Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of melamine originating in the People's Republic of China.
Date: 2011-04-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, chemical compound, originating product

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 13.4.2011 
COM(2011) 197 final 

2011/0084 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of melamine 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 1225/2009 of 
30  November  2009  on  protection  against  dumped  imports  from  countries  not 
members  of  the  European  Community  ('the  basic  Regulation')  in  the  anti-dumping 
proceeding concerning imports of Melamine 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 

Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  1035/2010  imposing  a  provisional  anti-dumping 
duty on imports of melamine originating in the People's Republic of China. 

•  Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

2. 

CONSULTATION  OF 
ASSESSMENT 

INTERESTED 

PARTIES  AND 

IMPACT 

•  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 contain provisions for a general impact assessment but 
contains an exhaustive list of conditions that have to be assessed. 

3. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

The attached proposal for a Council Regulation is based on the definitive findings on 
dumping,  injury,  causation  and  Union  interest.  It  is  therefore  proposed  that  the 
Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation which should be published no 
later than 13 May 2011. 

•  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. 

•  Subsidiarity principle 

EN 

2 

   EN 

The  proposal  falls  under  the  exclusive  competence  of  the  European  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 instruments: regulation. 

Other means would not be adequate for the following reason: 

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 Union budget. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

2011/0084 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of melamine originating in the People's Republic of China. 

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 Community1 (‘the basic 
Regulation’), and in particular Article 9 thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

A. PROCEDURE 

1. 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

2. 

(4) 

Provisional measures 
The  Commission,  by  Regulation  (EU)  No  1035/20102  ('the  provisional  Regulation') 
imposed  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  melamine  originating  in  the 
People's  Republic  of  China  (hereafter  PRC).  The  provisional  anti-dumping  duties 
ranged from 44.9% to 65.2%. 

The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 4 January 2010 by 
Union  producers  Borealis  Agrolinz  Melamine  GmbH,  DSM  Melamine  B.V.  and 
Zaklady Azotowe Pulawy ('the complainant'), representing a major proportion, in this 
case more than 50%, of the total Union production of melamine.  

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 
('investigation  period'  or  'IP').  The  examination  of  the  trends  relevant  for  the 
assessment  of  injury  covered  the  period  from  1  January  2006  to  the  end  of  the  IP 
('period considered').  

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

(5) 

The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for 
its definitive findings. To this end a verification visit was carried out at the premises of 

1 
2 

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. 
OJ L 298, 16.11.2010, p. 10. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
the following user company in order to assess the possible impact of the imposition of 
definitive anti-dumping measures:  

– 

Coveright Surfaces Spain, Martorelles (Barcelona), Spain 

Subsequently 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  melamine  originating  in  the  PRC  and  the  definitive 
collection  of  the  amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  duty  ('final  disclosure'). 
All  parties  were  granted  a  period  within  which  they  could  make  comments  on  this 
final disclosure.  

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

Parties concerned by the proceeding 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  with  regard  to  the  parties  concerned  by  the 
proceeding, recitals (4) to (10) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

Product concerned 

It  is  recalled  that,  as  stated  in  recital  (12)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the  product 
concerned was defined as melamine, currently falling within CN code 2933 61 00 and 
originating in the PRC.  

(6) 

(7) 

3. 

(8) 

1. 

(9) 

(10)  Melamine  is  a  white  crystalline  powder  obtained  from  urea.  It  is  used  mainly  in 

laminates, moulding powders, wood-based panels and coating resins.  

2. 

Like product 

(11)  One  exporting  producer  reiterated  the  claim  made  in  recital  (65)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation that the melamine produced and exported from the PRC was in general of a 
slightly lower quality compared to the melamine produced by the Union industry and 
could  not  be  used  for  certain  surface  applications.  The  argument  of  difference  in 
quality was also brought forward by several users located in the EU. 

(12)  The investigation has shown that although melamine may vary slightly in colour, it is 
not sold on the basis of different quality standards, either on the domestic market or on 
export  markets.  No  evidence,  which  would  point  to  the  fact  that  possible  slight 
variations  in  melamine  would  lead  to  different  basic  physical  and  chemical 
characteristics  and  end  uses,  was  provided.  This  issue  was  not  raised  by  the  other 
exporting  producers.  Moreover,  the  investigation  has  also  shown  that  the  exporting 
producer in question was using a similar production process as the Union industry.  

(13)  Based  on  the  above,  the  claim  is  rejected  and  it  is  hereby  confirmed  that  melamine 
produced and sold by the Union industry in the Union, melamine produced and sold 
on the domestic market of the PRC and melamine imported into the Union from the 
PRC,  as  well  as  that  produced  and  sold  in  Indonesia,  which  served  as  the  analogue 
country,  are  considered  to  be  alike  within  the  meaning  of  Article  1(4)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. 

(14) 

In the absence of any other comments regarding the like product, recitals (12) to (15) 
of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
1. 

Market Economy Treatment  

C. DUMPING 

(15)  MET was initially refused to all exporting producers that requested it on the grounds 
that the costs of the major inputs did not substantially reflect market values as required 
under Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. As set out in recitals (20) to (24) of the 
provisional  Regulation,  the  MET  investigation  determined  that  this  was  due  to  State 
interference in both the natural gas market and the urea market in the PRC. In addition 
to this general situation, there were also company-specific reasons for refusing MET 
as set out in recitals (25) to (28) of the provisional Regulation.  

(16)  One  exporting  producer  argued  that  the  urea  price  in  the  PRC  was  in  line  with  the 
price in other parts of the world, such as Indonesia and the Middle East, therefore the 
conclusion that the costs of major inputs were distorted was not correct.  

(17)  However,  the  initial  conclusion  that  the  urea  market  in  the  PRC  was  subject  to 
significant  State  interference,  as  set  out  in  recitals  (23)  and  (24)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation,  was  not  questioned.  This  element  is  already  sufficient  to  conclude  that 
criterion one of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation is not fulfilled. This conclusion 
is not affected by the fact that at a certain point in time urea prices in the PRC and in 
some other parts of the world prices might have been roughly at the same level.  

(18)  One exporting group disagreed with the refusal of MET and IT based on the fact that 
the Commission did not receive full MET claim forms for all related companies. In its 
comments on the disclosure,  this group offered  full  cooperation  but  did  not  question 
the  fact  that  one  of  its  related  companies  did  not  provide  a  MET  claim  form  at  the 
same time as the rest of the group. Therefore this claim is rejected.  

(19) 

2. 

(20) 

In the absence of any other comments concerning Market Economy treatment, recitals 
(16) to (32) are hereby confirmed. 

Individual treatment 

It was provisionally established that three of the five exporting producer companies or 
groups in the PRC met all the requirements for IT. 

(21)  The Union industry questioned the decision to grant IT to three groups of companies 
by arguing that one exporting producer was owned by the Chinese State and another 
exporting  producer  had  various  links  at  management  level  to  companies  that  were 
ultimately  controlled  by  the  State.  In  addition,  the  extent  of  State  interference  was 
such  that  it  would  allow  circumvention  of  the  measures  with  respect  to  all  three 
exporting producers.  

(22)  The investigation has shown that none of the exporting producers initially granted IT 
were  State-owned.  In  addition,  the  claim  that  the  management  of  one  exporting 
producer had links to State-controlled companies was not substantiated. With regard to 
the  possible  risk  of  circumvention,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  investigation  showed 
that export prices, quantities, conditions and terms of sale were freely negotiated and 
determined and that the exporting producers were neither State-owned nor otherwise 
subject to dominant State influence at management level. Hence it may be concluded 
that State interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures.  

(23) 

In  view  of  the  above,  the  claims  of  the  Union  industry  are  rejected.  The  initial 
conclusion  that  three  of  the  five  exporting  producers  meet  all  requirements  for  IT  is 
therefore confirmed.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

3. 

Normal value 

(a) Choice of the analogue country 

(24) 

Indonesia was chosen as the analogue country. The data submitted in the cooperating 
Indonesian producer's reply were verified in situ and found to be reliable and a suitable 
basis for the normal value.  

(25)  One exporting producer questioned the choice of Indonesia as analogue country on the 
grounds that interested parties had not had the opportunity to comment on this choice. 
However, since May 2010 the file open for inspection had contained a note explaining 
why Indonesia had been chosen as analogue country. Thus, as parties had had ample 
opportunity to comment on this choice, their procedural rights had been respected in 
full. No further comments were received on the choice of the analogue country.  

(26) 

It  is  therefore  confirmed  that  Indonesia  is  an  appropriate  and  reasonable  analogue 
country in accordance with Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation. 

(b) Determination of normal value 

(27) 

It is recalled that normal value was constructed using the cost of manufacturing of the 
Indonesian  producer  plus  a  reasonable  amount  for  SG&A  and  for  profit  on  the 
domestic market.  

(28)  One  exporting  producer  questioned  the  level  of  the  constructed  normal  value,  in 
particular  the  SG&A  and  profit  that  were  based  on  those  of  the  Union  industry. 
However,  this  method  is  in  line  with  Article  2(6)(c)  and  considered  appropriate.  No 
other data were available that could be used as a basis for SG&A and profit as there 
were no other exporters or producers subject to investigation in the analogue country 
and  the  producer  subject  to  the  investigation  did  not  sell  any  other  category  of 
products in the IP.  

(29)  Therefore this claim is rejected. Recitals (35) to (45) with regard to the determination 

of the normal value are hereby confirmed.  

(c) Export prices for the exporting producers granted IT 

(30) 

In the absence of any comments with regard to the determination of the export price, 
recital (46) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.  

(d) Comparison 

(31)  One exporting producer questioned the comparison of the normal value and the export 
price  with  regard  to  the  issue  of  VAT.  However,  as  normal  value  and  export  price 
were compared at the same level of indirect taxation, i.e. VAT included, in line with 
Article 2(10)(b), no change to this method is needed. Therefore recitals (47) and (48) 
of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

4. 

Dumping margins 

(a) For the cooperating exporting producers granted IT 

(32) 

In the absence of any comments with regard to the dumping margins, recital (49) of 
the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.  

(33)  On  this  basis  the  definitive  dumping  margins  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  CIF 

Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are:  

EN 

7 

   EN 

Company 

Definitive  dumping 
margin 

Sichuan Jade Elephant Melamine S&T Co., Ltd 

Shandong Liaherd Chemical Industry Co., Ltd  

Henan Junhua Development Company Ltd  

44.9% 

47.6% 

49.0% 

(b) For all other exporting producers 

(34) 

In the absence of any comments with regard to the dumping margins recitals (51) to 
(52) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

On this basis the country-wide level of dumping is definitely established at 65.6% of the CIF 
Union  frontier  price,  duty  unpaid  and  Recital  (53)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  is  hereby 
confirmed. 

D. INJURY 

1. 

INJURY 

1.1. 

(35) 

Union production and Union industry 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  concerning  the  Union  production  and  the  Union 
industry, recitals (54) to (56) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

1.2. 

Union consumption 

(36)  Some parties claimed that Eurostat figures concerning imports of melamine from the 
PRC were not reliable in terms of quantity. A verification of Eurostat data led to minor 
changes in the import figures and consequently in the Union consumption as shown in 
the  tables  below.  These  changes  are  not  such  as  to  affect  the  analysis  of  the  Union 
consumption in recitals (57) to (59) of the provisional Regulation which can thus be 
confirmed. 

Table 1 

2006 

2007 

2008 

IP 

Volume (tons) 

368.873 

392.691 

326.409 

267.226 

Indexed 

100 

106 

88 

72 

Source: Updated Eurostat data and questionnaire replies  

1.3. 

Imports into the European Union from the country concerned 

1.3.1.  volume, price and market share of imports from the PRC 

Table 2 

Imports from the PRC  

2006 

2007 

2008 

IP 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Volume (tonnes) 

26962 

46874 

37366 

18482 

Indexed 

100 

174 

139 

69 

Source: Updated Eurostat data  

(37)  The above changes in the import volumes of the countries concerned are not as such as 
to affect the findings in recitals (61) and (62) of the provisional Regulation which can 
thus be confirmed. 

(38)  Several  users  claimed  that  they  did  not  import  melamine  from  the  PRC  in  2009  and 
2010  because  the  Chinese  prices  were  too  high  compared  to  the  prices  prevailing  in 
the EU. They were therefore questioning the undercutting by Chinese exporters found 
during the IP. 

(39)  As mentioned in recitals (63) and (64) of the provisional Regulation, cooperation from 
Chinese  exporters  was  low.  Hence,  the  information  verified  on  spot  with  the 
cooperating  Chinese  companies  was  used  to  establish  undercutting.  As  mentioned  in 
recitals  (66)  and  (67)  of  the  Provisional  Regulation  the  imports  of  the  cooperating 
exporting  producers  were  undercutting  the  Union  industry  prices  during  the  IP  by 
10.3%. Given that no new evidence is provided compared to that available at the time 
of the imposition of the provisional measures, this claim is rejected. 

1.3.2.  Price undercutting 

(40)  Some  users  claimed  that  an  allowance  should  be  made  for  extra  work  involved  with 
the  handling  of  imported  melamine  from  the  PRC.  They  alleged  that  the  purchase 
price of Chinese melamine did not include this type of cost.  

(41)  The  examination  of  this  claim  showed  that  there  was  no  reliable  basis  to  establish 
under what conditions melamine from the PRC was imported and the possible amount 
of costs which may have been incurred in addition to the purchase price. In addition, 
no evidence was provided de by the above parties, hence, the claim is rejected. 

(42)  As  was  the  case  at  the  time  of  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  some  parties 
claimed that the undercutting calculation should be based on Eurostat data instead of 
the data verified from only 30% of cooperating Chinese companies. 

(43)  As  mentioned  in  recital  (66)  of  the  Provisional  Regulation,  the  data  of  cooperating 
exporters was used for the undercutting calculation. This data has been verified and is 
therefore considered to be more reliable than data retrieved from Eurostat. This claim 
is therefore rejected. 

(44) 

1.4. 

(45) 

4. 

(46) 

In the absence of any other comments concerning price undercutting, the methodology 
described  in  recitals  (66)  and  (67)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  to  establish  price 
undercutting is hereby confirmed. 

Economic situation of the Union industry 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  regarding  the  economic  situation  of  the  Union 
industry, recitals (68) to (82) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

Conclusion on injury 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  regarding  the  conclusion  on  injury,  recitals  (83)  to 
(86) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
2. 

CAUSALITY 

2.1. 

Preliminary remark 

(47)  As  mentioned  in  recital  (87)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  it  was  examined  whether 
the dumped imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC caused injury to 
the Union industry to a degree that can be considered as material. In addition, known 
factors other than the dumped imports, which could at the same time be injuring the 
Union  industry,  were  also  examined  to  ensure  that  possible  injury  caused  by  these 
other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports.  

2.2. 

Effect of the dumped imports  

(48)  Based  on  the  revised  import  data  shown  in  table  2  above,  the  comments  made  in 
recitals (88) to (95) of the provisional Regulation remain valid. Overall, imports from 
the  PRC  decreased  significantly  by  31%  during  the  period  considered  following  the 
decrease in EU consumption (-28%). With regard to prices, the export price verified at 
the premises of the cooperating Chinese producers was lower than the average import 
price  reported  in  Eurostat.  The  verified  cooperating  Chinese  exporters,  representing 
about  30%  of  total  imports  from  the  PRC,  were  found  to  be  undercutting  the  Union 
industry price during the IP by 10.3%.  

(49)  The investigation revealed that in certain months of the IP the Chinese exporters were 
selling their surplus of melamine on the Union market when prices were attractive for 
them,  and  withdrawing  when  prices  started  to  fall.  This  policy  of  targeted  pricing 
continued to have negative effects on the Union market during the whole IP given that 
prices may be fixed for a period of three to six months. Thus it is confirmed that the 
presence of low-priced dumped imports on the Union market played a role in further 
exacerbating the negative trend in sales prices on the market in the medium term after 
they withdrew. The low level of sales prices contributed to the dramatic level of losses 
incurred  by  the  Union  industry  and  was  identified  as  a  major  factor  in  the  material 
injury found.  

(50)  On this basis the causal link between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by 

the Union industry can be confirmed.  

2.3. 

Effect of other factors 

(51)  On this point, interested parties basically reiterated most of the comments made at the 
provisional stage. As far as the effect of dumped imports are concerned, some parties 
claimed  again  that  Eurostat  figures  should  prevail  over  the  data  verified  at  the 
premises  of  the  cooperating  exporting  producers.  Such a claim would render  the on-
spot investigations meaningless and could therefore not be accepted. No evidence was 
provided to show that the data used in this investigation were unreliable. The claims 
are therefore rejected.  

(52)  Some parties claimed that the injury suffered by the Union industry is not caused by 
the imports from the PRC, but by the global economic crisis. However, there was no 
evidence  submitted  by  these  parties  showing  that  the  data  used  in  this  investigation 
was  unreliable.  In  addition,  the  dumped  imports  have  intensified  the  effect  of  the 
economic  crisis  and  consequently  further  exacerbated  the  situation  of  the  Union 
industry. This claim was therefore rejected.  

(53)  The  comments  received  and  the  evidence  provided  regarding  other  factors  were  not 
such  as  to  change  the  conclusion  made  in  recitals  (108)  to  (110)  of  the  provisional 

EN 

10 

   EN 

Regulation that none of these factors could break the link between the dumped imports 
and the injury suffered by the Union industry. The provisional conclusion that dumped 
imports caused material injury to the Union industry is therefore confirmed. 

3. 

UNION INTEREST 

3.1. 

(54) 

Interest of the Union industry 

It  is  recalled  that  the  Union  industry  is  composed  of  three  producers  located  in 
different  Member  States,  employing  directly  over  600  people  in  activities  related  to 
Melamine.  

(55)  Some users claimed that the employment figures of the complainants were overstated. 
No evidence was provided to show that the verified data used in this investigation was 
unreliable and therefore the claim was rejected. 

(56)  One  user  claimed  that  the  Union  industry  closed  production  sites  due  to  technical 

problems, and not as a result of allegedly dumped imports. 

(57)  Some plants of the Union industry indeed incurred some technical difficulties, but this 
was mainly after the IP. Following the imposition of provisional measures, the Union 
industry  has  submitted  evidence  that  factories  that  had  been  idle  due  to  the  dumped 
imports  have  recently  been  reopened.  This  shows  that  measures  have  already  had  a 
positive impact on the Union industry.  

(58) 

(59) 

3.2. 

(60) 

It  is  expected  that  the  imposition  of  definitive  anti-dumping  duties  against  imports 
originating in the PRC would have a further positive impact on the economic situation 
of the Union industry and would enable it to regain at least part of its lost profitability. 

In the absence of any other comments with regard to the interest of the Union industry, 
recitals (112) to (115) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

Interest of importers 

In  the  absence  of  comments  on  the  interest  of  importers,  it  was  concluded  that  the 
imposition  of  definitive  measures  on  imports  of  melamine  originating  in  the  PRC 
would not be against the interests of importers. 

3.3. 

Interest of Users 

(61)  At  the  provisional  stage  cooperation  by  the  users  was  relatively  low.  Of  the  44 
questionnaires  sent,  only  seven  replies  which  could  be  considered  meaningful  were 
received.  Imports  by  the  cooperating  users  represented  around  10%  of  EU 
consumption. It was concluded at that stage that the impact of the proposed measures 
would be relatively limited. 

(62)  After provisional measures were imposed a verification visit was made to the premises 
of the main cooperating user in the Union. The investigation showed that the share of 
melamine in its cost of production is between 8% and 15%, depending on the activity. 
The possible impact of measures may therefore be relatively significant depending on 
the share of melamine in the costs and the level of profitability, which was relatively 
low.  

(63) 

In submissions received from a number of users it was alleged that after the imposition 
of  provisional  measures,  a  shortage  of  melamine  in  the  Union  market  occurred  and 
that  this  led  to  significant  and  continuous  price  increases.  Whilst  the  sales  price  of 

EN 

11 

   EN 

melamine  was  around  €900  per  tonne  during  th e  IP,  post  IP  prices  vary  between  €1 
200 and €1 500 per tonne.  

(64)  The verification visit carried out at the premises of the cooperating user confirmed that 
the provisional measures have had an impact on its activities, combined with the price 
increase  which  the  Union  industry  has  applied  on  its  melamine.  Indeed,  the  Union 
industry holds a market share of around 85% in the Union market and thus basically 
all users are sourcing large part of their melamine from EU producers.  

(65)  The  information  gathered  during  the  investigation  also  suggests  that  prices  are  still 
expected  to  increase  in  the  period  following  the  IP.  Hence,  it  would  appear  to  be 
justified, in the Union interest to change the form of the provisional measures to limit 
any further price increase of melamine which would seriously affect the overall users' 
business. 

(66)  Some users claim that in 2010 a melamine shortage developed on the market and that 
EU  producers  were  not  able  to  meet  European  demand  and  that  the  imposition  of 
provisional measures increased this shortage. 

(67)  Analysis of the available data showed that the melamine market was indeed short for a 
certain period, but that this was not caused by the provisional duties, but was due to 
the worldwide evolution of the market. 

(68)  Some users claim that the European producers failed to supply the required quantities 

of melamine to maintain their production. 

(69)  Analysis  of  the  available  data  showed  that  the  shortage  only  appeared  on  the  'spot-

market', but that contractual agreed quantities were supplied. 

(70)  Moreover, additional production capacity has been put online by the Union producers 
and  by  producers  in  third  countries,  ensuring  a  stable  supply  of  melamine  to  Union 
users. 

(71)  One user  claimed  that it stopped building  a new production plant because it realised 
that they would no longer be competitive on their main export markets with the level 
of the provisional measures imposed. 

(72)  Some  users  claimed  that  if  provisional  measures  are  confirmed,  the  downstream 
products  in  the  EU  will  no  longer  be  competitive  compared  to  imports  of  the  same 
downstream  products  from  the  PRC.  Hence,  these  users  will  either  close  down  or 
move their production facilities outside the Union.  

(73)  One association of users claimed that only the sector of wood-based panel producers 
generates thousands of jobs so a much higher number compared to the EU melamine 
producers.  Hence  the  imposition  of  definitive  measures  were  therefore  not  in  the 
interest of the Union. 

(74)  The parties above did not provide convincing evidence to support their claims, recitals 

(116) to (121) of the provisional Regulation are therefore hereby confirmed. 

3.4. 

Conclusion on Union interest 

(75)  Based on the above it was concluded that there are no compelling reasons against the 
imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties against imports of Melamine originating 
in the PRC.  

EN 

12 

   EN 

(76)  However, based on the above it appears to be in the Union interest, to change the form 
of  the  proposed  measures  to  limit  any  possible  serious  impact  on  the  overall  users' 
business which is heavily dependent on melamine supply. 

4. 

DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 

4.1. 

(77) 

4.2. 

(78) 

Injury elimination level 

In  the  absence  of  any  substantiated  comments  that  would  alter  the  conclusion 
regarding  the  injury  elimination  level,  recitals  (123)  to  (127)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

Definitive measures 

In  the  light  of  the  foregoing,  it  is  concluded  to  change  the  form  of  the  measures  by 
imposing  definitive  measures  in  the  form  of  a  minimum  import  price  (MIP)  for  the 
cooperating exporters who are granted Individual Treatment (IT) and a fixed duty of 
415.00 EUR/tonne net product weight for all the others. Imports from the cooperating 
exporters  who  are  granted  IT  would  be  subject  to  a  MIP  of  1153  EUR/tonne  net 
product weight. 

(79)  This MIP is based on the normal value established in the analogue country, increased 
to  a  CIF  Union  border  price  level  using  export  data  from  the  cooperating  Chinese 
exporters and then expressed in EUR/tonne net product weight. 

(80)  Where  imports  are  undertaken  at  a  CIF  Union  border  price  equal  to  or  above  the 
minimum  import  price  established,  no  duty  would  be  payable.  If  imports  are 
undertaken at a lower price, the difference between the actual price and the minimum 
import price established would become payable. 

(81)  Non-cooperating  exporters  and  exporters  not  granted  IT  would  be  subject  to  the 
residual duty of 415.00 EUR/tonne net product weight (based the difference between 
the non injurious price as mentioned in recital (126) of the provisional Regulation and 
the  most  injurious  transaction  of  a  cooperating  exporter  during  the  IP)  regardless  of 
the import price.  

(82)  This  form  of  measures  would  allow  EU  producers  to  recover  from  the  effects  of 
injurious  dumping  and  should  also  prevent  any  undue  price  increases  which  could 
have a significant negative impact on the users' business. 

(83)  All  parties  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the  basis  of 
which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties. 
They were also granted a period of time within which they could make representations 
following  this  disclosure.  The  Union  industry  subsequently  contested  the  allegations 
made  by  the  users  concerning  the  shortage  of  the  product  concerned  as  well  as  the 
evolution of prices after the IP on the Union market. With regard to the shortage, the 
Union  industry  argued  that  their  industry  was  cyclical  and  that  there  were  other 
sources of supply such as Trinidad and Qatar. As to the trend in prices they contended 
that  this  increase  had  started  well  before  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures. 
However,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  prices  have  continued  to  increase  since  the 
imposition of the provisional measures and that the imports from other sources are not 
significant. The comments submitted by other parties were duly considered but were 
not such as to change the conclusions 

EN 

13 

   EN 

(84)  The  individual  company  anti-dumping  duty  rates  specified  in  this  Regulation  are 
solely  applicable  to  imports  of  the  product  concerned  produced  by  these  companies 
and  thus  by  the  specific  legal  entities  mentioned.  Imports  of  the  product  concerned 
manufactured 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’. 

(85)  Any claim requesting the application of these individual anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. 
following  a  change  in  the  name  of  the  entity  or  following  the  setting  up  of  new 
production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission3 forthwith with all 
relevant information, in particular any modification in the company’s activities linked 
to  production,  domestic  and  export  sales  associated  with,  for  instance,  that  name 
change  or  that  change  in  the  production  and  sales  entities.  If  appropriate,  this 
Regulation  will  then  be  accordingly  amended  by  updating  the  list  of  companies 
benefiting from individual duty rates. 

(86) 

In order to minimise the risks of circumvention, it is considered that special measures 
are  needed  in  this  case  to  ensure  the  proper  application  of  the  anti-dumping  duties. 
These  special  measures  include  the  following:  The  presentation  to  the  Customs 
authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform 
to the requirements set out in the Annex to this Regulation. Imports not accompanied 
by such an invoice shall be made subject to the residual anti-dumping duty applicable 
to all other exporters. 

(87)  Should  the  exports  by  one  of  the  companies  benefiting  from  the  MIP  increase 
significantly  in  volume  after  the  imposition  of  the  measures  concerned,  such  an 
increase in volume 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 circumstances and provided the conditions are met an anti-
circumvention  investigation  may  be  initiated.  This  investigation  may,  inter  alia, 
examine the need for the removal of the MIP and the consequent imposition of a duty.  

(88) 

4.3. 

(89) 

If market conditions significantly change after the imposition of definitive measures, 
the Commission may, on its own initiative, review the form of the measures in order to 
assess whether the measures are achieving the intended results in removing the injury 
and whether a change in the form of the measures is warranted.  

Definitive collection of provisional duties 

In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and in the light of the level of 
the  injury  caused  to  the  Union  industry,  it  is  considered  necessary  that  the  amounts 
secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty,  imposed  by  the  provisional 
Regulation  should  be  definitively  collected  to  the  extent  of  the  amount  of  the 
definitive  duties  imposed.  Where  the  definitive  duties  are  lower  than  the  provisional 
duties, amounts provisionally secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping 
duties  shall  be  released.  Where  the  definitive  duties  are  higher  than  the  provisional 
duties,  only  the  amounts  secured  at  the  level  of  the  provisional  duties  shall  be 
definitively collected. 

3 

European  Commission,  Directorate-General 
Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIUM. 

for  Trade,  Directorate  H,  NERV-105,  1049 

EN 

14 

   EN 

                                                 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 

2. 

A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of melamine, currently 
falling  within  CN  code  2933  61  00  and  originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of 
China. 

The  rate  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  the  product  described  in 
paragraph 1 and produced by the companies below shall be as follows: 

Company 

Minimum 
import price 

Duty 
EUR/tonne 
net product 
weight)  

TARIC 
additional code 

Sichuan 
Melamine S&T Co., Ltd 

Jade 

Elephant 

Shandong  Liaherd  Chemical 
Industry Co., Ltd  

Henan 
Company Ltd  

Junhua  Development 

All other companies 

1153 
EUR/tonne 
net product 
weight 
1153 
EUR/tonne 
net product 
weight 
1153 
EUR/tonne 
net product 
weight 

--- 

--- 

A986 

A987 

A988 

A999 

--- 

--- 

415.00 
EUR/tonne 
net product 
weight 

For  the  individual  named  producers,  the  amount  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty 
applicable for products described in paragraph 1 shall be the difference between the minimum 
import price and the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, in all cases where the latter 
is less than the minimum import price. For these individual named producers, no duty shall be 
collected where the net free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, is equal to or higher than the 
corresponding minimum import price. 

The application of the minimum import price specified for the companies mentioned above in 
this  paragraph  shall  be  conditional  upon  presentation  to  the  customs  authorities  of  the 
Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out 
in the Annex I. If no such invoice is presented, the duty applicable to all other companies shall 
apply. 

3. 

For  the  individual  named  producers  and  in  cases  where  goods  have  been  damaged 
before entry into free circulation and, therefore, the price actually paid or payable is 
apportioned  for  the  determination  of  the  customs  value  pursuant  to  Article  145  of 
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of  2 July  1993 laying down provisions 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
for  the  implementation  of  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2913/92  establishing  the 
Community  Customs  Code4,  the  minimum  import  price  set  out  above  shall  be 
reduced by a percentage which corresponds to the apportioning of the price actually 
paid or payable. The duty payable will then be equal to the difference between the 
reduced  minimum  import  price  and  the  reduced  net,  free-at-Union-frontier  price, 
before customs clearance. 

For all other companies and in cases where goods have been damaged before entry 
into free circulation and, therefore, the price actually paid or payable is apportioned 
for  the  determination  of  the  customs  value  pursuant  to  Article  145  of  Commission 
Regulation  (EEC)  No  2454/93  of  2  July  1993  laying  down  provisions  for  the 
implementation  of  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2913/92  establishing 
the 
Community Customs Code, the amount of the anti-dumping duty, calculated on the 
basis of paragraph 2 above, shall be reduced by a percentage which corresponds to 
the apportioning of the price actually paid or payable.  

4. 

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

Article 2 

The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to Commission 
Regulation (EU) No 1035/2010 on imports of melamine originating in the People's Republic 
of China shall be definitively collected. The amounts secured in excess of the definitive rates 
of  the  anti-dumping  duty  shall  be  released.  Where  the  definitive  duties  are  higher  than  the 
provisional  duties,  only  the  amounts  secured  at  the  level  of  the  provisional  duties  shall  be 
definitively collected. 

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

Article 3 

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 

The President 

[…] 

4 

OJ  L  253,  11.10.1993,  p.  1.  Regulation  as  last  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  214/2007  (OJ  L  62, 
1.3.2007, p. 6). 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX I 

A  declaration  signed  by  an  official  of  the  entity  issuing  the  commercial  invoice,  in  the 
following format, must appear on the valid commercial invoice referred to in Article 1(3): 

1. The name and function of the official of the entity issuing the commercial invoice. 

2. The following declaration: 

"I,  the  undersigned,  certify  that  the  (volume)  of  melamine  sold  for  export  to  the  European 
Union  covered  by  this  invoice  was  manufactured  by  (company  name  and  registered  seat) 
(TARIC  additional  code)  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China.  I  declare  that  the  information 
provided in this invoice is complete and correct. 

Date and signature" 

EN 

17 

   EN