Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Date: 2011-04-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Bosnia and Herzegovina, anti-dumping duty, metallic ore, originating product

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 13.4.2011 
COM(2011) 203 final 

2011/0085 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION  

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina  

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This  proposal  concerns  the  application  of  Article  5  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries 
not  members  of  the  European  Community,  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not 
members of the European Community (‘the basic Regulation’) and in particular Article 
9 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. 

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 

Provisional  measures  were  imposed  by  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  1036/2010 
(OJ L 298, 16.11.2010, p.27). 

Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Consultation of interested parties 

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

Collection and use of expertise 

There was no need for external expertise. 

Impact assessment 

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

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

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

Summary of the proposed action 

On  17  February  2010,  the  Commission  initiated  an  anti-dumping  proceeding 
concerning imports of Zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The investigation found dumping of the product concerned, which caused injury to the 
Union industry. The investigation also found that it was not against the Union interest 
to impose anti-dumping measures. On this basis, provisional measures were imposed.  

The continuation of the investigation has confirmed the essential provisional findings. 

Therefore, it is proposed that the Council adopts the attached proposal for a Regulation 
in order to impose definitive measures on imports of zeolite A powder originating in 
Bosnia and Herzegovina. 

Legal basis 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1225/2009  of  30  November  2009  on  protection  against 
dumped  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European  Community,  repealing 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22  December  1995  on  protection  against 
dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (‘the basic 
Regulation’)  

Subsidiarity principle 

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

Proportionality principle 

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

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

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

Choice of instruments 

Proposed instrument: Regulation. 

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

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the EU budget. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2011/0085 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION  

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty 
and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports 
of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection 
against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community repealing 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22  December  1995  on  protection  against  dumped 
imports from countries not members of the European Community1, ("the basic Regulation") 
and in particular Article 9 thereof, 

Having  regard  to  the  proposal  submitted  by  the  European  Commission  ("the  Commission") 
after having consulted the Advisory Committee, 

Whereas: 

1. 

(1) 

(2) 

2. 

(3) 

PROVISIONAL MEASURES 

The  Commission,  by  Regulation  (EU)  No  1036/20102  ("the  provisional  Regulation") 
imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of zeolite A powder originating 
in Bosnia and Herzegovina ("BiH"). 

The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 4 January 2010 by 
Industrias Quimicas del Ebro SA, MAL Magyar Aluminium, PQ Silicas BV, Silkem 
d.o.o.  and  Zeolite  Mira  Srl  Unipersonale  (the  'complainants'),  representing  a  major 
proportion,  in  this  case  more  than  25%  of  the  total  Union  production  of  zeolite  A 
powder. The complaint contained evidence of dumping and of material injury resulting 
therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding. 

SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE 

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"), several interested parties made written submissions making known their 

1 
2 

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. 
OJ L 298, 16.11.2010, p. 27. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
views  on  the  provisional  findings.  The  parties  who  so  requested  were  granted  the 
opportunity to be heard. 

The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for 
its definitive findings. 

It  is  recalled  that,  as  set  out  in  recital  (11)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the 
investigation  of  dumping  and  injury  covered  the  period  from  1  January  2009  to  31 
December  2009  ("the  investigation  period"  or  "IP").  The  examination  of  trends 
relevant  for  the  assessment  of  injury  covered  the  period  from  1  January  2005  to  the 
end of the investigation period ("period considered"). 

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

The  oral  and  written  comments  submitted  by  the  interested  parties  were  considered 
and taken into account where appropriate.  

PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

In the absence of any comments on these issues, recitals (12) to (15) of the provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

In view of the above, it is definitively concluded that all types of zeolite A powder as 
defined above are alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation. 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

3. 

(8) 

(9) 

4. 

SAMPLING 

(10)  The  Bosnian  exporting  producer  group  ("Birac")  returned  to  its  claim  made  at  the 
provisional  stage  of  the  investigation  that  a  non  sampled  Union  producer  (Silkem 
d.o.o.  or  "Silkem")  should  have  been  fully  consolidated  into  the  questionnaire 
response of a sampled Union producer (MAL Magyar Aluminium or "MAL") because 
the  two  companies  are  related.  It  was  claimed  that  if  this  omission  were  accepted  it 
would  amount  to  discrimination  between  Union  producers  and  exporters  as  in  cases 
where  there  are  related  exporting  producers  located  in  countries  subject  to  an  anti-
dumping investigation they are all required to submit replies to questionnaires. Further 
Birac claimed that both MAL and Silkem should be declared as non co-operating.  

(11)  These  claims  cannot  be  accepted.  For  the  reasons  explained  at  recital  (19)  of  the 
provisional  Regulation  both  MAL  and  Silkem  have  fully  co-operated  with  the 
investigation.  It  is  recalled  that  Silkem  provided  information  in  the  reply  to  the 
sampling  form  and  account  was  taken  of  Silkem  in  the  macro  data  indicators. 
However, the company was not included in the list of sampled companies on account 
of its small size. Therefore, Silkem did not need to submit so-called micro data and a 
fortiori  those  have  not  been  verified.  Moreover,  since  their  sales  of  the  product 
concerned are relatively small in comparison to those of MAL, there is no indication 
that consolidating Silkem's data into MAL's data would have made any difference.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

(12)  Furthermore, the allegation of discrimination between exporting producers and Union 
producers is clearly unfounded because the situations are different. On the one hand, 
the investigation into the existence of dumping is the one that is normally conducted at 
company  level  for  which  the  Institutions  need  to  calculate  a  company-specific 
dumping margin. Furthermore, a group of exporting producers has to be looked at in 
its totality since otherwise there is a risk that exports would be channelled through the 
part of the group with the lowest duty level. On the other hand, the injury investigation 
aims  at  examining  whether  the  Union  industry  as  a  whole  suffers  material  injury.  In 
this  case,  the  sampled  Union  producers  in  this  investigation  were  considered  to 
represent  the  entire  EU  production  in  respect  of  certain  injury  indicators  (micro 
indicators). This claim is therefore rejected. 

(13)  Birac also claimed that a Bosnian mining company, related to MAL, which supplies to 
this  particular  Union  producer  a  pre  raw  material  (i.e.  bauxite)  should  also  have 
cooperated with the investigation. In this respect it is noted that the mining company 
was  listed  in  MAL's  questionnaire  response.  Also,  the  costs  associated  with  the 
sourcing of bauxite, and its conversion into aluminium trihydrate, were fully reported 
in  MAL's  cost  of  production.  Therefore,  the  MAL  Group  fully  complied  with  the 
reporting  requirements  set  out  by  the  Commission  services.  This  claim  is  therefore 
rejected. 

(14) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  on  these  issues,  recitals  (16)  to  (20)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby definitively confirmed. 

5. 

DUMPING 

5.1. 

Normal value 

(15) 

It  is  recalled  that  in  the  absence  of  representative  domestic  sales,  normal  value  was 
constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation. 

(16)  To construct normal value pursuant to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, the selling, 
general and administrative (SG&A) expenses incurred and the weighted average profit 
realised by each of the cooperating exporting producers on domestic sales of the like 
product, in the ordinary course of trade, during the investigation period, was added to 
their own average cost of production during the investigation period. Since there are 
no separate types of the product concerned or like product, a weighted average profit 
was  used.  Where  necessary,  the  costs  of  production  and  SG&A  expenses  were 
adjusted,  before  being  used  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade  test  and  in  constructing 
normal values.  

(17)  Further  to  the  provisional  disclosure  Birac  submitted  comments  regarding  the 
determination  of  the  profit  margin  used  for  constructing  normal  value.  According  to 
Birac the methodology applied violates Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation because in 
this  specific  case  the  result  of  using  the  profit  margin  of  the  non-representative 
domestic sales to construct normal value is exactly the same as if the prices of the non-
representative  domestic  sales  had  been  used.  It  claimed  that  such  an  incoherent 
approach cannot have been intended by a combined reading of Articles 2(3) and 2(6) 
of the basic Regulation. It also considered that the profit margin used is unreasonable 
and  disproportionate,  in  particular  in  comparison  to  the  target  profit  used  for  the 
underselling calculations.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

(18)  Furthermore, Birac claimed that the domestic sales, due to their nature, should not be 
considered as having been made in the ordinary course of trade and should thus not be 
used to establish normal value.  

(19)  Regarding  the  first  claim,  it  is  noted  that  the  method  applied  is  in  line  with  the 
provisions of the basic Regulation and the jurisprudence stemming from WTO rulings, 
according  to  which  when  constructing  the  normal  value,  the  profit  of  the  domestic 
sales  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade  has  to  be  used,  even  if  these  sales  were  not 
representative.  In  this  specific  case  it  is  noted  that  since  all  domestic  sales  were 
profitable, constructing the normal value indeed gave the same result as if the normal 
value had been based on domestic sales prices. It should first be noted that the profit 
and  SG&A  data  were  based  on  the  company's  own  domestic  sales  which  were 
considered  to  be  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade.  It  is  further  noted  that 
"reasonableness" cannot be measured against the target profit used for the underselling 
calculations, since that profit reflects the situation on the Union market in the absence 
of  dumped  imports  and  cannot  therefore  constitute  a  proper  benchmark  for 
determining the profit to be used in the context of constructing normal value.The claim 
is therefore rejected. 

(20)  As regards the claim that the domestic sales should not be considered as having been 
made  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade,  the  investigation  established  that  the  data  and 
evidence  provided  by  Birac  constituted  a  reliable  basis  for  determining  the  normal 
value. Therefore this claim was not considered warranted and was therefore rejected.  

(21) 

In the absence of any other comments concerning the determination of normal value, 
the  method  described  in  recitals  (21)  to  (26)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  is 
confirmed.  

5.2. 

Export price  

(22) 

In the absence of any comments regarding the export price, recitals (27) and (28) of 
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

5.3. 

Comparison 

(23) 

In the absence of any comments regarding the comparison between normal value and 
export price, recital (29) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

5.4. 

Dumping margin 

(24) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  concerning  the  determination  of  the  dumping 
margin,  which  would  alter  the  provisional  findings,  recitals  (30)  to  (32)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

6. 

INJURY 

(25)  Comments  on  the  findings  concerning  injury  were  received  from  certain  Union 
producers, two users in the EU and from the sole Bosnian exporting producer.  

(26)  To  the  extent  that  arguments  have  already  been  fully  addressed  in  the  provisional 

Regulation they are are not repeated in this Regulation.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

6.1. 

General remarks 

(27) 

It is made clear at recitals (45) and (68) of the provisional Regulation that the Union 
industry  in  this  investigation  covers  all  producers  in  the  EU.  In  addition  the  injury 
factors on which the finding of injury was reached are, as a rule, based on data relating 
to  the  Union  industry.  When  data  relating  to  the  Union  industry  have  been  used, 
section 5.4 of the provisional Regulation identifies this by referring to "macro data". 
However, where information was not available for the entire Union industry the data 
of  the  representative  sample  of  Union  producers  was  used.  No  comments  were 
received on these issues and the provisional findings are definitively confirmed. 

(28)  However,  an  erroneous  statement  was  made  in  recital  (34).  This  recital  should  have 
read "All Union producers constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 
4(1)  and  Article  5(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation  and  will  be  hereafter  referred  to  as  the 
‘Union industry'". 

(29) 

In the absence of any other comments, the findings set out in recitals (52) to (56) of 
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

6.2. 

Union consumption 

(30) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments,  the  findings  set  out  in  recitals  (35)  to  (38)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

6.3. 

Imports from the country concerned 

(31) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments,  the  findings  set  out  in  recitals  (39)  to  (43)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

6.4. 

Situation of the Union industry 

6.4.1. 

Injury indicators 

(32) 

In  October  2010  an  industrial  incident  occurred  at  the  site  of  one  of  the  Union 
producers, MAL. However, figures supplied by the company show that its deliveries 
of  the  product  concerned  had  recovered  by  January  2011.  It  was  therefore  clear  that 
this incident did not have serious supply problems on the EU market. 

(33)  Birac asserted that as the above-mentioned Bosnian mining company related to MAL 
made  profits  in  the  IP,  the  Commission  should  adjust  MAL's  COP  and  profit  in  the 
calculation  of  the  economic  indicators  because  MAL's  profit  situation  was  allegedly 
reduced as a result of high profits made by its related mining company in Bosnia.  

(34)  With  respect  to  the  above  claim  it  is  noted  that  the  purchases  of  bauxite  from  the 
related company were made at arm's length. This issue was covered during the on-spot 
verification.  Because  MAL  purchased  bauxite  from  both  related  and  unrelated 
companies  during  the  IP  at  roughly  the  same  average  prices,  the  Commission  were 
satisfied  that  bauxite  purchases  were  made  at  arm's  length  prices  and  therefore  no 
adjustments  are  necessary  to  the  profitability  trend  of  MAL  which  was  used  in  the 
calculation of the trend shown at recital 52 of the provisional Regulation. This claim 
was therefore rejected. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

(35)  Birac  also  claimed  that  since  it  obtained  certain  raw  materials  directly  from  its 
production of alumina it had  significant competitive  advantages  over the  majority of 
the  EU  producers  and  this  should  be  reflected  in  the  injury  margins.  This  argument 
cannot  be  accepted.  If  a  company  has  a  competitive  advantage  this  should  normally 
have  an  effect  on  its  overall  dumping  calculation  in  terms  of  lower  costs  and  hence 
also  a  lower  normal  value.  This  kind  of  competitive  advantage  has  conceptually 
nothing  to  do  with  the  injury  margin.  The  latter  examines  whether  a  level  of  duty 
lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to remove the injury. This claim 
was therefore rejected. 

(36)  Union  users  claimed  that  the  positive  development  of  certain  injury  factors  was 
ignored in the Commission provisional assessment (profitability, cash flow and return 
on  investment)  stating  that  all  factors  should  be  analysed.  However  in  the  injury 
assessment  these  positive  developments  are  fully  analysed.  They  were  taken  into 
account but they were not considered decisive in this case for the reasons set out in the 
provisional Regulation (recitals (52) to (60) of the provisional Regulation) . This claim 
was therefore rejected. 

(37) 

In the absence of any other comments, the findings set out in recitals (44) to (64) of 
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

6.5. 

Conclusion on Injury  

(38)  Account taken of the above, and in the absence of any other comments in this respect, 
the  conclusions  reached  at  recitals  (65)  to  (69)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  are 
hereby confirmed. 

7. 

CAUSATION 

(39)  One  co-operating  user  claimed  that  the  causation  analysis  is  flawed  because  the 
Commission state that a temporary improvement was seen in certain injury factors for 
the  IP  (2009).  This  party  did  not  agree  with  the  assessment  made  that  the  higher 
profitability  made  in  the  IP  as  compared  to  2008  was  the  result  of  short  lived 
temporary developments which would not be repeated in 2010.  

(40)  With respect to the above submission it is noted that the party's arguments are simply 
statements  and  not  backed  up  by  any  new  evidence.  In  contrast  the  Commission's 
position  is  supported  by  information  submitted  by  the  EU  producers  during  the 
investigation  both  during  the  provisional  and  definitive  stages.  The  information 
submitted  in  the  run  up  to  the  verification  visits  was  also  verified  on  spot.  The 
predicted  post-IP  deterioration  in  profit  margins  is  also  confirmed  by  data  for  the 
entire year 2010 provided by two EU producers. This claim is therefore rejected. 

(41)  Birac  contested  the  provisional  finding  concerning  the  impact  of  imports  from  third 
countries. However, the Commission's analysis in the provisional Regulation at recital 
(77)  was  that  Birac  was  the  only  major  exporter  to  the  EU  market.  There  were 
practically  no  imports  from  other  sources.  Birac  provides  no  new  evidence  in  this 
respect and its claim is therefore rejected. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

(42)  One  co-operating  user  contested  the  analysis  made  in  the  provisional  regulation 
concerning the fall in consumption and quoted the cathode-ray colour television tubes 
anti-dumping investigation as a precedent regarding a contraction in demand.3 It was 
claimed that in the above-mentioned investigation a contraction in demand led to the 
closure of the proceeding. However there is no parallel between the cathode-ray colour 
television  tubes  case  and  the  current  investigation.  In  the  former,  consumption  fell 
dramatically  because  the  product  concerned  was  substituted  by  other  products.  By 
contrast, the fall in consumption is very moderate in the current investigation (7% - as 
stated at recitals (37) and (38) of the provisional regulation). In this respect it is also 
noted that the development of consumption was further elaborated under recitals (78) 
to (80) of the provisional Regulation but the aforesaid co-operating user was not in a 
position to provide any evidence to rebut  the Commission's s findings. These claims 
are therefore rejected. 

(43) 

In the light of the above, the findings set out in recitals (70) to (92) of the provisional 
Regulation,  i.e.  that  the  material  injury  to  the  Union  industry  was  caused  by  the 
dumped imports, are herby confirmed. 

8. 

UNION INTEREST 

(44)  One co-operating user claimed that the Commission provided misleading information 
regarding  the  importance  of  zeolite  costs  in  its  total  costs  at  recital  (104)  of  the 
provisional Regulation. In particular it was claimed that costs of zeolite are more than 
the 5% of total cost as quoted at recital (104). In this respect it is noted that this party 
did not supply any new data to support its claim while the Commission's findings were 
based  on  verified  information  from  the  co-operating  users.  With  respect  to  the  term 
"total  costs"  used  in  the  provisional  Regulation  at  recital  (104)  it  is  noted  that  it 
includes  all  manufacturing  costs  plus  Selling  and  General  Administration  costs.  In 
addition  the  "less  than  5%"  statement  is  an  average  covering  both  laundry  detergent 
and  water  softener  products  combined.  Finally  it  should  be  clarified  that  the  zeolite 
costs in water softener are higher than those of laundry detergent but by far the most 
important  use  relates  to  laundry  detergent.  Indeed  with  respect  to  this  particular  co-
operating  user  the  water  softeners  constituted  a  minor  part  of  the  turnover  of  its 
downstream products using zeolite. This claim is therefore rejected. 

(45)  One co-operating user challenged the provisional finding of recital (102) that China is 
a  potential  alternative  source  of  supply.  Bearing  in  mind  the  comments  made  the 
Commission  accepts  that  although  some  Chinese  merchandise  has  entered  the  EU 
market  in  the  IP  it  is  unlikely  that  this  will  be  in  the  near  future  become  a  major 
supplier  (see  recital  (41)  above).  However,  given  the  capacity  utilisation  rates  in  the 
European  Union  for  the  product  concerned  the  Commission  maintains  its  view  that 
there  are  no  supply  problems  in  respect  of  the  product  concerned.  This  claim  is 
therefore rejected. 

(46)  One  co-operating  user  claimed  that  if  duties  were  imposed  as  a  result  of  this 
investigation zeolite costs would increase to such an extent that its prices for laundry 
detergent  and  water  softener  products  would  also  increase  thereby  increasing 
consumer prices. This argument rests on the assumption that users will pass on price 

3 

Commission Decision of 15 November 2006, 2006/781/EC 

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
increases  of  zeolite  as  a  result  of  an  anti-dumping  duty.  In  the  first  place  the 
Commission  is  of  the  opinion  that  Union  producers  would  rather  benefit  from  the 
measures by increased economies of scales and not by increasing prices (see recitals 
(108) and (111) of the provisional Regulation). Finally, as stated above, the proportion 
of costs associated with zeolite in the total cost of production of downstream products 
is small so any consequence of the duty, albeit unlikely, would not put into question 
the provisional conclusion that there are no overriding Union interest reasons against 
the imposition of measures. This claim is therefore rejected. 

(47)  One co-operating user claimed that it may switch to non zeolite formulas in its laundry 
detergents  which  would  negatively  impact  the  EU  producers  of  zeolite.  The  EU 
producers  are  aware  from  information  on  the  file  "Open  for  Inspection  by  Interested 
Parties" that this risk to their business exists. However, no concrete evidence exists in 
order to evaluate the alleged impact to the Union industry of this hypothetical switch. 
This claim is therefore rejected.  

(48)  The  points  made  above  were  taken  into  account  in  the  definitive  stage  of  the 
investigation  but  do  not  alter  its  main  conclusions.  In  the  absence  of  any  other 
comments, the findings set out in recitals (93) to (112) of the provisional Regulation 
are hereby confirmed. It is theerfore concluded that no arguments have been raised to 
suggest  that  it  is  not  in  the  Union  interest  to  impose  measures  as  a  result  of  this 
investigation. 

9. 

DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 

9.1. 

Injury elimination level 

(49) 

In the absence of any comments, the findings set out in recitals (114) to (116) of the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

9.2. 

Definitive measures 

(50) 

In  view  of  the  conclusions  reached  with  regard  to  dumping,  injury,  causation  and 
Union  interest,  and  in  accordance  with  Article  9(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  a 
definitive  anti-dumping  duty  should  be  imposed  at  the  level  of  the  lowest  of  the 
dumping  and  injury  margins  found,  in  accordance  with  the  lesser  duty  rule.  In  this 
case, the duty rate should accordingly be set at the level of the dumping found. This 
was calculated at 28,1 % . 

(51)  On the basis of the above, the rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty for Bosnia and 

Herzegovina is 28,1 %. 

10. 

DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTY 

(52) 

In  view  of  the  magnitude  of  the  dumping  margin  found  and  given  the  level  of  the 
injury  caused  to  the  Union  industry,  it  is  considered  necessary  that  the  amounts 
secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  imposed  by  the  provisional 
Regulation  should  be  definitively  collected  to  the  extent  of  the  amount  of  the  duty 
definitively imposed by this Regulation. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

11. 

FORM OF THE MEASURES 

(53) 

In  the  course  of  the  investigation  the  Bosnian  exporting  producer  Alumina  d.o.o. 
Zvornik , together with its related company in the Union, Kauno Tiekimas AB, located 
in Kaunas Lithuania, offered a price undertaking in accordance with Article 8(1) of the 
basic  Regulation.  It  is  noted  that  recently  Fabrica  glinice  "Birac"  became  a  holding 
company and Alumina d.o.o, located in Zvornik, remained the sole exporting producer 
of the group. 

(54)  The offer was examined by the Commission. It is noted that the product concerned is a 
commodity  product  which  only  exists  in  one  product  type  and  specification,  thus 
excluding  a  possible  risk  of  price  compensation  through  various  product  types.  The 
investigation  showed  that  all  exports  to  the  Union  were  invoiced  via  the  related 
company  in  the  Union  (i.e.  Kauno  Tiekimas  AB,  Kaunas,  Lithuania).  This  related 
company sells also other products produced by the Birac group. However, the market 
for zeolite A powder is well defined and the customers purchasing zeolite A powder 
would by nature not buy the other products produced by the Birac Group. Therefore, it 
was concluded that a risk of cross-compensation by possibly selling other products to 
the same clients was very low.  

(55)  By  decisions  2011/XX/EU  the  Commission  has  accepted  the  undertaking  offer  from 
Alumina  d.o.o.  Zvornik  and  its  related  company  Kauno  Tiekimas.  The  Council 
recognises  that  the  undertaking  offer  eliminates  the  injurious  effect  of  dumping  and 
limits to a sufficient degree the risk of circumvention. 

(56)  To further enable the Commission and the customs authorities to effectively monitor 
the  compliance  of  Alumina  d.o.o.  Zvornik  and  its  related  company  with  the 
undertaking,  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 imported goods are manufactured, shipped and invoiced either directly by 
Alumina  d.o.o.  Zvornik  to  the  first  independent  customer  in  the  Union  or  invoiced 
directly by Kauno Tiekimas to the first unrelated customer in the Union and (iii) the 
fact  that  the  goods  declared  and  presented  to  the  customs  authorities  correspond 
exactly  with  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.  

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

(58) 

Importers should be aware that a customs debt may be incurred, as a normal trade risk, 
at  the  time  of  acceptance  of  the  declaration  for  release  into  free  circulation  as 
described in recitals (56) and (57) even if an undertaking offered by the manufacturer 
from  whom  they  were  buying,  directly  or  indirectly,  had  been  accepted  by  the 
Commission. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

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

(60)  For the reasons stated above, the undertaking offered by Alumina d.o.o. Zvornik and 
Kauno  Tiekimas  is  considered  acceptable  by  the  Commission.  The  companies 
concerned  have  been  informed  of  the  essential  facts,  considerations  and  obligations 
upon which acceptance were based.  

(61) 

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

1. 

Article 1 

A  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  is  hereby  imposed  on  imports  of  zeolite  A  powder, 
also  referred  to  as  Zeolite  NaA  or  Zeolite  4A  powder,  currently  falling  within  CN 
code  ex  2842  10  00  (TARIC  code  2842  10  00  30)  and  originating  in  Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina. 

The  rate  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  the  net,  free-at-  Union-
frontier price, before duty, of the products described in paragraph 1 shall be 28,1%. 

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

Article 2 

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 2011/XX/EU, as amended from time to time, shall be exempt from 
the anti-dumping duty imposed by Article 1, on condition that:  

—  they  are  manufactured,  shipped  and  either  invoiced  directly  by  Alumina  d.o.o., 
Zvornik, Bosnia and Herzegovina to the first independent customer in the Union or 
invoiced directly by the company Kauno Tiekimas AB, Kaunas, Lithuania to the first 
independent customer in the Union, and  

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

—  the  goods  declared  and  presented  to  the  customs  authorities  correspond  exactly 
with the description on the undertaking invoice.  

2. 

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

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
— whenever it is established, in respect of imports described in paragraph 1, that one 
or more of the conditions listed in that paragraph are not fulfilled, or  

—  when  the  Commission  withdraws  its  acceptance  of  the  undertaking  pursuant  to 
Article  8(9)  of  the  basic  Regulation  in  a  regulation  or  decision  which  refers  to 
particular transactions and declares the relevant undertaking invoices to be invalid.  

Article 3 

Amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to Regulation (EU) 
No 1036/2010 on imports of zeolite A powder, currently falling within CN code ex 2842 10 
00 (TARIC code 2842 10 00 30) originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina shall be definitively 
collected.  

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

Article 4 

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX  

The  following  elements  shall  be  indicated  in  the  commercial  invoice  accompanying  the 
companies’ sales to the Union of goods which are subject to the undertaking:  

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 Union frontier (Taric additional code xxxx or yyyy).  

6. The exact description of the goods, including:  

—  plain  language  description  of  the  goods  corresponding  to  the  goods  subject  to  the 
undertaking,  

— the company product code number (CPC),  

— TARIC code,  

— quantity (to be given in tonnes).  

7. The description of the terms of the sale, including:  

— price per tonnes,  

— the applicable payment terms,  

— the applicable delivery terms,  

— total discounts and rebates.  

8.  Name  of  the  company  acting  as  an  importer  (i.e.  the  person  who  declares  the  goods  for  customs 
clearance)  in  the  Union  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 Union of the goods covered 
by  this  invoice  is  being  made  within  the  scope  and  under  the  terms  of  the  Undertaking  offered  by 
Alumina d.o.o., Zvornik and its related company Kauno Tiekimas AB, and accepted by the European 
Commission through Decision 2011/XX/EU (*). I declare that the information provided in this invoice 
is complete and correct.'  

___________  

(*) OJ ref. 

EN 

15 

   EN