the full calendar year 2004. In this
regard, it should be pointed out that the basic Regulation
does not provide for a strict timeline regarding the defi­
nition of the period considered. Furthermore, the WTO
Recommendation concerning
data
collection for anti-dumping investigations provides that
‘As a general rule, […] the period of data collection for injury
investigations normally should be at least three years […]’ (1).
Nevertheless, a comparative analysis of the basic injury
indicators on a calendar year basis was made,
i.e.
assuming a period considered of 2004, 2005, 2006
and the IP,
in order to verify if different conclusions
would be drawn as regards injury. This analysis has
shown that the trends of the main injury indicators do
not change significantly.

the periods of

such as

the decreases

in
Although certain trends
production and sales volumes would be less pronounced
as compared to the conclusions in the provisional Regu­
lation, other findings relating to the negative profitability
of the Community industry, the huge increase of imports
from the PRC and the severe price undercutting would
remain unchanged. Furthermore, it should be noted that
the
the period considered serves as an indicator of
the Community industry’s
evolution of
situation to
determine whether it can be considered to be suffering
material injury during the IP. In these circumstances, the
argument of the parties is rejected on the ground that the
injury picture would have continued to show material
injury even if the period considered was extended by
the first trimester of 2004.

(39) Additionally,

the

complainant

commented on the
the provisional Regulation.
wording of recital 60 of
the sentence ‘the
The complainant pointed out
acquisition of Orsan SA by Ajinomoto Foods Europe’
was not correct as Orsan SA was acquired by the
Ajinomoto
renamed
Ajinomoto Foods Europe.

subsequently

Group

that

and

(37)

In the absence of any other comments with regard to
imports into the Community from the PRC, recitals 48

(1) G/ADP/6 of 16 May 2000.

2.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 322/5

(40)

Based on the above
conclusion that
material
provisional Regulation, is hereby confirmed.

the
suffered
injury, as set out in recitals 70 to 72 of the

facts and considerations,

the Community

industry

(45)

5. CAUSATION

5.1. Effects of dumped imports

(41) One interested party claimed that during the period
considered there was no coincidence in time between
the
the negative trend in profitability observed for
in the
Community industry and the development
import volumes from the PRC. Accordingly,
it was
claimed that
imports from the PRC could not have
caused injury to the Community industry. Although
in recitals 60 and
this matter was explained in detail
61 of
is further noted
it
the provisional Regulation,
that, in accordance with Article 3(6) of the basic Regu­
it is not just the volumes of dumped imports
lation,
which may be a relevant
factor in assessing whether
dumped imports have been the cause of material injury
to the Community industry, but also, in the alternative,
the prices of these imports. In recital 76 of the provi­
‘[…] the low
sional Regulation it was concluded that
priced dumped imports
from the PRC which significantly
undercut the prices of the Community industry during the IP,
and which also significantly increased in volume, have had a
determining role in the injury suffered by the Community
industry’. Given the development of volumes and prices
it is
of dumped imports during the period considered,
considered that this claim should be rejected.

(42) Another interested party claimed that

the increase in
imports of MSG from the PRC in the period considered
did not affect the situation of the Community industry as
these imports were mainly replacing imports from other
sources.

(43)

In this respect it is recalled that, even though the Chinese
imports of MSG did indeed replace imports from other
countries to a certain extend, as explained in recital 57 of
the provisional Regulation,
low-priced dumped imports
from the PRC consistently managed to gain market share
also at the expenses of the Community industry even
when Community consumption was decreasing.
In
addition, this claim is not supported by the findings of
this investigation which showed that the surge of low-
priced dumped imports from the PRC that significantly
undercut the price of the Community industry led to a
situation of material injury suffered by the Community
industry during the period considered. On that basis, this
claim should be rejected.

(44)

In the absence of any other comments in this regard,
recitals 74 to 76 of
the provisional Regulation are
hereby confirmed.

5.2. Effects of other factors

the

the material

reiterated the

imposition of

interested parties

claims put
Various
the provisional
forward before
measures
injury suffered by the
that
Community industry was caused by factors other than
the dumped imports. These claims, with regard speci­
fically to the restructuring costs and increasing costs of
raw materials which allegedly affected the Community
industry, were already duly addressed in recitals 60 and
61 of the provisional Regulation.

(46) One interested party reiterated claims made before the
imposition of the provisional measures that any material
injury suffered by the Community industry may also be
caused by exports of MSG from the PRC made by
related to the Community industry. Ad­
companies
ditionally,
the complainant
this party claimed that
misled the Commission by not disclosing the existence
of related companies in the PRC and by hiding the fact
that these related companies in China exported MSG to
the Community. On that basis, this party considered that
Article 18 of the basic Regulation should be applied to
the complainant. The same party further claimed a
breach of its rights of defence because the versions of
the
the
complainant for inspection by interested parties (open
version) did not disclose the fact that the complainant
has related companies in the PRC that were involved in
the MSG business.

complaint and the questionnaire

reply of

(47) As already explained in recital 94 of

the provisional
Regulation, the question of the exports of MSG to the
Community by one producer in the PRC known to be
related to the Community industry was not considered to
be relevant due to their insignificant volume. It should be
stressed also that
the complainant did not provide
misleading information to the Commission in regard to
its related companies in the PRC. This information was
reported in the confidential versions of the complaint
the complainant’s questionnaire reply.
is a
and of
fact that this information was not originally included in
the open version of the complaint or in the open version
of the complainant’s questionnaire reply. However, the
complainant provided open versions including infor­
mation on its related companies in the PRC subsequently
during the procedure.
is
considered that no breach of the right of defence of
parties took place. Furthermore, no convincing evidence
the claim that
was presented which could support
Ajinomoto Group was aware of
the alleged indirect
export activity of one of its related Chinese companies.
Therefore,
the application of
Article 18 of the basic Regulation is not warranted in
this situation and the claim is rejected.

In these circumstances,

is considered that

It

it

it

L 322/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.12.2008

the

imposition of

(48) One of the interested parties reiterated the claims put
forward before
the provisional
measures as to the impact of the exchange rate of the
US dollar against the Euro on the price undercutting
calculations and export performance of the Community
industry. However, no additional information or evidence
was provided that would alter the conclusions reached in
recitals 84 to 90 of the provisional Regulation which are
hereby confirmed.

the Ajinomoto Group’s global strategy,

(49) One interested party reiterated its claim made before the
the provisional measures regarding the
imposition of
impact of
in
particular exports to the EU market by Ajinomoto-
owned producers of MSG in third countries, and the
impact of these on the complainant’s profits and stock
level. In recital 92 of the provisional Regulation it was
stated that sales of MSG on the Community market orig­
inating from exporters
related to the Community
industry in countries outside the Community were
constantly and significantly decreasing over the period
it was concluded in
considered. As a consequence,
recital 95 of
the
the imports of
Community industry from related parties outside the
Community have not contributed to the material injury
found. This party has not provided any additional infor­
mation or evidence that would alter this conclusion
which is hereby confirmed.

that regulation that

5.3. Conclusion on causation

(50) Given the above analysis which has properly dis­
tinguished and separated the effects of all other known
factors on the situation of the Community industry from
the injurious effects of the dumped imports, it is hereby
confirmed that these other factors as such do not reverse
the fact that the material injury found must be attributed
to the dumped imports.

(51) Given the above,

it

is concluded that

the dumped
imports of MSG originating in the PRC have caused
material
injury to the Community industry within the
meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.

(52)

In the absence of other comments in this respect, the
conclusions in recitals 99 and 100 of the provisional
Regulation are hereby confirmed.

6. COMMUNITY INTEREST

6.1. Interest of the Community industry

(53)

In the absence of any other comments in this particular
regard, the findings set out in recitals 103 to 106 of the
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

6.2. Interest of the importers

its MSG business.

(54) One importer claimed that the negative impact of the
anti-dumping measures may have on its economic
situation was underestimated in recital 108 of the pro­
visional Regulation. According to the company, given the
low profitability of its MSG sales and the limited possi­
bility of passing on the price increase to its clients, the
anti-dumping measures would mean
imposition of
It should be noted that
closure of
the MSG business does not represent a major share of
the activity of the said importer which is mainly sourcing
its MSG from the PRC. The importer in question has the
option to switch to other sources of supply which are
not affected by the anti-dumping measures. However, as
mentioned in recital 108 of the provisional Regulation,
the expected effect of the imposition of the measures will
be to restore effective trade conditions in the Community
market, which in this case may lead to increased prices of
in particular from the Community industry and
MSG,
from the PRC. Therefore,
all
it
importers should be able to pass on at least some of
their cost
increase resulting from the imposition of
anti-dumping measures. On that basis, the conclusion
reached in recital 108 of the provisional Regulation is
therefore confirmed.

expected that

is

6.3. Interest of users

(55)

(56)

impact of

the possible

Following the comments made by interested parties
the proposed
concerning
measures on the users industry further analyses was
carried out on the basis of information provided by the
main users of MSG in the Community, namely Nestlé
and Unilever. The
investigation showed that MSG
represents less than 3 % of the cost of production of
all products
containing MSG produced by both
companies. Therefore, taking additionally into account
the indications on the relatively high average profit
rates which both companies had reached during the IP
in particular on these products, it can be confirmed that
the possible impact of the proposed measure on their
activity would not be significant.

6.4. Interest of the suppliers of raw materials

found that

it was
companies had

Further to recital 115 of the provisional Regulation, the
analysis with regard to the interests of
the upstream
supplier of the Community industry was extended to
include the data provided by a second supplier. On the
basis of the questionnaire replies provided by the two
the
suppliers,
supplying
significantly
during the period considered in line with the dete­
rioration of the situation of the Community industry.
suppliers
The
decreased in the range of 8 % to 13 % and their sales
to the Community industry noted even twice
as
significant drop (in the range of 15 % to 25 %). Both
companies
in their
also
profitability rates.

the
deteriorated

situation of

experienced

investigated

turnover

decrease

total

the

of

a

2.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 322/7

(57)

Taking into account the above findings, the content of
recital 116 of
the provisional Regulation is hereby
confirmed.

(63)

The rates of the definitive duties are definitively set as
follows:

(58)

(59)

6.5. Competition and trade distorting effects

the

alleged

dominant

Some of the interested parties reiterated their comments
the
regarding
Ajinomoto Group worldwide and its alleged monopo­
listic position in the Community. These issues were
already addressed in recital 117 of the provisional Regu­
lation. No new evidence concerning these claims was
presented.

position of

in

and

users

Several interested parties raised additional arguments in
relation to post-IP developments on the MSG market.
They claimed that import volumes decreased and prices
rose after the IP, thus eliminating any potential injury to
the Community industry. In this situation, these parties
the imposition of anti-dumping duties
claimed that
would
the
harm importers
only
Community. The parties raised also a point on alleged
global shortages of MSG supplies as, according to their
data, several
important producers worldwide ceased to
produce or decreased production capacity. However,
Eurostat data and additional information obtained from
the Community industry do not support
the above
claims. To the contrary,
import prices remained stable
in the post-IP period and in certain months even
decreased, while import volumes both from the PRC
and third countries increased. The latter development
demonstrates that some non-Chinese competitors have
the capacity to develop their exports to the Community.

Injury
elimination
margin

Dumping
margin

Anti-
dumping
duty rate

54,8 %

33,8 %

33,8 %

Company

Hebei Meihua MSG Group
Co. Ltd, and
Tongliao Meihua Bio-Tech
Co. Ltd

Fujian Province Jianyang
Wuyi MSG Co. Ltd

60,4 %

36,5 %

36,5 %

All other companies

63,7 %

39,7 %

39,7 %

(64)

the

duty

company

individual

findings of

the present

anti-dumping

(as opposed to the

The
rates
specified in this Regulation were established on the
basis of
investigation.
Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that
to these companies. These
investigation with respect
duty rates
country-wide duty
applicable to ‘all other companies’) are thus exclusively
applicable to imports of products originating in the
country concerned and produced by the companies and
thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported
products produced by any other company not specifically
mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with
its name and address, including entities related to those
specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates
and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all
other companies’.

6.6. Conclusion on Community interest

the
the further investigation of
(60) Given the results of
Community interest
case described
the
aspects of
above, the findings and conclusions contained in recital
119 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

7. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

7.1. Injury elimination level

(61)

In the absence of any substantiated comments that would
alter
the conclusion regarding the injury elimination
level, recitals 120 to 122 of the provisional Regulation
are hereby confirmed.

(e.g.

(65) Any claim requesting the application of these individual
following a
company anti-dumping duty rates
change in the name of
the entity or following the
setting up of new production or sales entities) should
be addressed to the Commission (1) forthwith with all
relevant information,
in particular any modification in
the company’s activities linked to production, domestic
and export sales associated with, for example, that name
that change in the production and sales
change or
entities.
then be
amended accordingly by updating the list of companies
benefiting from individual duty rates.

the Regulation will

If appropriate,

7.2. Form and level of the duties

7.3. Undertakings

(62)

In the light of the foregoing and in accordance with
Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, a definitive anti-
dumping duty should be imposed at a level sufficient
to eliminate the injury caused by the dumped imports
without exceeding the dumping margin found.

(66) One cooperating Chinese exporting producer offered a

price undertaking.

(1) European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, Directorate H,

Office N105 04/092, 1049 Brussels, Belgium.

L 322/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.12.2008

(67)

(68)

(69)

sales of

the majority of

In this respect it is noted that MSG prices are negotiated
globally with large international firms with production
facilities inside and outside the Community.
It is also
noted that
this exporting
producer are mainly made to such international firms.
In view of the above, it was considered that the risk of
cross-compensation of prices between sales agreements
their production
made with international
facilities
facilities
located in other countries outside the Community as
very high. It was also considered that such cross-compen­
sation would be extremely difficult to be detected in the
the undertaking.
framework of
Therefore,
exporting
producer, in its current form, had to be rejected as its
acceptance was considered impractical in view of the fact
that
it could not be appropriately monitored by the
Commission.

in the Community and for

the undertaking offer of

the monitoring of

firms

their

this

for

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on
1.
imports of monosodium glutamate falling within CN code
ex 2922 42 00 (TARIC 2922 42 00 10) and originating in the
People’s Republic of China.

2.
The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to
the net, free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, of the
products manufactured by the companies listed below shall be
as follows:

Company

AD duty
rate (%)

TARIC
additional
code

33,8

A883

7.4. Definitive collection of provisional duties and

special monitoring

Hebei Meihua MSG Group Co. Ltd, and
Tongliao Meihua Bio-Tech Co. Ltd

In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found
and in the light of the level of the injury caused to the
Community industry, it is considered necessary that the
amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping
duty,
i.e.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 492/2008, should be
definitively collected to the extent of the amount of the
definitive duties imposed.

the provisional Regulation,

imposed by

Fujian Province Jianyang Wuyi MSG Co. Ltd

36,5

A884

All other companies

39,7

A999

Unless otherwise

3.
concerning customs duties shall apply.

specified,

the provisions

in force

individual duty rates

It is recalled that should the exports by the companies
benefiting from lower
increase
significantly in volume after the imposition of the anti-
dumping measures, such increase could be considered as
constituting in itself a change in the pattern of trade due
to the imposition of measures within the meaning of
Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation. In such circum­
stances, and provided the conditions are met, an anti-
circumvention investigation may be initiated. This inves­
tigation may, inter alia, examine the need for the removal
of individual duty rates and the consequent imposition of
a country-wide duty,

Article 2

Amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties
pursuant
to Commission Regulation (EC) No 492/2008 on
imports of monosodium glutamate falling within CN code
ex 2922 42 00 (TARIC 2922 42 00 10) and originating in the
People’s Republic of China shall be definitely collected.

Article 3

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

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

Done at Brussels, 27 November 2008.

For the Council
The President

M. ALLIOT-MARIE