Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the People's Republic of China
Date: 2009-08-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, brick, heat-resisting materials, import, originating product

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 12.8.2009 
COM(2009) 425 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

amending Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on 
imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the People's Republic of China 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

Context of the proposal 

•  Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This  proposal  concerns  the  application  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22 
December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of 
the European Community, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 
of 21 December 2005 (‘the basic Regulation’) in the proceeding concerning imports of 
certain magnesia bricks originating in the People's Republic of China. 

•  General context 

This proposal is made in the context of the implementation of the basic Regulation and 
is the result of an investigation which was carried out in line with the substantive and 
procedural requirements laid out in the basic Regulation. 

•  Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

Council Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and 
collecting  definitely  the  provisional  duty  imposed  on  imports  of  certain  magnesia 
bricks originating in the People's Republic of China (PRC).  

•  Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

2. 

Consultation of interested parties and impact assessment 

•  Consultation of interested parties 

Interested parties concerned by the proceeding have had the possibility to defend their 
interests during the investigation, in line with the provisions of the basic Regulation. 

•  Collection and use of expertise 

There was no need for external expertise. 

•  Impact assessment 

This proposal is the result of the implementation of the basic Regulation. 

The  basic  Regulation  does  not  foresee  a  general  impact  assessment  but  contains  an 
exhaustive list of conditions that have to be assessed. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3. 

Legal elements of the proposal 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

On 12 June 2008 the Commission initiated a partial interim review of the anti-dumping 
measures applicable to imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the PRC. The 
investigation  was  limited  in  scope  to  the  examination  of  dumping  as  far  as  the 
applicant,  Bayuquan  Refractories  Company  Limited,  is  concerned.  This  exporting 
producer is currently subject to the country-wide anti-dumping duty of 39,9%. 

The  investigation  confirmed  that  the  applicant  is  eligible  for  an  individual  dumping 
margin calculation as there were no grounds to refuse individual treatment ('IT') to the 
company.  However,  as  the  company  was  found  not  to  meet  the  market  economy 
treatment ('MET') criteria, the calculation of the individual dumping margin was based 
on  the  normal  value  obtained  from  the  analogue  country  –  the  United  States  of 
America.  

The investigation showed that no dumping took place during the investigation period. 
It  was  also  concluded  that  the  circumstances  found  during  the  current  investigation 
period were of a lasting nature. 

It is therefore suggested that the Council adopts the attached proposal for a Regulation, 
which  should  be  published  no  later  than  11  September  2009,  in  order  to  amend  the 
anti-dumping duty applicable to imports of certain magnesia bricks from the applicant 
to 0%.  

•  Legal basis 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22 December  1995  on  protection  against 
dumped  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European  Community,  as  last 
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 of 21 December 2005. 

•  Subsidiarity principle 

The proposal falls under the exclusive competence of the Community. The subsidiarity 
principle therefore does not apply. 

•  Proportionality principle 

The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reason: 

The form of action is described in the above-mentioned basic Regulation and leaves no 
scope  for  national  decision.  Indication  of  how  financial  and  administrative  burden 
falling  upon  the  Community,  national  governments,  regional  and  local  authorities, 
economic operators and citizens is minimized and proportionate to the objective of the 
proposal is not applicable 

•  Choice of instruments 

Proposed instrument: Regulation. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

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

4. 

Budgetary implication 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget.  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

amending Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on 
imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the People's Republic of China 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,  

Having  regard  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22  December  1995  on  protection 
against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community1 (the basic 
Regulation), and in particular Article 11(3) thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

1. 

PROCEDURE  

1.1. 

Existing measures 

(1) 

The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1659/20052 ('the original Regulation'), imposed a 
definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the 
People's Republic of China ('the PRC'). The measures consist of an ad valorem duty 
rate of 39,9%, with the exception of six companies expressly mentioned in the original 
Regulation which are subject to individual duty rates. 

1.2. 

Request for a review 

(2) 

Subsequent  to  the  imposition  of  definitive  measures,  the  Commission  received  an 
application to initiate a partial interim review of the original Regulation ('the interim 
review'), pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, from a Chinese exporting 
producer,  Bayuquan  Refractories  Company  Limited  ('the  applicant'  or  'BRC').  The 
applicant  did  not  participate  in  the  investigation  which  led  to  the  findings  and 
conclusions  laid  down  in  the  original  Regulation  (the  original  investigation)  and 
therefore the residual anti-dumping duty is applied to the company.  

1 
2 

OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.  
OJ L 267, 12.10.2005, p. 1.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(3) 

In  its  application  for  the  interim  review  BRC  claimed  that  it  meets  the  criteria  for 
market  economy  treatment  ('MET')  and  individual  treatment  ('IT').  The  applicant 
company  was  purchased  by  the  Vesuvius  Group  which  resulted  in  changes  in  the 
company's corporate structure. The applicant argued that a comparison of its domestic 
prices  and  cost  of  production  and  export  prices  to  the  Community  indicates  that  the 
dumping margin is substantially lower than the current level of measure. Therefore, it 
claimed that the continued application of the measure at its current level was no longer 
necessary to offset dumping. 

1.3. 

Initiation of a partial interim review 

(4) 

Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence 
existed  for  the  initiation  of  an  interim  review,  the  Commission  decided  to  initiate  a 
partial interim review in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, limited 
in scope to the examination of dumping as far as BRC is concerned. The Commission 
published  a  notice  of  initiation  on  12  June  2008  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the 
European Union3 and commenced an investigation.  

1.4. 

Product concerned and like product 

(5) 

(6) 

The  product  concerned  by  the  interim  review  is  the  same  as  that  described  in  the 
original Regulation, i.e. chemically bonded, unfired magnesia bricks, whose magnesia 
component  contains  at  least  80%  MgO,  whether  or  not  containing  magnesite, 
originating in the PRC ('the product concerned'), currently falling within CN codes ex 
6815 91 00, ex 6815 99 10 and ex 6815 99 90 (TARIC codes 6815 91 00 10, 6815 99 
10 20 and 6815 99 90 20). 

The product produced and sold on the Chinese domestic market and that exported to 
the  Community,  as  well  as  that  produced  and  sold  in  the  USA  have  the  same  basic 
physical, technical and chemical characteristics and uses and are therefore considered 
to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.  

1.5. 

Parties concerned 

(7) 

(8) 

The  Commission  officially  advised  the  Community  industry,  the  applicant  and  the 
representatives  of  the  exporting  country  of  the  initiation  of  the  interim  review. 
Interested  parties  were  given  the  opportunity  to  make  their  views  known  in  writing 
and to be heard. All interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were 
particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.  

The  Commission  sent  a  market  economy  treatment  (MET)  claim  form  and  a 
questionnaire  to  the  applicant  and  received  a  reply  within  the  deadline  set  for  that 
purpose. The Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary 
for  the  determination  of  dumping,  and  verification  visits  were  carried  out  at  the 
premises of the following companies: 

3 

OJ C 146, 12.6.2008, p.27. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Bayuquan Refractories Co. Ltd. (the applicant), PRC 

Vesuvius UK Co. Ltd. (related importer), UK 

Vesuvius Iberica Refractories S.A. (related importer), Spain 

Vesuvius Deutschland GmbH (related importer), Germany 

Vesuvius Italia S.P.A. (related importer), Italy 

1.6. 

Investigation period 

(9) 

The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 April 2007 to 31 March 2008 
('investigation period' or 'IP'). 

2. 

RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION 

2.1.  Market Economy Treatment (MET) 

(10)  Pursuant  to  Article  2(7)(b)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  in  anti-dumping  investigations 
concerning  imports  from  the  PRC,  normal  value  shall  be  determined  in  accordance 
with  paragraphs  (1)  to  (6)  of  Article  2  of  the  basic  Regulation  for  those  producers 
which  were  found  to  meet  the  criteria  laid  down  in  Article  2(7)(c)  of  the  basic 
Regulation, i.e. where it is shown that market economy conditions prevail in respect of 
the manufacture and sale of the like product. These criteria are set out in a summarised 
form below:  

–  business  decisions  are  made  in  response  to  market  signals,  without  significant 

State interference, and costs reflect market values,  

–  firms  have  one  clear  set  of  basic  accounting  records  which  are  independently 
audited in line with International Accounting Standards ('IAS') and applied for all 
purposes,  

–  there  are  no  significant  distortions  carried  over  from  the  former  non-market 

economy system,  

–  bankruptcy and property laws guarantee stability and legal certainty, 

–  currency exchanges are carried out at market rates. 

(11)  The  applicant  requested  MET  pursuant  to  Article  2(7)(b)  of  the  basic  Regulation  by 
submitting  a  duly  substantiated  MET  claim  form  within  the  given  deadline.  The 
information  and  data  presented  therein  were  subsequently  subject  to  an  on-spot 
investigation.  

(12)  The  investigation  established  that  the  applicant  did  not  meet  MET  criteria  two  and 
three of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. The company did not substantiate that 
it  had  one  clear  set  of  basic  accounting  records  which  were  prepared  and  audited  in 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
compliance  with  IAS.  Its  financial  statements  and  individual  accounts  showed 
breaches of IAS and accounting principles such as incorrect booking and depreciation 
of fixed assets and incorrect booking of accounts "payable" and "advanced payments". 
The  auditor  did  not  mention  these  irregularities,  and  thus  it  was  concluded  that  the 
financial statements were not audited in line with IAS (criterion two). Furthermore, the 
company did not demonstrate that it was free from significant distortions carried over 
from the former non-market economy, in particular because the land use rights were 
obtained significantly below their market price (criterion three).  

(13)  Based on the above facts and considerations, the applicant could not be granted MET. 

(14)  The  Community  industry,  the  applicant  and  the  authorities  of  the  exporting  country 
were  given  the  opportunity  to  comment  on  the  findings  concerning  MET. 
Subsequently, the applicant and the Community industry submitted their comments.  

(15)  The applicant argued that the issues raised on its accounting records were not material 
and/or  were  subsequently  corrected  in  2008.  It  should  be  mentioned  that  the 
inconsistencies  found  in  the  accounts  of  the  company  for  2007  led  to  a  significantly 
distorted picture of the company's financial situation. The inspection of  the accounts 
for  the  IP  revealed  that  the  problems  encountered  in  2007  still  existed  in  2008.  The 
claim made by the company that its accounting practices were changed at the end of 
2008 could not be accepted since these changes occurred 9 months after the IP and, in 
addition, could not be verified during the on-spot visit. 

(16)  The Community industry argued that the applicant failed on criterion one because the 
various  export  restrictions  imposed  by  the  Chinese  Government  on  the  main  raw 
material  to  produce  the  product  concerned  led  to  distorted  prices  of  raw  material  on 
the domestic market. As a result the Chinese producers of magnesia bricks can obtain 
the raw material at better conditions compared to their competitors in other countries.  

(17)  For  the  investigation  of  this  claim  the  purchase  prices  of  the  main  raw  material, 
magnesia,  by BRC and publically quoted prices for  Chinese magnesia (source: Price 
Watch/Industrial minerals) provided by the Community industry were examined. The 
comparison  showed  that  the  price  difference  in  the  IP  could  not  be  considered  as 
significant. Moreover, it could be verified during the investigation that BRC was free 
to purchase magnesia from various suppliers, and that prices were negotiated without 
any  State  interference.  On  that  basis  it  appears  that  any  distortions  concerning  raw 
material prices did not have any significant impact on this specific company during the 
IP. 

(18)  On  the  basis  of  the  above,  the  findings  and  the  conclusion  that  MET  should  not  be 

granted to BRC are confirmed.  

2.2. 

Individual Treatment 

(19)  Pursuant  to  Article  2(7)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  a  country-wide  duty,  if  any,  is 
established  for  countries  falling  under  that  article,  except  in  those  cases  where 
companies are able to demonstrate that they meet all criteria for individual treatment 
(IT)  set  out  in  Article  9(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  These  criteria  are  set  out  in  a 
summarised form below:  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
–  in the case of wholly or partly foreign owned firms or joint ventures, exporters are 

free to repatriate capital and profits; 

–  export  prices  and  quantities,  and  conditions  and  terms  of  sale  are  freely 

determined; 

–  the majority of the shares belong to private persons, and it must be demonstrated 

that the company is sufficiently independent from State interference; 

–  exchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate; 

–  State interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual 

exporters are given different rates of duty. 

(20)  The applicant,  as  well as requesting  MET, also claimed IT in the event of not being 

granted MET.  

(21)  The investigation showed that the applicant met all the above criteria. No facts were 
established during the investigation which would lead to the rejection of the IT claim 
of the applicant. It is therefore concluded that IT could be granted to BRC.  

2.3. 

Normal value  

(22)  According to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, in case of imports from non-market-
economy  countries  and  to  the  extent  that  MET  could  not  be  granted,  for  countries 
specified in Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, normal value has to be established 
on the basis of the price or constructed value in an analogue country. 

(23) 

In  the  notice  of  initiation  the  Commission  indicated  its  intention  to  use  the  United 
States  of  America  ('USA')  as  an  appropriate  analogue  country  for  the  purpose  of 
establishing  normal  value  for  the  PRC,  as  this  analogue  country  was  used  in  the 
original  investigation.  One  producer  in  the  USA  agreed  to  cooperate  in  the 
investigation  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  normal  value  for  BRC.  No  comments 
were received from the interested parties with regard to this proposal. 

(24)  Hence,  pursuant  to  Article  2(7)(a)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  normal  value  for  the 
applicant  was  established  on  the  basis  of  verified  information  received  from  the 
cooperating producer in the analogue country.  

(25) 

In  order  to  ensure  that  normal  values  could  be  established  for  the  vast  majority  of 
types  exported from the PRC, in particular because the data of the analogue  country 
was  used,  it  was  considered  appropriate  to  adjust  the  criteria  used  to  identify  the 
different product types accordingly. The dumping calculations were, therefore, revised 
on the basis of the adjusted criteria. 

(26)  For the determination of normal value it was first established whether the cooperating 
US producer's total volume of domestic sales of the like product was representative in 
comparison  with  its  total  volume  of  export  sales  to  the  Community.  In  accordance 
with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation domestic sales are considered representative 
when  the  total  domestic  sales  volume  was  at  least  5%  of  the  total  volume  of 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
corresponding  export  sales  to  the  Community.  It  was  found  that  all  sales  by  the  US 
producer concerned on the domestic market were sold in representative volumes.  

(27)  Subsequently,  those  types  of  the  like  product  sold  on  the  domestic  market  that  were 
identical and directly comparable to the types sold for export to the Community, were 
identified. 

(28)  For  each  product  type  sold  by  the  cooperating  producer  in  the  USA  on  its  domestic 
market  and  found  to  be  directly  comparable  to  the  type  of  magnesia  bricks  sold  by 
BRC  to  the  Community,  it  was  established  whether  US  domestic  sales  were 
sufficiently  representative  for  the  purposes  of  Article  2(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation. 
Domestic  sales  of  a  particular  type  of  magnesia  bricks  were  considered  sufficiently 
representative when the total domestic sales volume in the USA of that type during the 
IP  represented  5%  or  more  of  the  total  sales  volume  of  the  comparable  type  of 
magnesia  bricks  exported  by  BRC  to  the  Community.  It  was  found  that  all  product 
types  were  sold  in  sufficient  quantity  on  the  domestic  market  to  be  considered 
representative.  

(29)  The  Commission  subsequently  examined  whether  the  domestic  sales  in  the  USA  of 
each  type  of  magnesia  bricks  sold  domestically  in  representative  quantities  could  be 
regarded  as  having  been  made  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade,  by  establishing  the 
proportion of profitable sales to independent customers of the magnesia bricks type in 
question.  

(30)  Domestic  sales  transactions  were  considered  profitable  where  the  unit  price  of  a 
specific product type was equal to or above the cost of production. Cost of production 
of  each  type  sold  on  the  domestic  market  of  the  USA  during  the  IP  was  therefore 
determined. 

(31)  As  a  result  of  the  above  analysis,  it  was  found  that,  except  for  one  product  type,  all 
other  types  were  sold  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade  in  the  USA.  Thus,  the  normal 
value for these product types was established on the basis of all prices paid or payable 
on the domestic market of the USA for product types comparable to those exported to 
the  Community  by  BRC.  Normal  value  was  established  as  the  weighted  average 
domestic sales price charged to unrelated customers in the USA.  

(32)  The majority of the product types exported by BRC to the Community were those with 
additional treatment and were not sold or not sold in representative quantities by the 
cooperating  producer  in  the  USA.  Hence,  normal  value  for  these  product  types  was 
based on sales in the USA, as described in recital (31) for corresponding product types 
without  additional  treatment,  further  adjusted  to  reflect  the  differences  in  physical 
characteristics of the product. The level of the adjustment was calculated on the basis 
of  data  provided  and  verified  for  the  Community  industry  during  the  original 
investigation.  

(33)  For  the  only  product  type  where  domestic  prices  could  not  be  used  as  mentioned  in 
recital (31) above, another method had to be applied. In this regard, the Commission 
used  constructed  normal  value.  In  accordance  with  Article  2(3)  of  the  basic 
Regulation, normal value was constructed by adding to the manufacturing costs of the 
exported  types  a  reasonable  amount  for  selling,  general  and  administrative  expenses 
(‘SG&A’)  and  a  reasonable  margin  of  profit.  Pursuant  to  Article  2(6)  of  the  basic 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
Regulation,  the  amounts  for  SG&A  and  profit  margin  were  based  on  the  average 
SG&A and profit margin of sales in the ordinary course of trade of the like product. 

2.4. 

Export price  

(34)  Since all export sales of BRC to the Community were made via related importers, the 
ex-works  export  price  had  to  be  constructed  in  accordance  with  Article  2(9)  of  the 
basic Regulation, on the basis of the price at which the imported products were  first 
resold to the first independent buyer in the Community, adjusted for all costs incurred 
between  importation  and  resale,  as  well  as  a  reasonable  margin  for  SG&A  and  for 
profits. In this regard the SG&A costs of the related importers were used.  

(35)  As regards a reasonable importer's profit to be used for this purpose, in the absence of 
data  from  unrelated  importers,  since  the  current  interim  review  is  limited  to  the 
examination of dumping in relation to one company, the profit margin was based on 
the profit achieved by a cooperating unrelated importer from the original investigation.  

2.5. 

Comparison  

(36)  The  average  normal  value  and  the  average  export  price  for  each  type  of  the  product 
concerned were compared on an ex-works basis and at the same level of trade and at 
the  same  level  of  indirect  taxation.  In  order  to  ensure  a  fair  comparison  between 
normal value and export price, account was taken, in accordance with Article 2(10) of 
the basic Regulation, of differences in factors which were claimed and demonstrated to 
affect prices and price comparability. For this purpose, adjustments for transport costs, 
insurance,  handling  charges,  credit  costs,  and  actual  anti-dumping  duties  paid  were 
made where applicable and justified.  

(37)  The investigation has established that the VAT paid on export sales was not refunded. 
In  the  disclosure  which  was  provided  to  the  applicant  pursuant  to  Article  20  of  the 
basic Regulation, it was therefore indicated that both the export price and the normal 
value would be established on a VAT paid or payable basis. The applicant argued that 
this  approach  is  not  acceptable  as  it  would  increase  the  normal  value  by  an  amount 
exceeding the VAT amount which should have been deducted from the export price.  

(38)  Regarding this argument, it should be noted that during the review investigation period 
('RIP') no VAT on export sales was refunded. Therefore, no adjustment in respect of 
VAT, neither to the export price nor to normal value, was necessary. In addition, the 
method used is neutral. Indeed it has the same effect, also if, for instance for certain 
products or transactions, the company sells to the Community at an export price which 
does not result in dumping. In other words, even assuming that the inclusion of VAT 
on both sides of the equation would increase the difference between the two elements, 
that would also be the case for those models for which there was no dumping.  

2.6. 

Dumping margin  

(39)  As  provided  for  under  Article  2(11)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  weighted  average 
normal  value  by  type  was  compared  with  the  weighted  average  export  price  of  the 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
corresponding type of the product concerned. This comparison showed no existence of 
dumping.  

3. 

LASTING NATURE OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES  

(40) 

(41) 

In  accordance  with  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  it  was  also  examined 
whether the changed circumstances could reasonably be considered to be of a lasting 
nature.  

In this respect it is recalled that the applicant only sold a limited quantity of magnesia 
bricks at the end of the IP of the original Regulation and thus did not participate in the 
original investigation, therefore a residual duty of 39,9% was applied to the company. 
Subsequently,  the  company  which  existed  during  the  original  investigation  was 
purchased  by  the  Vesuvius  Group  and  it  resulted  in  changes  in  the  company's 
corporate structure.  

(42)  The applicant provided full cooperation in this interim  review and  the data collected 
and  verified  allowed  to  establish  a  dumping  margin  based  on  its  individual  export 
prices  to  the  Community.  The  result  of  this  calculation  indicates  that  the  continued 
application of the measure at its current level is no longer justified.  

(43)  Evidence obtained and verified during the investigation also showed that the changes 
in the applicant's corporate structure are to be considered lasting. No element emerged 
in the course of the investigation that would suggest otherwise. The circumstances that 
led  to  the  initiation  of  this  interim  review  are  unlikely  to  change  in  the  foreseeable 
future in a manner that would affect the findings of the current review. Therefore it is 
concluded that the changed circumstances are considered to be of a lasting nature. 

4. 

ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES  

(44) 

(45) 

In  the  light  of  the  results  of  this  review  investigation,  it  is  considered  appropriate  to 
amend  the  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  imports  of  the  product  concerned  from 
Bayuquan Refractories Company Limited to 0%.  

Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis 
of which it was intended to recommend an amendment of Council Regulation (EC) No 
1659/2005 and were given an opportunity to comment. The comments were taken into 
account where appropriate, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

The  table  in  Article  1(2)  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1659/2005  is  hereby  amended  by 
adding the following: 

Manufacturer  

Anti-dumping duty  TARIC 

additional 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
Bayuquan Refractories Co. Ltd, 
Qinglongshan Street, Bayuquan District, 
Yingkou 115007, Liaoning Province, PRC  

0% 

Article 2 

code 

A960 

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

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

Done at Brussels, […] 

For the Council 
The President 
[…] 

EN 

13 

   EN