text:
importers to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation. Only one unrelated importer provided the required information.
 (19)
 Sampling of importers was therefore not necessary.
 1.6.3. Sampling of producers in Thailand
 (20)
 To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all known producers in Thailand to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation. In addition, the Commission asked the Mission of the Kingdom of Thailand to the European Union to identify and/or contact other producers, if any, that could be interested in participating in the investigation.
 (21)
 Three producers in the country concerned provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. In view of the low number of replies, the Commission decided that sampling was not necessary. All three producers exported the product under review to the Union during the review investigation period, and are therefore exporting producers. They account for about 80 % of all Thai exports to the Union.
 1.7. Replies to the questionnaire
 (22)
 Copies of the questionnaires were made available on DG Trade’s website when the case was initiated. The Commission sent letters to the three sampled Union producers, to the unrelated importer and to the three exporting producers which provided the required information, requesting them to complete the questionnaire intended for them.
 (23)
 Questionnaire replies were received from the three Union producers and the three cooperating producers in the country concerned.
 (24)
 No questionnaire reply was received from the unrelated importer.
 1.8. Verification
 (25)
 The Commission sought and verified with cooperating parties all the information deemed necessary for the determination of a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury and of the Union interest. Verification visits pursuant to Article 16 of the basic Regulation were carried out at the premises of the following companies:
 Union producers
 —
 Bonduelle SA, Renescure, France
 —
 Conserve Italia SCA, San Lazzaro di Savena, Italy
 —
 Groupe d’aucy, Theix, France
 Exporting producers in Thailand
 —
 Karn Corn Co. Ltd, Kanchanaburi, Thailand
 —
 River Kwai International Food Industrial Company Limited (‘RKI’), Kanchanaburi, Thailand
 —
 Siam Del Monte Co. Limited, Bangkok, Thailand.
 2. PRODUCT UNDER REVIEW AND LIKE PRODUCT
 2.1. Product under review
 (26)
 The product under review is the same as in the original investigation and previous expiry review namely sweetcorn (Zea mays var. saccharata) in kernels, prepared or preserved by vinegar or acetic acid, not frozen, currently falling under CN code ex 2001 90 30 (TARIC code 2001903010), and sweetcorn (Zea mays var. saccharata) in kernels prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid, not frozen, other than products of heading 2006, currently falling under CN code ex 2005 80 00 (TARIC code 2005800010) (‘sweetcorn’) originating in Thailand (‘the product under review’).
 (27)
 The investigation has shown that, despite differences in the preservations, the different types of the product under review all share the same basic biological and chemical characteristics and are used for the same purpose.
 2.2. Like product


text:
(28)
 As established in the original investigation as well as in the previous expiry review, this expiry review investigation confirmed that the following products have the same basic biological and chemical characteristics as well as the same basic uses:
 —
 the product under review,
 —
 the product produced and sold on the domestic market of Thailand, and
 —
 the product produced and sold in the Union by the Union industry.
 (29)
 Those products are therefore considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
 3. DUMPING
 3.1. Thailand
 3.1.1. Preliminary remarks
 (30)
 During the review investigation period, imports of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels from Thailand continued albeit at lower levels than in the investigation period of the original investigation (that is from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2005). According to Eurostat, imports of sweetcorn from Thailand accounted for about 3,9 % of the Union market in the review investigation period, compared to 12,7 % market share during the original investigation and 6 % during the previous expiry review. In absolute terms, imports from Thailand amounted to 13 643 tonnes in the review investigation period. This followed a decrease in imports from 41 973 tonnes in the original investigation to 21 856 tonnes during the previous expiry review.
 3.1.2. Dumping during the review investigation period
 3.1.2.1. Normal value
 (31)
 The Commission first examined whether the total volume of domestic sales for each cooperating exporting producer was representative, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. The domestic sales are representative if the total domestic sales volume of the like product to independent customers on the domestic market per exporting producer represented at least 5 % of its total export sales volume of the product under review to the Union during the review investigation period.
 (32)
 On this basis, the total domestic sales by only one exporting producer, of the like product, on the domestic market, were representative.
 (33)
 The Commission subsequently identified the product types sold domestically that were identical or comparable with the product types sold for export to the Union for the exporting producer with representative domestic sales.
 (34)
 The Commission then examined whether the domestic sales by this cooperating exporting producer on its domestic market for each product type that is identical or comparable with a product type sold for export to the Union were representative, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. The domestic sales of a product type are representative if the total volume of domestic sales of that product type to independent customers during the review investigation period represents at least 5 % of the total volume of export sales of the identical or comparable product type to the Union.
 (35)
 The Commission then established the product types for which the domestic sales were representative and the product types for which there were no domestic sales or the domestic sales were not representative.
 (36)
 For the product types, for which there were

type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU


text:
representative domestic sales, the Commission next defined the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers on the domestic market, for each product type, during the review investigation period, in order to decide whether to use actual domestic sales for the calculation of the normal value, in accordance with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.
 (37)
 The normal value is based on the actual domestic price per product type, irrespective of whether those sales are profitable or not, if:
 (a)
 the sales volume of the product type, sold at a net sales price equal to or above the calculated cost of production, represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume of this product type; and
 (b)
 the weighted average sales price of that product type is equal to or higher than the unit cost of production.
 (38)
 In that case, the normal value is the weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of that product type during the review investigation period.
 (39)
 The normal value is the actual domestic price per product type of only the profitable domestic sales of the product types during the review investigation period, if:
 (a)
 the volume of profitable sales of the product type represents 80 % or less of the total sales volume of this type; or
 (b)
 the weighted average price of this product type is below the unit cost of production.
 (40)
 The analysis of domestic sales for the product types with representative domestic sales showed that the weighted average sales price was lower than the unit cost of production. Accordingly, the normal value was calculated as a weighted average of the profitable sales only.
 (41)
 Where there were no or insufficient sales of a product type of the like product in the ordinary course of trade or where a product type was not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market, the Commission constructed the normal value in accordance with Article 2(3) and (6) of the basic Regulation.
 (42)
 Normal value was constructed by adding the following to the average cost of production of the like product of the cooperating exporting producer during the review investigation period:
 (a)
 the weighted average selling, general and administrative (‘SG&A’) expenses incurred by the cooperating exporting producer on domestic sales of the like product, in the ordinary course of trade, during the review investigation period; and
 (b)
 the weighted average profit realised by the cooperating exporting producer on domestic sales of the like product, in the ordinary course of trade, during the review investigation period.
 (43)
 The cost of production was adjusted, if necessary.
 (44)
 For the remaining two exporting producers which did not sell the like product for domestic consumption at all, the normal value had to be constructed pursuant to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.
 (45)
 The normal value was constructed by adding to the cost of manufacturing for each product type exported to the European Union a reasonable amount for SG&A and for profits.
 (46)
 For one of


text:
the two exporting producers which did not sell the like product for domestic consumption, in accordance with Article 2(6)(b) of the basic Regulation, the SG&A and profit were based on the actual amount applicable to production and sales in the ordinary course of trade of the same general category of products for the exporting producer in question in the domestic market.
 (47)
 For the other exporting producer, which neither sold the like product nor the same general category of products for domestic consumption, in accordance with Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation, the SG&A and profit were established as the average of the SG&A and profit of the same general category of products calculated for the other two cooperating exporting producers. This methodology ensures that the amount for profit so established does not exceed the profit normally realised by other exporters on sales of products of the same general category in the domestic market, as required by Art 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation.
 3.1.2.2. Export price
 (48)
 All cooperating exporting producers exported the product under review directly to independent customers in the Union, during the review investigation period. Therefore, the export price was the price actually paid or payable for the product under review when sold for export to the Union, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.
 3.1.2.3. Comparison
 (49)
 The Commission compared the normal value and the export price of the exporting producers on an ex-works basis.
 (50)
 Where justified by the need to ensure a fair comparison, the Commission adjusted the normal value and/or the export price for differences affecting prices and price comparability, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.
 (51)
 Adjustments were made to the export price for differences in transport costs, handling and loading costs, credit costs, bank charges and commissions, when applicable and duly justified.
 (52)
 The downward adjustments to the export price were within the range of 1 % to 2 % for transport costs, 0,5 % to 1,5 % for handling and loading costs, 0 % to 0,5 % for credit costs, 0 % to 0,5 % for bank charges and 0,5 % to 1,5 % for commissions.
 (53)
 Two exporting producers claimed a negative allowance (positive adjustment) on the export price for an alleged duty compensation, under ‘Other factors’, as provided for in Article 2(10)(k) of the basic Regulation. The exporting producers claimed that they receive this duty compensation from the Thai government when the product under review concerned is sold for export, including to the Union market.
 (54)
 The exporting producers could demonstrate that an amount equivalent to less than 0,5 % of the invoice value is paid to them. However, the exporting producers failed to demonstrate any link between the duty compensation received and import charges paid for any materials incorporated in the product under review exported. Therefore, the claims for a negative allowance under Article 2(10)(k) were rejected.
 (55)
 The downward adjustments to the normal value were within the range of 1 %


text:
to 2 % for transport costs and 0,5 % to 1 % for credit costs.
 (56)
 One exporting producer, claimed an adjustment to the normal value for differences in the cost of credit granted for domestic sales, calculated using a short term interest rate for commercial loans provided by a commercial bank in Thailand. The Commission noted that the rate claimed was the maximum theoretical rate chargeable and was applicable at a date before the start of the review investigation period. This was considerably higher than the actual interest rate payable under a comparable short-term loan agreement found in the financial statements applicable during the review investigation period. The Commission therefore adjusted the allowance claimed to base it on the actually applied interest rate for comparable transactions.
 (57)
 Two exporting producers claimed the use of a reduced profit margin, should the Commission construct normal value, to reflect the fact that branded sales (own brand) on the domestic market carry a higher profit margin than non-branded sales (i.e. not own brand, typically customer’s brand) on the Union market.
 (58)
 In accordance with the original investigation, the Commission accepted these claims to the extent applicable and made an adjustment under Article 2(10)(d) of the basic Regulation. The details have been disclosed to the companies concerned.
 3.1.2.4. Dumping margins
 (59)
 For the cooperating exporting producers, the Commission compared the weighted average normal value of each type of the like product with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product under review, in accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation.
 (60)
 Following final disclosure, one cooperating exporting producer commented on the calculation of their dumping margin pointing to a possible clerical error. Considering those comments, the Commission revised its calculation to correct the clerical error and determined the revised dumping margin for that cooperating exporting producer. The Commission found that that exporting producer was not dumping during the review investigation period.
 (61)
 Following the additional final disclosure, with regard to correction of the clerical error, another cooperating exporting producer submitted comments, with regard to the impact of the revised calculation on its own dumping margin. Those comments were submitted late, four days after the deadline for comments, and no non-confidential version of the submission was provided. As such, the Commission could not formally consider the comments. In any event, the Commission found that the comments would not have had any impact on that exporting producer’s previously disclosed dumping margin.
 (62)
 Indeed, despite the correction of the calculation error, for one exporting producer, the Commission’s conclusion in relation to dumping for the country as a whole remains unchanged. That is because the other two cooperating exporting producers, which accounted for over 90 % of total imports of the product concerned to the Union from cooperating exporting producers, were found to be dumping during the review investigation period at significant levels.
 (63)
 The countrywide dumping margin, based on the weighted average dumping margin of all three cooperating exporting producers,


text:
expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, was above de minimis (4,3 %). The Commission therefore concluded that dumping continued during the review investigation period.
 4. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OF DUMPING
 (64)
 Further to the finding of the existence of dumping during the review investigation period, the Commission investigated, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the likelihood of continuation of dumping, should the measures be repealed. The following additional elements were analysed: the production capacity and spare capacity in Thailand and the relation between export prices to third countries and the price level in the Union.
 4.1. Production capacity and spare capacity in Thailand
 (65)
 The information available to the Commission on production and spare capacity consists of the data submitted by the three cooperating Thai exporting producers, data submitted by the applicant in the request for review and additional information submitted by the applicant in the course of the proceeding.
 (66)
 One of the Thai producers, RKI, provided production and capacity figures separately for ‘Semi-finished Goods’ and ‘Finished Goods’. The only difference between these categories of goods was that ‘Finished Goods’ had a label applied to the tins, whilst the ‘Semi-finished Goods’ had no label applied. The Commission considered the ‘Semi-finished Goods’ capacity as the most relevant figure to use for the product under review, since the Finished Goods capacity was calculated based on the current labelling machine usage time, which could be increased.
 (67)
 In addition, based on information obtained during the verification, the Commission considered that the yield percentage used in the calculation of the Semi-finished goods production capacity for RKI was too low and revised it upwards.
 (68)
 As a result, the Commission estimated the spare capacity available for the three cooperating exporting producers to be around 70 000 tonnes of the product under review for the review investigation period. As the three cooperating producers accounted for around 45 % of the estimated total processing capacity for all Thai producers mentioned in the request for review (300 000 tonnes), by extrapolation, the Commission estimated that the total spare capacity for all Thai producers would be about 150 000 tonnes. This represents over 40 % of the total Union consumption for the review investigation period and about 11 times the total Thai exports of the product under review to the Union in the review investigation period.
 (69)
 In addition, evidence provided by the applicant showed that volumes of raw sweet corn available for processing in 2018 were expected to be between 12,5 % and 25 % higher than in 2017. (11) Furthermore, one non-cooperating Thai sweet corn producer, Sunsweet Public Company Limited, invested THB 170,6 million (around EUR 4,5 million) in 2018 on machines and equipment to increase production capacity and production efficiency. (12)
 (70)
 The Commission therefore concluded that the Thai producers of sweet corn have extensive spare capacity available to increase exports to the Union market should the current anti-dumping measures lapse.
 4.2. Relation between export prices


text:
to third countries and the price level in the Union
 (71)
 In order to establish the possible development of imports should the current anti-dumping measures lapse, the Commission considered the attractiveness of the Union market with regard to prices. Since over 85 % of the sales of the cooperating Thai exporting producers to the Union market were of large classic-opening cans, and around 42 % of Thai exports to third countries were also of large classic-opening cans the analysis focused on these product types.
 (72)
 A comparison of such sales on an ex-works basis, showed that prices to the Union market were around 20 % higher than prices of the same product type to third countries. Considering the significantly higher prices on the Union market, it is clear that it remains an attractive market for the Thai exporting producers. This finding is representative for all Thai exporters since, as mentioned in recital (21), the cooperating producers accounted for about 80 % of all Thai exports to the Union during the review investigation period.
 (73)
 The Commission also noted that the exporting Thai producers, which are not cooperating in the investigation, were subject to higher anti-dumping duties on average than the companies which are cooperating in the investigation. There is therefore, a greater likelihood that those companies would increase exports to the Union market should the current anti-dumping measures be allowed to lapse.
 (74)
 The significant export volumes and market shares from Thailand during the original investigation period (41 973 tonnes, 12,7 %) and the continuing export of the product under review from Thailand to the Union market during the review investigation period (13 643 tonnes, 3,9 %), allow the Commission to conclude that the Union market is attractive for producers of the product under review in Thailand.
 (75)
 Following final disclosure, the Government of Thailand argued that export volumes from Thailand dropped significantly (-67 %) compared to the original investigation period. They also argued that given that, during the period considered, the Union industry’s market share increased by 1 % while that of Thai exports to the Union remained stable at 3,9 %, there was no likelihood of continuation of dumping.
 (76)
 However, the Government of Thailand neither disputes the fact that the product under review was overwhelmingly sold at dumped prices to the Union, nor does it dispute that the exports of the product under review continued in significant quantities despite the measures in force. The Commission therefore maintains its finding of a likelihood of continuation of dumping.
 (77)
 Furthermore, the Government of Thailand alleged that the adjustment to the Thai production capacity, and consequently the spare production capacity referred to in recitals (66) to (70) was unjustified, without substantiating this claim. The Thai exporting producer whose production capacity was adjusted did not dispute the adjustment. The claim is therefore rejected.
 (78)
 The Government of Thailand further argued that since Thai export volumes only accounted for 0,9 % of the total spare capacity of cooperating Thai exporting producers, the


text:
Union market is allegedly no longer attractive to Thai exporting producers.
 (79)
 However, Thai export volumes were in fact around 9 % (13) of total Thai spare capacity. This confirms that the Thai exporting producers continue to export significant volumes to the Union despite the measures in force, and have substantial spare capacities to increase their exports of the product under review should measures lapse.
 (80)
 Consequently, should the current anti-dumping measures lapse, the imports from Thailand to the Union are likely to increase significantly and at dumped prices.
 4.3. Conclusion
 (81)
 Accordingly, given in particular, the dumping margin established in the review investigation period, the significant spare capacity available in Thailand and the attractiveness of the Union market, the Commission concluded that a repeal of the measures would likely result in a continuation of dumping, and that dumped exports would enter the Union market in significant quantities. It is therefore, considered that there is a likelihood of continuation of dumping should the current anti-dumping measures be allowed to lapse.
 5. INJURY
 5.1. Definition of the Union industry and Union production
 (82)
 The like product was manufactured by approximately 20 producers in the Union during the period considered. They constitute the ‘Union industry’ within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.
 (83)
 The total Union production during the review investigation period was established at around 376 000 tonnes, based on the information provided by the Union Industry. As indicated in recital (15), three Union producers were selected in the sample representing more than 60 % of the total Union production of the like product.
 5.2. Union consumption
 (84)
 The Commission established the Union consumption as a sum of Union industry’s sales volume on the Union market and total imports into the Union obtained from the Comext database (Eurostat).
 (85)
 Throughout the period considered, the consumption in the Union slightly increased by 2 %.
 Table 1
 Union Consumption (tonnes)
 2015
 2016
 2017
 RIP
 Total consumption
 343 325
 347 950
 354 821
 348 682
 Index (2015 = 100)
 100
 101
 103
 102
 Source: Eurostat, data submitted by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies
 5.3. Imports from the country concerned
 5.3.1. Volume and market share of the imports from the country concerned
 (86)
 The Commission established the volume of imports from Thailand into the Union on the basis of data from the Comext database (Eurostat) and the market share of the imports by comparing these import volumes with the Union consumption as shown in Table 1.
 (87)
 Imports of the product under review into the Union from Thailand increased by 3 %, from 13 307 tonnes in 2015 to around 13 643 tonnes in the review investigation period, following the 12 % decrease in 2016.
 Table 2
 Union import volume from Thailand (tonnes)
 2015
 2016
 2017
 RIP
 Volume of import from Thailand
 13 307
 11 674
 12 341
 13 643
 Index (2015 = 100)
 100
 88
 93
 103
 Source: Eurostat
 (88)
 The corresponding market share held by Thai exporters on


text:
the Union market developed in a similar manner as the import volumes and amounted to 3,9 % in the review investigation period.
 Table 3
 Market share of import from Thailand (%)
 2015
 2016
 2017
 RIP
 Share of import from Thailand
 3,9
 3,4
 3,5
 3,9
 Index (2015 = 100)
 100
 87
 90
 100
 Source: Eurostat, data submitted by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies
 5.3.2. Prices of the imports from the country concerned and price undercutting
 (89)
 The Commission established the prices of imports on the basis of data from the Comext database (Eurostat).
 (90)
 The average import prices of the product under review from Thailand decreased by 15 % in the period considered.
 Table 4
 Average import price from Thailand (EUR/tonne)
 2015
 2016
 2017
 RIP
 Import price from Thailand
 929
 913
 869
 786
 Index (2015 = 100)
 100
 98
 94
 85
 Source: Eurostat
 (91)
 The Commission determined the price undercutting during the review investigation period by comparing:
 (a)
 the weighted average sales prices per product type of the sampled Union producers charged to unrelated customers on the Union market, adjusted to an ex-works level; and
 (b)
 the corresponding weighted average prices per product type of the imports from the sampled cooperating Thai producers to the first independent customer on the Union market, established on a cost, insurance, freight (CIF) basis, with appropriate adjustments for conventional customs duties and importation costs including unloading and customs clearance.
 (92)
 The price comparison was made on a product type basis for transactions at the same level of trade, duly adjusted where necessary, and after deduction of rebates and discounts. The result of the comparison was expressed as a percentage of the sampled Union producers’ turnover during the review investigation period. It showed a weighted average undercutting margin of between -0,7 % and 4,25 % by the imports from the country concerned on the Union market. Around 79 % of import volumes from sampled exporting producers in Thailand were undercutting Union industry prices.
 5.4. Imports from third countries other than Thailand
 (93)
 The imports of sweetcorn from third countries other than Thailand were mainly from the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China (‘China’).
 (94)
 The market share of imports from other third countries decreased from 2,2 % to 1,2 % over the period considered. Individual market share of the two biggest exporting countries other than Thailand remained under 1 %.
 Table 5
 Imports market share
 2015
 2016
 2017
 RIP
 USA
 0,9 %
 0,8 %
 0,6 %
 0,6 %
 China
 0,6 %
 0,4 %
 0,3 %
 0,4 %
 Other countries
 0,7 %
 0,5 %
 0,2 %
 0,2 %
 Total
 2,2 %
 1,7 %
 1,1 %
 1,2 %
 Index (2015 = 100)
 100
 79
 52
 55
 Source: Eurostat
 5.5. Economic situation of the Union industry
 5.5.1. General remarks
 (95)
 In accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic indicators having a bearing on


text:
the state of the Union industry during the period considered.
 (96)
 This market is, inter alia, characterised by two sales channels, i.e. sales under the producer’s own brand and sales under retailers’ brand. Sale under the first channel, as compared to the second channel, will usually trigger higher selling costs, in particular to cover marketing and advertising, and will also command higher selling price.
 (97)
 The investigation evidenced that all competing imports from the sampled Thai exporting producers pertained to the second channel, i.e. the retailers’ brand channel. Therefore, it was considered appropriate to distinguish, in the injury analysis, between the Union industry’s sales under its own brand and under the retailers’ brand wherever relevant, as dumped imports compete with the Union industry’s like products sold under the retailers’ brand. This distinction was made in particular for the determination of sales volumes, sales prices and profitability. However, for the sake of completeness, totals (including both own brand and retailers’ brand) are also shown and analysed in Tables 9, 13 and 16. During the review investigation period, the Union industry’s sales under the retailers’ brand accounted for around 67 % of the total Union industry’s sales volume and around 57 % of their sales value.
 (98)
 Given that in the Union sweetcorn is only processed during the summer months, a number of injury indicators are virtually identical for 2017 and the review investigation period (1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018). This applies in particular to production and production capacity.
 (99)
 As mentioned in recital (14), sampling was used for the assessment of the economic situation of the Union industry.
 (100)
 For the injury determination, the Commission distinguished between macroeconomic and microeconomic injury indicators. The Commission evaluated the macroeconomic indicators on the basis of data submitted by the Union industry and the verified questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers.
 (101)
 The Commission evaluated the microeconomic indicators on the basis of data contained in the questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers.
 (102)
 Both sets of data were found to be representative of the economic situation of the Union industry.
 (103)
 The macroeconomic indicators are: production, production capacity, capacity utilisation, sales volume, market share, growth, employment, productivity, magnitude of the dumping margin and recovery from past dumping.
 (104)
 The microeconomic indicators are: average unit prices, unit cost, labour costs, inventories, profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments, and ability to raise capital.
 5.5.2. Macroeconomic indicators
 5.5.2.1. Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation
 (105)
 From a level of around 359 000 tonnes in 2015, the Union industry’s production increased by 5 % during the period considered.
 Table 6
 Union production
 2015
 2016
 2017
 RIP
 Production (tonnes)
 359 250
 343 539
 376 337
 376 437
 Index (2015 = 100)
 100
 96
 105
 105
 Source: Data submitted by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies
 (106)
 Production capacity remained stable over the period considered.
 Table 7
 Union production capacity
 2015
 2016
 2017
 RIP
 Capacity (tonnes)
 465 311
 465 370
 465 876
 465 876
 Index


text:
(2015 = 100)
 100
 100
 100
 100
 Source: Data submitted by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies
 (107)
 Capacity utilisation followed the same trend as the production, it increased by 5 % during the period considered to 81 %.
 Table 8
 Union capacity utilisation
 2015
 2016
 2017
 RIP
 Capacity utilisation (%)
 77
 74
 81
 81
 Index (2015 = 100)
 100
 96
 105
 105
 Source: Data submitted by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies
 5.5.2.2. Sales volume and market share
 (108)
 The sales of the Union industry of its production intended for the retailers’ brand on the Union market to unrelated customers increased by 3 % in the review investigation period.
 Table 9
 Union sales volume
 2015
 2016
 2017
 RIP
 Union sales volume (retailers’ brand) to unrelated customers tonnes
 214 495
 219 646
 225 522
 220 839
 Index (2015 = 100)
 100
 102
 105
 103
 Union sales volume (own and retailers’ brand) to unrelated customers tonnes
 322 501
 330 246
 338 455
 330 875
 Index (2015 = 100)
 100
 102
 105
 103
 Source: Data submitted by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies
 (109)
 The total (both own and retailers’ brands) Union industry’s sales of its production on the Union market to unrelated customers followed the same pattern as the retailers’ brand sales, i.e. it increased by 3 % in during the period considered.
 (110)
 The market share held by the Union industry was 94 % in 2015 and it increased by one percentage point to 95 % in the review investigation period.
 Table 10
 Union market share
 2015
 2016
 2017
 RIP
 Market share of the Union industry (own and retailers’ brand) (%)
 94
 95
 95
 95
 Index (2015 = 100)
 100
 101
 101
 101
 Source: Data submitted by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies
 5.5.2.3. Growth
 (111)
 Between 2015 and the review investigation period, the Union consumption slightly increased by 2 % but the Union industry managed to increase their market share by 1 % through higher sales.
 5.5.2.4. Employment and productivity
 (112)
 The employment level of the Union industry first decreased by 11 % between 2015 and 2017 and then increased by 6 percentage points in the review investigation period. Overall, employment of the Union industry decreased by 5 % over the period considered, from around 2 200 to around 2 100 full time equivalents (‘FTE’).
 Table 11
 Employment
 2015
 2016
 2017
 RIP
 Employment in FTE
 2 203
 1 993
 1 964
 2 092
 Index (2015 = 100)
 100
 90
 89
 95
 Source: Data submitted by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies
 (113)
 Productivity of the Union industry’s workforce, measured as output (tonnes) per FTE per year, started from a level of 163 tonnes per FTE first increased by 17 % between 2015 and 2017, then decreased by 7 percentage points in the review investigation period. Overall, productivity increased by 10 % to 180 tonnes per FTE per year. This reflects the increased usage of advanced machinery at the expense of manual labour.
 Table 12


text:
Union productivity
 2015
 2016
 2017
 RIP
 Productivity (tonnes/FTE)
 163
 172
 192
 180
 Index (2015 = 100)
 100
 106
 117
 110
 Source: Data submitted by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies
 5.5.2.5. Magnitude of the dumping margin and recovery from past dumping
 (114)
 The investigation has established the continuation of dumping, and that the magnitude of the countrywide margin of dumping as shown in recital (63) is above the de minimis level.
 (115)
 At the same time, the level of imports of the product under review during the review investigation period, while being relatively limited, remained significant at 3,9 %.
 (116)
 The macro- and micro-indicators examined show that, although the anti-dumping measures have partially achieved their intended result of removing the injury suffered by the Union producers, the industry is still under continuous pressure due to the low prices charged by the Thai exporting producers.
 (117)
 Indeed the performance on the retailers’ segment, which is in direct competition with the Thai imports, is poor in terms of profitability. Sales prices of the Union industry in this market segment decreased by 8 % over the period considered, whereas production costs increased by about 1 % over the same period. Clearly, the Union industry has not been in a position to recover its costs, which resulted in significant losses. Given the importance of the retailers’ brand in the Union industry’s sweetcorn business (around 67 % of the total Union industry’s sales volume and around 57 % of sales value) this has weighted on the overall profitability. Thus, no actual recovery from the past dumping in the retailers’ segment could be established and it is considered that the Union industry remains vulnerable.
 5.5.3. Microeconomic indicators
 5.5.3.1. Prices and factors affecting prices
 (118)
 Unit prices for Union industry’s sales of retailers’ brand products to unrelated customers decreased over the period considered by 8 % to EUR 1 114/tonne.
 (119)
 The Union industry’s sales prices on the Union market for both own and retailers’ brand to unrelated customers decreased by 4 % over the period considered to EUR 1 311/tonne.
 Table 13
 Unit price in the Union market
 2015
 2016
 2017
 RIP
 Union unit price (retailers’ brand) to unrelated customers (EUR/tonne)
 1 204
 1 106
 1 095
 1 114
 Index (2015 = 100)
 100
 92
 91
 92
 Union unit price (own and retailers’ brand) to unrelated customers (EUR/tonne)
 1 365
 1 291
 1 289
 1 311
 Index (2015 = 100)
 100
 95
 94
 96
 Source: Data submitted by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies
 5.5.3.2. Labour costs
 (120)
 Between 2015 and the review investigation period, average labour costs per employee increased by 8 %, due to higher total labour costs by 2 % and lower employment in FTE by 5 % in the same period.
 Table 14
 Average labour costs per employee
 2015
 2016
 2017
 RIP
 Labour costs (EUR/FTE)
 30 529
 32 581
 35 537
 32 903
 Index (2015 = 100)
 100
 107
 116
 108
 Source: Data submitted by the Union industry and verified


text:
questionnaire replies.
 FTE is a full time equivalent.
 5.5.3.3. Inventories
 (121)
 The level of closing stocks of the Union industry has been decreasing over the period considered. It decreased by 6 % in 2016 and 2017 and by 59 % in the review investigation period. However, it should be noted that the high level of inventories at the end of a calendar years is linked to the fact that the harvest and the canning typically end in September each year. Stocks are therefore replenished only during the summer harvest and then used up throughout the year, therefore the stock levels in the review investigation period need to be assessed separately.
 Table 15
 Inventories
 2015
 2016
 2017
 RIP
 Closing stock (tonnes)
 198 629
 186 248
 186 136
 80 885
 Index (2015 = 100)
 100
 94
 94
 41
 Source: Data submitted by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies
 5.5.3.4. Profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital
 (122)
 During the period considered, the profitability of the Union industry’s sales of products intended for retailers’ brand, expressed as a percentage of net sales, declined from a profit of 5,2 % in 2015 to a loss of 0,7 % in the review investigation period.
 (123)
 The profitability of the Union industry’s sales of the products intended for both own and retailers’ brands also declined from 10 % in 2015 to 6,7 % in the review investigation period. The decline is thus less steep than for sales under retailers’ brand alone. The decrease in profitability is explained by the fact that sales prices over the period considered decreased by 4 %, whereas production costs (predominantly unprocessed sweetcorn and cans) increased by 1 % over the same period. Clearly, the Union industry has not been in a position to pass on the increased production costs to its customers.
 (124)
 The return on investments (‘ROI’), expressed as the profit (for both own and retailers’ brand) as a percentage of the net book value of investments, broadly followed the profitability trend. It declined from a level of around 49 % in 2015 to 31,7 % in the review investigation period, thus decreasing by 35 % over the period considered.
 (125)
 The net cash flow from operating activities stood at around EUR 17 million in 2015. It increased to around EUR 24 million in the review investigation period (i.e. increase by 42 %). None of the sampled Union producers indicated that they experienced difficulties to raise capital.
 Table 16
 Profitability and return on investment
 2015
 2016
 2017
 RIP
 Union profitability (retailers’ brand) (% of net sales)
 5,2
 -1,4
 -2,6
 -0,7
 Index (2015 = 100)
 100
 -27
 -50
 -13
 Union profitability (own and retailers’ brand) (% of net sales)
 10,0
 6,1
 4,8
 6,7
 Index (2015 = 100)
 100
 61
 48
 67
 ROI (own and retailers’ brand)(profit in % of the net book value of investment)
 49,0
 27,3
 23,7
 31,7
 Index (2015 = 100)
 100
 56
 48
 65
 Source: Data submitted by the Union industry and


text:
verified questionnaire replies
 Table 17
 Cash flow
 2015
 2016
 2017
 RIP
 Cash flow (own and retailers’ brand) (EUR)
 17 197 966
 32 293 239
 16 496 604
 24 404 977
 Index (2015 = 100)
 100
 188
 96
 142
 Source: Data submitted by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies
 (126)
 The Union industry’s annual investments in the production of the like product increased steadily over the period considered from around EUR 4 million in 2015 to around EUR 8 million in the review investigation period, i.e. they increased by 85 %. The investments were made for the renewal of existing equipment and productivity increase.
 Table 18
 Investments
 2015
 2016
 2017
 RIP
 Net investments (EUR)
 4 446 615
 5 622 002
 7 744 202
 8 232 340
 Index (2015 = 100)
 100
 126
 174
 185
 Source: Data submitted by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies
 5.6. Conclusion on the situation of the Union industry
 (127)
 A number of indicators developed negatively between 2015 and the review investigation period. Return on investments declined as did the profitability of sales, employment decreased by 5 %. Imports from Thailand increased with a declining average price. Extremely good crop yields in 2014 resulted in high stock levels in 2015. During the same period low-priced Thai imports negatively affected Union industry even more. In reaction, the Union industry decreased prices and production in 2016 along with de-stocking, which affected negatively their profitability. Only in 2017 the Union industry could increase production but the profitability hit the lowest level given the production and sales delay of one calendar year.
 (128)
 Union industry’s sales of sweetcorn in retailers’ brand segment were loss-making during the majority of the period considered. The industry needs the retailer-branded sales, since they account for more than half of their sales. Given the significance of the retailer-branded sales in the total sales value, the overall profitability decreased from 10 % to 6,7 %.
 (129)
 Some indicators marked positive development. Capacity utilisation increased to 81 %. Cash flow and investments also increased significantly. The volume of the Union industry’s retailer-branded sales, which are in direct competition with Thai imports, increased by 3 %. Total sales for both segments combined increased by the same percentage. It should be however noted that the Thai imports prevented the Union industry to pass on cost increases to customers and the Union industry was therefore not able to reach satisfactory profitability levels in order to maintain a substantial market share on a market where only the Union industry and Thai imports compete as the imports from other third countries are dispersed and insignificant.
 (130)
 The two segments (retailers’ brand and own brand) show different situation of the Union industry. On one hand, in the own-branded segment the Union industry does not face strong direct competition. The power of brand owners is strong and the market is consolidated. On the other hand, the retailers are price setters in the retailers’ brand segment. Due to the competition from the Thai imports,


text:
prices are constantly under pressure. As a result, it is more difficult for the Union producers to pass on production cost increases (mainly sweetcorn and cans) to retailers due to the price pressure exercised by Thai imports.
 (131)
 Seemingly, the Union industry has been able to increase its market share by favouring volumes over prices. However, it cannot be ignored that for a majority of the period considered and majority of its sweetcorn business (retailers’ brand) the Union industry has been loss-making.
 (132)
 Following final disclosure the Government of Thailand and two exporting producers argued that there was a potential threat coming from the increased volume of sweetcorn imports from China with lower import prices rather than from Thai imports.
 (133)
 While Chinese imports have lower average price, import volumes during the review investigation period were still negligible (0,4 % market share), therefore those imports were not considered in the injury assessment. This claim was rejected.
 (134)
 The Government of Thailand and the two exporting producers further argued that the underperformance of the Union industry was due to particular weather conditions in Europe in 2018. The two exporting producers made reference to a press article (14) about the 2018 corn crop harvest. The Commission notes firstly that the 2018 sweetcorn harvest does not affect Union industry’s results in the period considered (ending in June 2018) — as the sales till June 2018 are based on the harvest of the previous year. Secondly, the article is not relevant because corn as opposed to sweetcorn is a different plant which is not used to produce the product under review.
 (135)
 The Union industry claimed that the injury assessment should distinguish large cans sold under retailers brand segment, where Thai exporting producers had between 20 % and 30 % market share and the Union industry suffered low profitability and material injury.
 (136)
 As mentioned in recital (96), the sweetcorn market is characterised by two sales channels, retailers’ brand channel and own brand. In accordance with Article 11(9) of the basic Regulation, and as was done in the original investigation which led to the duty, the injury assessment was based on the Union industry’s overall performance (own brand + retailers’ brand) as well as, for a number of injury indicators (profitability, sales volume and sales prices) on the retailers’ brand. There are no changed circumstances which would justify using a different methodology. Therefore, the claim was rejected.
 (137)
 The injury picture of the Union industry is mixed. The anti-dumping measures have partially achieved their objective by removing some of the injury suffered by the Union industry as a consequence of dumped imports from Thailand. However, on balance, in particular taking into account the low profitability, the situation of the Union industry is still vulnerable and fragile.
 (138)
 Consequently, the Commission concluded that while the Union industry did suffer some injury during the review investigation period, it could not be considered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.
 6. LIKELIHOOD


text:
OF RECURRENCE OF INJURY
 (139)
 The Commission concluded in recital (138) that the Union industry did not suffer material injury during the review investigation period. Therefore, the Commission assessed, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, whether there would be a likelihood of recurrence of injury from the dumped imports from Thailand if the measures were allowed to lapse. On the basis of the above-described trends, it appears that the anti-dumping measures have partially achieved their intended result of removing injury suffered by the Union producers. However, as evidenced by negative development of a number of injury indicators, the Union industry is still in a vulnerable and fragile situation.
 (140)
 In that regard, the Commission examined the production capacity and spare capacity in the country concerned, attractiveness of the Union market and the impact of imports from the country concerned on the situation of the Union industry should the measures be allowed to lapse.
 6.1. Spare production/processing capacity
 (141)
 As mentioned in recitals (68) - (70), Thai exporters do have significant spare capacity to increase their exports rapidly. In addition, Thai spare processing capacity is estimated around 150 000 tonnes, which is approximately 10 times the Thai export volume to the Union.
 6.2. Attractiveness of the Union market
 (142)
 Given the more lucrative prices on the Union market compared to third country markets as described in recital (72), it is likely that significant quantities currently exported to those countries would be re-directed to the Union market in the event of the anti-dumping measures being allowed to lapse.
 (143)
 On that basis, in the absence of measures, Thai producers would likely intensely increase their presence in the Union market in terms of both volume and market share and at dumped prices that would exert increased price pressure on the Union industry’s sales prices.
 6.3. Impact on the Union industry
 (144)
 With the likely arrival of large quantities of Thai imports undercutting the prices, the Union industry would be forced to reduce its production or lower its prices. Even low undercutting have significant impact on the profitability of the Union industry, as shown in the analysis of the retailers’ brand in recitals (122) and (123).
 (145)
 Given the fragility of the Union industry, decreases in production volumes and sales prices would cause a very quick deterioration of its profitability and other performance indicators.
 6.4. Conclusion on likelihood of reccurence of injury
 (146)
 On the basis of the above, it can be concluded that there is a likelihood of recurrence of material injury should the current anti-dumping measures lapse.
 (147)
 Two exporting producers commented that there is no likelihood of recurrence of material injury because the Commission did not present sufficient factual evidence of it, mainly because the Union market is not the main and preferred market for the product under review and the existing economic indicators show positive developments. This issue was also raised by the Government of Thailand.
 (148)
 The evidence of likelihood of recurrence of injury is detailed


text:
in recitals (139) to (145), where the Commission conducted a prospective assessment to assess the likelihood of recurrence of injury. Such an analysis is not exclusively based on the current situation regarding the main and preferred market for the product under review and Union industry performance, but it considers the likely situation in the Union market should the anti-dumping measures be repealed. Thus, this claim was rejected.
 7. UNION INTEREST
 (149)
 In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether maintaining the existing anti-dumping measures would be against the interest of the Union as whole. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved. All interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in accordance with Article 21(2) of the basic Regulation.
 7.1. Interest of the Union industry
 (150)
 As mentioned in recital (139), the Union industry is still in a fragile and vulnerable situation. It could use the relief provided by the continuation of the measures to increase its sales prices (in particular for the retailers’ brand) in order to recover its increased production costs. This would allow the Union industry to improve its financial situation.
 7.2. Interest of retailers and consumers
 (151)
 In the previous expiry review investigation, it was concluded that retailers would not be disproportionally affected, even if measures were to be extended.
 (152)
 In the current investigation the Commission did not find any evidence suggesting that this has changed since the previous expiry review. No retailer cooperated with the investigation nor claimed that this conclusion was no longer valid. Accordingly, the Commission concluded that the measures currently in force had no substantial negative effect on the financial situation of retailers and that the continuation of the measures would not unduly affect them.
 (153)
 As far as consumers are concerned, the average spending in sweetcorn per household is very limited. Taking into account the moderate level of the current measures, the effects of the continued imposition of measures would likely be negligible for consumers.
 (154)
 Therefore, it is therefore considered that the situation of retailers and of consumers in the Union is unlikely to be substantially affected by the proposed measures.
 7.3. Risk of supply shortages/competition on the Union market
 (155)
 The consumption in the Union remained stable at around 365 000 tonnes. The Union industry’s capacity has continuously exceeded Union’s demand over the period considered, reaching a level of around 466 000 tonnes in the review investigation period. It appears that the Union industry has a spare capacity to increase their production in the event of increased demand. Imports from other third countries, in particular the United States and China, can also satisfy part of the demand. Indeed, the anti-dumping measures are not intended to stop the imports from Thailand into the Union. Taking into account the low level of the anti-dumping duty, it is expected that the Thai imports will continue to account for a certain share on the


text:
Union market.
 (156)
 Given the above considerations, it cannot be concluded that maintaining the anti-dumping measures would likely result in a shortage of supply on the Union market or a restriction of competition on the Union market.
 7.4. Conclusion on Union interest
 (157)
 Consequently, the Commission concluded that there were no compelling reasons of the Union interest against maintaining the existing measures on imports of the product under review.
 8. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
 (158)
 On the basis of the conclusions reached by the Commission on continuation of dumping, recurrence of injury and Union interest, the anti-dumping measures on certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels originating in Thailand should be maintained.
 (159)
 All interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the existing measures be maintained. They were also granted a period to make representations subsequent to this disclosure and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings. The submissions and comments were duly taken into consideration where warranted.
 (160)
 In view of Article 109 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 (15), when an amount is to be reimbursed following a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the interest to be paid should be the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations, as published in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union on the first calendar day of each month.
 (161)
 The Committee established by Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 did not deliver an opinion,
 HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
 Article 1
 1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is imposed on imports of sweetcorn (Zea mays var. saccharata) in kernels, prepared or preserved by vinegar or acetic acid, not frozen, currently falling under CN code ex 2001 90 30 (TARIC code 2001903010), and sweetcorn (Zea mays var. saccharata) in kernels prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid, not frozen, other than products of heading 2006, currently falling under CN code ex 2005 80 00 (TARIC code 2005800010) originating in the Kingdom of Thailand.
 2. The rates of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies listed below, shall be as follows:
 Company
 Anti-dumping duty (%)
 TARIC additional code
 Karn Corn Co Ltd, 68 Moo 7 Tambol Saentor, Thamaka, Kanchanaburi 711 30, Thailand
 3,1
 A789
 Kuiburi Fruit Canning Co., Ltd, 236 Krung Thon Muang Kaew Building, Sirindhorn Rd., Bangplad, Bangkok 10700, Thailand
 14,3
 A890
 Malee Sampran Public Co., Ltd Abico Bldg. 401/1 Phaholyothin Rd., Lumlookka, Pathumthani 12130, Thailand
 12,8
 A790
 River Kwai International Food Industry Co., Ltd, 99 Moo 1 Thanamtuen Khaupoon Road Kaengsian, Muang, Kanchanaburi 71000 Thailand
 12,8
 A791
 Sun Sweet Co., Ltd, 9 M. 1, Sanpatong, Chiang Mai 50120, Thailand
 11,1
 A792
 Cooperating exporting producers listed in the Annex
 12,9
 A793
 All other companies
 14,3
 A999
 3. Unless otherwise specified, the


text:
provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.
 Article 2
 Article 1(2) may be amended in order to include a new exporting producer and to attribute to that producer the weighted average anti-dumping duty rate applicable to the cooperating companies not included in the sample of the original investigation, where a new exporting producer in Thailand provides sufficient evidence to the Commission that:
 (a)
 it did not export to the Union the product described in paragraph 1 in the period between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2005 (original investigation period);
 (b)
 it is not related to any exporter or producer in Thailand which is subject to the anti-dumping measures imposed by this Regulation; and
 (c)
 it has either actually exported to the Union the product under review or it has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Union after the end of the original investigation period.
 Article 3
 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, 28 November 2019.
 For the Commission
 The President
 Jean-Claude JUNCKER
 (1) OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.
 (2) Council Regulation (EC) No 682/2007 of 18 June 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels originating in Thailand (OJ L 159, 20.6.2007, p. 14).
 (3) Council Regulation (EC) No 954/2008 of 25 September 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 682/2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels originating in Thailand (OJ L 260, 30.9.2008, p. 1).
 (4) Commission Decision of 18 June 2007 accepting undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain prepared or preserved sweet corn in kernels originating in Thailand (2007/424/EC) (OJ L 159, 20.6.2007, p. 42).
 (5) Council Regulation (EC) No 847/2009 of 15 September 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 682/2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels originating in Thailand (OJ L 246, 18.9.2009, p. 1).
 (6) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 875/2013 of 2 September 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels originating in Thailand following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ L 244, 13.9.2013, p. 1).
 (7) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 307/2014 of 24 March 2014 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 875/2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels originating in Thailand following an interim review pursuant of Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ L 91, 27.3.2014, p. 1).
 (8) Notice following the judgments of 14 December 2017 and 28 March 2019, in Cases T-460/14 and C-144/18 P respectively, with regard to


text:
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 307/2014 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 875/2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels originating in Thailand (OJ C 291/3, 29.8.2019, p. 3).
 (9) Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures (OJ C 440, 21.12.2017, p. 21).
 (10) Notice of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels originating in the Kingdom of Thailand (OJ C 322, 12.9.2018, p. 4).
 (11) IEG Vu article dated 24.10.2018 in AETMD submission dated 29.3.2019, Annex 8.
 (12) AETMD submission dated 29.3.2019.
 (13) Exports of 13 643 tonnes of the product under review (see Table 2) compared to a total spare capacity of 150 000 tonnes.
 (14) https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2018/10/20/la-roumanie-vampirise-le-marche-europeen-du-mais_5372297_3234.html?xtmc=dracula&xtcr=1
 (15) Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p. 1).
 BILAG
 Liste over de i artikel 1, stk. 2, under Taric-tillægskode A793 nævnte samarbejdsvillige eksporterende producenter
 Navn
 Adresse
 Agro-On (Thailand) Co., Ltd
 50/499-500 Moo 6 Baan Mai, Pakkret, Monthaburi 11120, Thailand
 B.N.H. Canning Co., Ltd
 425/6-7 Sathorn Place Bldg., Klongtonnesai, Kongsan Bangkok 10600,Thailand
 Boonsith Enterprise Co., Ltd
 7/4 M.2, Soi Chomthong 13, Chomthong Rd., Chomthong, Bangkok 10150, Thailand
 Erawan Food Public Company Limited
 Panjathani Tower 16th floor, 127/21 Nonsee Rd., Chongnonsee, Yannawa, Bangkok 10120, Thailand
 Great Oriental Food Products Co., Ltd
 888/127 Panuch Village Soi Thanaphol 2, Samsen-Nok, Huaykwang, Bangkok 10310, Thailand
 Lampang Food Products Co., Ltd
 22K Building, Soi Sukhumvit 35, Klongton Nua, Wattana, Bangkok 10110, Thailand
 O.V. International Import-Export Co., Ltd
 121/320 Soi Ekachai 66/6, Bangborn, Bangkok 10500, Thailand
 Pan Inter Foods Co., Ltd
 400 Sunphavuth Rd, Bangna, Bangkok 10260, Thailand
 Siam Food Products Public Co., Ltd
 3195/14 Rama IV Road, Vibulthani Tower 1, 9th Fl., Klong Toey, Bangkok, 10110 Thailand
 Viriyah Food Processing Co., Ltd
 100/48 Vongvanij B Bldg, 18th Fl, Praram 9 Rd., Huay Kwang, Bangkok 10310 Thailand
 Vita Food Factory (1989) Ltd
 89 Arunammarin Rd., Banyikhan, Bangplad, Bangkok 10700, Thailand


text:
 13.5.2020
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 L 150/138
 KOMMISSIONENS GENNEMFØRELSESFORORDNING (EU) 2020/643
 af 12. maj 2020
 om afvisning af at godkende rødder af Saponaria officinalis L. som basisstof, jf. Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1107/2009 om markedsføring af plantebeskyttelsesmidler
 (EØS-relevant tekst)
 EUROPA-KOMMISSIONEN HAR —
 under henvisning til traktaten om Den Europæiske Unions funktionsmåde,
 under henvisning til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1107/2009 af 21. oktober 2009 om markedsføring af plantebeskyttelsesmidler og om ophævelse af Rådets direktiv 79/117/EØF og 91/414/EØF (1), særlig artikel 13, stk. 2, sammenholdt med artikel 23, stk. 5, og
 ud fra følgende betragtninger:
 (1)
 Kommissionen modtog den 9. oktober 2015 en ansøgning fra det Crop Research Institute (Tjekkiet) om godkendelse af rødder af Saponaria officinalis L. som basisstof. Ansøgningen var vedlagt de oplysninger, der kræves i henhold til artikel 23, stk. 3, andet afsnit, i forordning (EF) nr. 1107/2009.
 (2)
 Kommissionen anmodede Den Europæiske Fødevaresikkerhedsautoritet (»autoriteten«) om videnskabelig bistand. Autoriteten forelagde den 19. juni 2017 en teknisk rapport om rødder af Saponaria officinalis L. for Kommissionen (2). Kommissionen forelagde vurderingsrapporten (3) og et udkast til nærværende forordning om afvisning af rødder af Saponaria officinalis L. for Den Stående Komité for Planter, Dyr, Fødevarer og Foder den 6. december 2017.
 (3)
 Det fremgår af den dokumentation, som ansøgeren har fremsendt, at rødder af Saponaria officinalis L. opfylder kriterierne for fødevarer, jf. artikel 2 i Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 178/2002 (4), ved anvendelse som emulgator.
 (4)
 Der blev dog i autoritetens tekniske rapport konstateret specifikke betænkeligheder vedrørende forekomsten af problematiske stoffer (bl.a. triterpensaponiner, saporin) i ekstrakter af rødder af Saponaria officinalis L. ved anvendelse til plantebeskyttelsesformål. Der forelå ikke tilstrækkeligt med oplysninger til at kunne fastsætte et sikkert niveau for indtag for forbrugerne, og vurderingen af risikoen for forbrugerne kunne ikke afsluttes for anvendelsen af rødder af Saponaria officinalis L. på agurk, tomat og humle. Desuden var oplysningerne for utilstrækkelige til, at der kunne drages en konklusion om risikoen for organismer uden for målgruppen.
 (5)
 Der forelå ingen relevante vurderinger, der var foretaget i henhold til anden EU-lovgivning, jf. artikel 23, stk. 2, i forordning (EF) nr. 1107/2009.
 (6)
 Europa-Kommissionen opfordrede ansøgeren til at fremsætte sine bemærkninger til autoritetens tekniske rapport og til udkastet til vurderingsrapport. Ansøgeren fremsatte sine bemærkninger, som er blevet nøje gennemgået.
 (7)
 Som fastslået i Kommissionens vurderingsrapport er det derfor ikke blevet fastslået, at kravene i artikel 23 i forordning (EF) nr. 1107/2009 er opfyldt. Rødder af Saponaria officinalis L. bør derfor ikke godkendes som basisstof.
 (8)
 Denne forordning er ikke til hinder for, at der kan indgives en ny ansøgning vedrørende godkendelse af rødder af Saponaria officinalis L. som basisstof i overensstemmelse med artikel 23, stk. 3, i forordning (EF) nr. 1107/2009.
 (9)
 Foranstaltningerne i denne forordning er i overensstemmelse med udtalelse fra Den Stående Komité for Planter, Dyr, Fødevarer og Foder —
 VEDTAGET DENNE FORORDNING:
 Artikel 1
 Stoffet rødder af Saponaria officinalis L. godkendes ikke som basisstof.
 Artikel 2
 Denne forordning træder i kraft på tyvendedagen efter offentliggørelsen


text:
i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende.
 Denne forordning er bindende i alle enkeltheder og gælder umiddelbart i hver medlemsstat.
 Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 12. maj 2020.
 På Kommissionens vegne
 Ursula VON DER LEYEN
 Formand
 (1) EUT L 309 af 24.11.2009, s. 1.
 (2) Den Europæiske Fødevaresikkerhedsautoritet (EFSA), 2017. Technical report on the outcome of the consultation with Member States and EFSA on the basic substance application for Saponaria officinalis L. roots for use in plant protection as acaricide and elicitor. EFSA supporting publication 2017:EN-1263. 44 s.
 (3) http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/eu-pesticides-database/public/?event=activesubstance.selection&language=DA.
 (4) Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 178/2002 af 28. januar 2002 om generelle principper og krav i fødevarelovgivningen, om oprettelse af Den Europæiske Fødevaresikkerhedsautoritet og om procedurer vedrørende fødevaresikkerhed (EFT L 31 af 1.2.2002, s. 1).


text:
 16.4.2013
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 L 106/11
 KOMMISSIONENS GENNEMFØRELSESFORORDNING (EU) Nr. 340/2013
 af 15. april 2013
 om fastsættelse af importtolden for korn gældende fra den 16. april 2013
 EUROPA-KOMMISSIONEN HAR —
 under henvisning til Den Europæiske Unions funktionsmåde,
 under henvisning til Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1234/2007 af 22. oktober 2007 om en fælles markedsordning for landbrugsprodukter og om særlige bestemmelser for visse landbrugsprodukter (fusionsmarkedsordningen) (1),
 under henvisning til Kommissionens forordning (EU) nr. 642/2010 af 20. juli 2010 om gennemførelsesbestemmelser til Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1234/2007 for så vidt angår importtold for korn (2), særlig artikel 2, stk. 1, og
 ud fra følgende betragtninger:
 (1)
 Ifølge artikel 136, stk. 1, i forordning (EF) nr. 1234/2007 er importtolden for produkter henhørende under KN-kode 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (blød hvede, til udsæd), ex 1001 99 00 (blød hvede af høj kvalitet, undtagen til udsæd), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 og 1007 90 00 lig med interventionsprisen for sådanne produkter ved import forhøjet med 55 % minus cif-importprisen for den pågældende sending. Denne told kan dog ikke overstige toldsatsen i den fælles toldtarif.
 (2)
 Ifølge artikel 136, stk. 2, i forordning (EF) nr. 1234/2007 skal der med henblik på beregning af importtolden som omhandlet i nævnte artikels stk. 1 regelmæssigt fastsættes repræsentative cif-importpriser for de pågældende produkter.
 (3)
 I overensstemmelse med artikel 2, stk. 2, i forordning (EU) nr. 642/2010 er den pris, der skal anvendes ved beregning af importtolden for produkter henhørende under KN-kode 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (blød hvede, til udsæd), ex 1001 99 00 (blød hvede af høj kvalitet, undtagen til udsæd), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 og 1007 90 00, den daglige repræsentative cif-importpris fastlagt efter metoden i den omhandlede forordnings artikel 5.
 (4)
 Importtolden bør fastsættes for perioden fra den 16. april 2013 og gælde, indtil en ny importtold træder i kraft.
 (5)
 For at sikre at foranstaltningen finder anvendelse så hurtigt som muligt, efter de opdaterede data er blevet gjort tilgængelige, bør denne forordning træde i kraft på dagen for offentliggørelsen —
 VEDTAGET DENNE FORORDNING:
 Artikel 1
 Med virkning fra den 16. april 2013 er importtolden for korn som omhandlet i artikel 136, stk. 1, i forordning (EF) nr. 1234/2007 fastsat i bilag I til nærværende forordning på grundlag af elementerne i bilag II.
 Artikel 2
 Denne forordning træder i kraft på dagen for offentliggørelsen i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende.
 Denne forordning er bindende i alle enkeltheder og gælder umiddelbart i hver medlemsstat.
 Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 15. april 2013.
 På Kommissionens vegne For formanden
 José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ
 Generaldirektør for landbrug og udvikling af landdistrikter
 (1) EUT L 299 af 16.11.2007, s. 1.
 (2) EUT L 187 af 21.7.2010, s. 5.
 BILAG I
 Importtold for produkter omhandlet i artikel 136, stk. 1, i forordning (EF) nr. 1234/2007 gældende fra den 16. april 2013


text:
KN-kode
 Varebeskrivelse
 Importtold (1)
 (EUR/t)
 1001 19 00
 1001 11 00
 Hård HVEDE af høj kvalitet
 0,00
 af middel kvalitet
 0,00
 af lav kvalitet
 0,00
 ex 1001 91 20
 Blød HVEDE, til udsæd
 0,00
 ex 1001 99 00
 Blød HVEDE af høj kvalitet, undtagen til udsæd
 0,00
 1002 10 00
 1002 90 00
 RUG
 0,00
 1005 10 90
 MAJS til udsæd, undtagen hybridmajs
 0,00
 1005 90 00
 MAJS, undtagen til udsæd (2)
 0,00
 1007 10 90
 1007 90 00
 SORGHUM i hele kerner, undtagen hybridsorghum til udsæd
 0,00
 (1) Importøren kan i henhold til artikel 2, stk. 4, i forordning (EU) nr. 642/2010 opnå en nedsættelse af tolden på:
 —
 3 EUR/t, hvis lossehavnen befinder sig ved Middelhavet (på den anden side af Gibraltar-strædet) eller ved Sortehavet, hvis varen ankommer over Atlanterhavet eller via Suez-kanalen
 —
 2 EUR/t, hvis lossehavnen befinder sig i Danmark, Estland, Irland, Letland, Litauen, Polen, Finland, Sverige, Det Forenede Kongerige eller på Den Iberiske Halvøs Atlanterhavskyst, hvis varen ankommer til EU fra Atlanterhavet.
 (2) Importøren kan opnå en fast nedsættelse på 24 EUR/t, når betingelserne i artikel 3 i forordning (EU) nr. 642/2010 opfyldes.
 BILAG II
 Elementer til beregning af tolden, jf. bilag I
 1.4.2013-12.4.2013
 1)
 Gennemsnit for den referenceperiode, der er nævnt i artikel 2, stk. 2, i forordning (EU) nr. 642/2010:
 (EUR/t)
 Blød hvede (1)
 Majs
 Blød hvede, høj kvalitet
 Hård hvede, middel kvalitet (2)
 Blød hvede, lav kvalitet (3)
 Børs
 Minnéapolis
 Chicago
 —
 —
 —
 Notering
 237,73
 195,08
 —
 —
 —
 Pris fob USA
 —
 —
 248,18
 238,18
 218,18
 Præmie for Golfen
 —
 19,26
 —
 —
 —
 Præmie for the Great Lakes
 31,07
 —
 —
 —
 —
 2)
 Gennemsnit for den referenceperiode, der er nævnt i artikel 2, stk. 2, i forordning (EU) nr. 642/2010:
 Fragtomkostninger: Mexicanske Golf — Rotterdam:
 16,54 EUR/t
 Fragtomkostninger: The Great Lakes — Rotterdam
 51,09 EUR/t
 (1) Positiv præmie på 14 EUR/t indbefattet (artikel 5, stk. 3, i forordning (EU) nr. 642/2010).
 (2) Negativ præmie på 10 EUR/t (artikel 5, stk. 3, i forordning (EU) nr. 642/2010).
 (3) Negativ præmie på 30 EUR/t (artikel 5, stk. 3, i forordning (EU) nr. 642/2010).


text:
 31.3.2020
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 L 98/30
 KOMMISSIONENS GENNEMFØRELSESFORORDNING (EU) 2020/466
 af 30. marts 2020
 om midlertidige foranstaltninger til begrænsning af risici for menneskers, dyrs og planters sundhed og dyrevelfærden i forbindelse med visse alvorlige forstyrrelser i medlemsstaternes kontrolsystemer som følge af coronavirussygdommen (covid-19)
 (EØS-relevant tekst)
 EUROPA-KOMMISSIONEN HAR —
 under henvisning til traktaten om Den Europæiske Unions funktionsmåde,
 under henvisning til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EU) 2017/625 af 15. marts 2017 om offentlig kontrol og andre officielle aktiviteter med henblik på at sikre anvendelsen af fødevare- og foderlovgivningen og reglerne for dyresundhed og dyrevelfærd, plantesundhed og plantebeskyttelsesmidler, om ændring af Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 999/2001, (EF) nr. 396/2005, (EF) nr. 1069/2009, (EF) nr. 1107/2009, (EU) nr. 1151/2012, (EU) nr. 652/2014, (EU) 2016/429 og (EU) 2016/2031, Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1/2005 og (EF) nr. 1099/2009 samt Rådets direktiv 98/58/EF, 1999/74/EF, 2007/43/EF, 2008/119/EF og 2008/120/EF og om ophævelse af Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 854/2004 og (EF) nr. 882/2004, Rådets direktiv 89/608/EØF, 89/662/EØF, 90/425/EØF, 91/496/EØF, 96/23/EF, 96/93/EF og 97/78/EF og Rådets afgørelse 92/438/EØF (forordningen om offentlig kontrol) (1), særlig artikel 141, stk. 1, og
 ud fra følgende betragtninger:
 (1)
 Ved forordning (EU) 2017/625 er der fastsat regler for bl.a. medlemsstaternes kompetente myndigheders gennemførelse af offentlig kontrol og andre officielle aktiviteter. Ved forordningen tillægges Kommissionen også beføjelse til ved en gennemførelsesretsakt at vedtage hensigtsmæssige midlertidige foranstaltninger til begrænsning af risici for bl.a. menneskers, dyrs og planters sundhed og dyrevelfærden, hvis den har dokumentation for en alvorlig forstyrrelse i en medlemsstats kontrolsystem.
 (2)
 Den aktuelle krise i relation til coronavirussygdommen (covid-19) udgør en ekstraordinær, hidtil uset udfordring for medlemsstaterne for så vidt angår deres muligheder for fuldt ud at gennemføre offentlig kontrol og andre officielle aktiviteter i overensstemmelse med EU-lovgivningen.
 (3)
 I sine »Retningslinjer for grænseforvaltningsforanstaltninger for at beskytte sundheden og sikre adgangen til varer og vigtige tjenesteydelser« (2) understregede Kommissionen, at det indre markeds funktion ikke må bringes i fare i den nuværende situation. Desuden bør medlemsstaterne fortsat sikre bevægeligheden for varer.
 (4)
 I henhold til forordning (EU) 2017/625 er medlemsstaterne forpligtet til at indføre et kontrolsystem bestående af kompetente myndigheder, der er udpeget til at gennemføre offentlig kontrol og andre officielle aktiviteter. De kompetente myndigheder skal først og fremmest, i henhold til nævnte forordnings artikel 5, stk. 1, litra e), råde over eller have adgang til et tilstrækkeligt stort personale med passende kvalifikationer og erfaring, således at offentlig kontrol og andre officielle aktiviteter kan gennemføres effektivt.
 (5)
 I forbindelse med den aktuelle covid-19-krise har medlemsstaterne indført betydelige flytningsrestriktioner for deres befolkninger for at beskytte menneskers sundhed.
 (6)
 En række medlemsstater har meddelt Kommissionen, at disse flytningsrestriktioner har haft alvorlige konsekvenser for deres muligheder for at sende egnet personale ud til offentlig kontrol og andre officielle aktiviteter som påkrævet i henhold til forordning (EU) 2017/625.
 (7)
 En række medlemsstater har specifikt underrettet Kommissionen om vanskeligheder med at gennemføre offentlig kontrol og andre officielle aktiviteter, der kræver, at kontrolpersonalet er fysisk til stede. Især klinisk undersøgelse af dyr, visse


text:
former for kontrol af animalske produkter, planter og planteprodukter og af ikke-animalske fødevarer og foderstoffer samt testning af prøver på officielle laboratorier udpeget af medlemsstaterne giver anledning til vanskeligheder.
 (8)
 Det følger af EU-lovgivningen til regulering af handelen med levende dyr og avlsmateriale i det indre marked, navnlig Rådets direktiv 64/432/EØF (3), 88/407/EØF (4), 89/556/EØF (5), 90/429/EØF (6), 91/68/EØF (7), 92/65/EØF (8), 2006/88/EF (9), 2009/156/EF (10) og 2009/158/EF (11), at sendinger af dyr og avlsmateriale, som flyttes mellem medlemsstater, under hele flytningen skal ledsages af de originale dyresundhedscertifikater.
 (9)
 Flere medlemsstater har også meddelt Kommissionen, at offentlig kontrol og andre officielle aktiviteter, der resulterer i undertegnelse og udstedelse af originale officielle certifikater og officielle attester i papirform, som skal ledsage sendinger af dyr og avlsmateriale, der flyttes mellem medlemsstater eller indføres til Unionen, i øjeblikket ikke kan gennemføres i overensstemmelse med EU-lovgivningen.
 (10)
 Det bør derfor midlertidigt være tilladt at benytte et alternativ til forelæggelse af originale officielle certifikater og officielle attester i papirform under hensyntagen til, hvordan de registrerede brugere anvender Traces-systemet (Trade Control and Expert System) som omhandlet i Kommissionens gennemførelsesforordning (EU) 2019/1715 (12), og til, at det i øjeblikket ikke er teknisk muligt at udstede elektroniske certifikater i overensstemmelse med nævnte gennemførelsesforordning i Traces. Dette alternativ bør ikke berøre operatørernes forpligtelse i henhold til forordning (EU) 2017/625 til at forelægge originaldokumenterne, i det omfang det er teknisk muligt.
 (11)
 Der bør i lyset af disse særlige omstændigheder træffes foranstaltninger til at forhindre alvorlige sundhedsrisici for de kompetente myndigheders personale, uden at det går ud over forebyggelsen af risici for menneskers, dyrs og planters sundhed forårsaget af dyr og planter og produkter heraf og uden at sætte forebyggelsen af risici for dyrevelfærden over styr. Samtidig bør det sikres, at det indre marked, baseret på EU-lovgivningen om agrofødevarekæden, fungerer korrekt.
 (12)
 Medlemsstater, der oplever alvorlige vanskeligheder med anvendelsen af deres eksisterende kontrolsystemer, bør derfor kunne anvende de midlertidige foranstaltninger, der hjemles ved denne forordning, i det omfang det er nødvendigt for at håndtere de relevante alvorlige forstyrrelser i deres kontrolsystemer. Medlemsstaterne bør træffe alle nødvendige foranstaltninger til snarest muligt at afhjælpe de alvorlige forstyrrelser i deres kontrolsystemer.
 (13)
 Medlemsstater, der anvender de ved denne forordning hjemlede midlertidige foranstaltninger, bør underrette Kommissionen og de øvrige medlemsstater herom samt om foranstaltninger, der træffes for at afhjælpe vanskelighederne med gennemførelsen af offentlig kontrol og andre officielle aktiviteter i overensstemmelse med forordning (EU) 2017/625.
 (14)
 Denne forordning bør finde anvendelse i to måneder med henblik på at lette tilrettelæggelsen og gennemførelsen af offentlig kontrol og andre officielle aktiviteter under COVID-19-krisen. I lyset af de oplysninger, der er modtaget fra en række medlemsstater, og som tyder på, at der er behov for midlertidige foranstaltninger øjeblikkeligt, bør denne forordning træde i kraft dagen efter offentliggørelsen
 (15)
 Foranstaltningerne i denne forordning er i overensstemmelse med udtalelse fra Den Stående Komité for Planter, Dyr, Fødevarer og Foder —
 VEDTAGET DENNE FORORDNING:
 Artikel 1
 Ved denne forordning fastsættes der midlertidige foranstaltninger, som er nødvendige for at begrænse de


text:
omfattende risici for menneskers, dyrs og planters sundhed og dyrevelfærden, med det formål at afhjælpe alvorlige forstyrrelser i medlemsstaternes kontrolsystemer på baggrund af krisen i relation til covid-19.
 Artikel 2
 Medlemsstater, der ønsker at anvende de ved denne forordning hjemlede midlertidige foranstaltninger, underretter Kommissionen og de øvrige medlemsstater herom samt om foranstaltninger, der træffes for at afhjælpe deres problemer med at gennemføre offentlig kontrol og andre officielle aktiviteter i overensstemmelse med forordning (EU) 2017/625.
 Artikel 3
 Offentlig kontrol og andre officielle aktiviteter kan undtagelsesvis gennemføres af en eller flere fysiske personer, som af den kompetente myndighed specifikt er bemyndiget hertil på grundlag af deres kvalifikationer, uddannelse og praktiske erfaring, som er i kontakt med den kompetente myndighed ved hjælp af et hvilket som helst tilgængeligt kommunikationsmiddel, og som er forpligtet til at følge den kompetente myndigheds instrukser vedrørende gennemførelsen af de(n) pågældende offentlige kontrol og andre officielle aktiviteter. Sådanne personer skal handle upartisk og må ikke have interessekonflikter i forhold til den offentlige kontrol og de andre officielle aktiviteter, de gennemfører.
 Artikel 4
 Offentlig kontrol og andre officielle aktiviteter vedrørende officielle certifikater og officielle attester kan undtagelsesvis gennemføres i form af offentlig kontrol af en elektronisk kopi af originalen af sådanne certifikater eller attester eller af en elektronisk udgave af det certifikat eller den attest, der forelægges og indgives i Traces, forudsat at den person, der er ansvarlig for at forelægge det officielle certifikat eller den officielle attest, forelægger den kompetente myndighed en erklæring om, at originalen af det officielle certifikat eller den officielle attest vil blive indgivet så hurtigt som teknisk muligt. Ved gennemførelsen af sådan offentlig kontrol og andre officielle aktiviteter tager den kompetente myndighed hensyn til risikoen for, at de pågældende dyr og varer ikke er i overensstemmelse med reglerne, og til operatørens historik med hensyn til resultaterne af den offentlige kontrol, der er gennemført af dem og deres overholdelse af de regler, der er omhandlet i artikel 1, stk. 2, i forordning (EU) 2017/625.
 Artikel 5
 Offentlig kontrol og andre officielle aktiviteter kan undtagelsesvis gennemføres:
 a)
 hvis der er tale om analyser, test eller diagnosticeringer, som skal udføres af officielle laboratorier, af ethvert laboratorium, der midlertidigt er udpeget til dette formål af den kompetente myndighed
 b)
 hvis der er tale om fysiske møder med operatører og deres personale i relation til offentlige kontrolmetoder og -teknikker som omhandlet i artikel 14 i forordning (EU) 2017/625, ved hjælp af en tilgængelig fjernkommunikationsteknik.
 Artikel 6
 Denne forordning træder i kraft dagen efter offentliggørelsen i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende.
 Den anvendes indtil den 1. juni 2020.
 Denne forordning er bindende i alle enkeltheder og gælder umiddelbart i hver medlemsstat.
 Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 30. marts 2020.
 På Kommissionens vegne
 Ursula VON DER LEYEN
 Formand
 (1) EUT L 95 af 7.4.2017, s. 1.
 (2) C(2020) 1753 final af 16. marts 2020.
 (3) Rådets direktiv 64/432/EØF af 26. juni 1964 om veterinærpolitimæssige problemer ved handel inden for Fællesskabet med kvæg og svin (EFT 121 af 29.7.1964, s. 1977/64).
 (4) Rådets direktiv 88/407/EØF


text:
af 14. juni 1988 om fastsættelse af de veterinærpolitimæssige krav i forbindelse med handelen inden for Fællesskabet med frosset tyresæd og indførsel heraf (EFT L 194 af 22.7.1988, s. 10).
 (5) Rådets direktiv 89/556/EØF af 25. september 1989 om fastsættelse af veterinærpolitimæssige betingelser i forbindelse med handel inden for Fællesskabet med embryoner af tamkvæg samt med indførsel heraf fra tredjelande (EFT L 302 af 19.10.1989, s. 1).
 (6) Rådets direktiv 90/429/EØF af 26. juni 1990 om fastsættelse af de dyresundhedsmæssige krav i forbindelse med handelen inden for Fællesskabet med ornesæd og indførsel heraf (EFT L 224 af 18.8.1990, s. 62).
 (7) Rådets direktiv 91/68/EØF af 28. januar 1991 om dyresundhedsmæssige betingelser for samhandelen med får og geder inden for Fællesskabet (EFT L 46 af 19.2.1991, s. 19).
 (8) Rådets direktiv 92/65/EØF af 13. juli 1992 om dyresundhedsmæssige betingelser for samhandel med og indførsel til Fællesskabet af dyr samt sæd, æg og embryoner, der for så vidt angår disse betingelser ikke er underlagt specifikke fællesskabsbetingelser som omhandlet i bilag A, del I, til direktiv 90/425/EØF (EFT L 268 af 14.9.1992, s. 54).
 (9) Rådets direktiv 2006/88/EF af 24. oktober 2006 om dyresundhedsbestemmelser for akvakulturdyr og produkter deraf og om forebyggelse og bekæmpelse af visse sygdomme hos vanddyr (EUT L 328 af 24.11.2006, s. 14).
 (10) Rådets direktiv 2009/156/EF af 30. november 2009 om dyresundhedsmæssige betingelser for enhovede dyrs bevægelser og indførsel af enhovede dyr fra tredjelande (EUT L 192 af 23.7.2010, s. 1).
 (11) Rådets direktiv 2009/158/EF af 30. november 2009 om dyresundhedsmæssige betingelser for samhandelen inden for Fællesskabet med fjerkræ og rugeæg samt for indførsel heraf fra tredjelande (EUT L 343 af 22.12.2009, s. 74).
 (12) Kommissionens gennemførelsesforordning (EU) 2019/1715 af 30. september 2019 om regler for driften af informationsstyringssystemet vedrørende offentlig kontrol og dets systemkomponenter (»IMSOC-forordningen«) (EUT L 261 af 14.10.2019, s. 37).


text:
 17.7.2014
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 L 210/13
 KOMMISSIONENS GENNEMFØRELSESFORORDNING (EU) Nr. 777/2014
 af 16. juli 2014
 om faste importværdier med henblik på fastsættelse af indgangsprisen for visse frugter og grøntsager
 EUROPA-KOMMISSIONEN HAR —
 under henvisning til traktaten om Den Europæiske Unions funktionsmåde,
 under henvisning til Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1234/2007 af 22. oktober 2007 om en fælles markedsordning for landbrugsprodukter og om særlige bestemmelser for visse landbrugsprodukter (fusionsmarkedsordningen) (1),
 under henvisning til Kommissionens gennemførelsesforordning (EU) nr. 543/2011 af 7. juni 2011 om gennemførelsesbestemmelser til Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1234/2007 for så vidt angår frugt og grøntsager og forarbejdede frugter og grøntsager (2), særlig artikel 136, stk. 1, og
 ud fra følgende betragtninger:
 (1)
 Ved gennemførelsesforordning (EU) nr. 543/2011 fastsættes der på basis af resultatet af de multilaterale handelsforhandlinger under Uruguayrunden kriterier for Kommissionens fastsættelse af faste importværdier for tredjelande for de produkter og perioder, der er anført i del A i bilag XVI til nævnte forordning.
 (2)
 Der beregnes hver arbejdsdag en fast importværdi i henhold til artikel 136, stk. 1, i gennemførelsesforordning (EU) nr. 543/2011 under hensyntagen til varierende daglige data. Derfor bør nærværende forordning træde i kraft på dagen for offentliggørelsen i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende —
 VEDTAGET DENNE FORORDNING:
 Artikel 1
 De faste importværdier som omhandlet i artikel 136 i gennemførelsesforordning (EU) nr. 543/2011 fastsættes i bilaget til nærværende forordning.
 Artikel 2
 Denne forordning træder i kraft på dagen for offentliggørelsen i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende.
 Denne forordning er bindende i alle enkeltheder og gælder umiddelbart i hver medlemsstat.
 Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 16. juli 2014.
 På Kommissionens vegne
 For formanden
 Jerzy PLEWA
 Generaldirektør for landbrug og udvikling af landdistrikter
 (1) EUT L 299 af 16.11.2007, s. 1.
 (2) EUT L 157 af 15.6.2011, s. 1.
 BILAG
 Faste importværdier med henblik på fastsættelse af indgangsprisen for visse frugter og grøntsager
 (EUR/100 kg)
 KN-kode
 Tredjelandskode (1)
 Fast importværdi
 0702 00 00
 MK
 69,6
 TR
 67,1
 ZZ
 68,4
 0707 00 05
 AL
 74,4
 MK
 27,7
 TR
 76,0
 ZZ
 59,4
 0709 93 10
 TR
 90,3
 ZZ
 90,3
 0805 50 10
 AR
 119,4
 BO
 89,3
 CL
 123,3
 EG
 75,0
 TR
 155,1
 UY
 124,0
 ZA
 100,9
 ZZ
 112,4
 0808 10 80
 AR
 213,3
 BR
 115,4
 CL
 115,0
 NZ
 131,0
 US
 143,9
 ZA
 142,3
 ZZ
 143,5
 0808 30 90
 AR
 163,1
 CL
 132,2
 NZ
 191,9
 ZA
 92,2
 ZZ
 144,9
 0809 10 00
 BA
 82,8
 TR
 226,4
 XS
 87,6
 ZZ
 132,3
 0809 29 00
 TR
 340,2
 ZZ
 340,2
 0809 30
 MK
 70,6
 TR
 148,2
 XS
 50,2
 ZZ
 89,7
 0809 40 05
 BA
 71,9
 ZZ
 71,9
 (1) Landefortegnelse fastsat ved Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 1833/2006 (EUT L 354 af 14.12.2006, s. 19). Koden »ZZ« = »anden oprindelse«.


text:
 27.7.2013
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 L 202/17
 KOMMISSIONENS GENNEMFØRELSESFORORDNING (EU) Nr. 725/2013
 af 26. juli 2013
 om godkendelse af ammoniumchlorid som fodertilsætningsstof til drøvtyggere, katte og hunde (indehaver af godkendelsen er BASF SE)
 (EØS-relevant tekst)
 EUROPA-KOMMISSIONEN HAR —
 under henvisning til traktaten om Den Europæiske Unions funktionsmåde,
 under henvisning til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1831/2003 af 22. september 2003 om fodertilsætningsstoffer (1), særlig artikel 9, stk. 2, og
 ud fra følgende betragtninger:
 (1)
 Forordning (EF) nr. 1831/2003 indeholder bestemmelser om godkendelse af fodertilsætningsstoffer og om grundlaget og procedurerne for meddelelse af sådanne godkendelser. Artikel 10 i nævnte forordning bestemmer, at tilsætningsstoffer, der er godkendt i henhold til Rådets direktiv 70/524/EØF (2), skal underkastes en ny vurdering.
 (2)
 Ammoniumchlorid blev i overensstemmelse med direktiv 70/524/EØF godkendt uden tidsbegrænsning som fodertilsætningsstof til katte og hunde og med tidsbegrænsning til alle selskabsdyr undtagen katte og hunde ved Kommissionens direktiv 86/525/EØF (3). Dette tilsætningsstof blev derpå opført i registret over fodertilsætningsstoffer som et eksisterende produkt, jf. artikel 10, stk. 1, i forordning (EF) nr. 1831/2003.
 (3)
 Der er i henhold til artikel 10, stk. 2, sammenholdt med artikel 7, i forordning (EF) nr. 1831/2003 indgivet en ansøgning om en ny vurdering af ammoniumchlorid som fodertilsætningsstof til katte og hunde og om en ny anvendelse til drøvtyggere i henhold til forordningens artikel 7 med en anmodning om, at tilsætningsstoffet klassificeres i tilsætningsstofkategorien »teknologiske tilsætningsstoffer«. Ansøgningen var vedlagt de oplysninger og dokumenter, der kræves i henhold til artikel 7, stk. 3, i forordning (EF) nr. 1831/2003.
 (4)
 Den Europæiske Fødevaresikkerhedsautoritet (»autoriteten«) konkluderede i sin udtalelse af 24. maj 2012 (4), at ammoniumchlorid under de foreslåede anvendelsesbetingelser ikke har skadelige virkninger på dyrs eller menneskers sundhed eller på miljøet. Autoriteten bekræftede, at ammoniumchlorid er et kraftigt urinforsurende middel, som ved tilsætning til foder til drøvtyggere, katte og hunde sænker urinens pH-værdi. Den mener ikke, at der er behov for særlige krav om overvågning efter markedsføringen. Autoriteten har desuden gennemgået den rapport om analysemetoden for fodertilsætningsstoffet i foder, der blev forelagt af det i henhold til forordning (EF) nr. 1831/2003 oprettede referencelaboratorium.
 (5)
 Vurderingen af ammoniumchlorid viser, at betingelserne for godkendelse, jf. artikel 5 i forordning (EF) nr. 1831/2003, er opfyldt. Derfor bør anvendelsen af dette tilsætningsstof godkendes som anført i bilaget til nærværende forordning.
 (6)
 Da der ikke er sikkerhedsgrunde, som kræver øjeblikkelig anvendelse af ændringerne af betingelserne for godkendelsen, bør der indrømmes en overgangsperiode, så berørte parter kan forberede sig på at opfylde de nye krav i godkendelsen.
 (7)
 Foranstaltningerne i denne forordning er i overensstemmelse med udtalelse fra Den Stående Komité for Fødevarekæden og Dyresundhed —
 VEDTAGET DENNE FORORDNING:
 Artikel 1
 Godkendelse
 Det i bilaget opførte ammoniumchlorid, der tilhører tilsætningsstofkategorien »zootekniske tilsætningsstoffer« og den funktionelle gruppe »andre zootekniske tilsætningsstoffer«, tillades anvendt som fodertilsætningsstof på de betingelser, der er fastsat i bilaget.
 Artikel 2
 Overgangsforanstaltninger
 Det i bilaget opførte tilsætningsstof til katte og hunde og foder, der indeholder tilsætningsstoffet, som produceres og mærkes før 16. august 2015 i overensstemmelse med de regler,


text:
der finder anvendelse før 16. august 2013, kan fortsat markedsføres og anvendes, indtil de eksisterende lagre er opbrugt.
 Artikel 3
 Denne forordning træder i kraft på tyvendedagen efter offentliggørelsen i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende.
 Denne forordning er bindende i alle enkeltheder og gælder umiddelbart i hver medlemsstat.
 Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 26. juli 2013.
 På Kommissionens vegne
 José Manuel BARROSO
 Formand
 (1) EUT L 268 af 18.10.2003, s. 29.
 (2) EFT L 270 af 14.12.1970, s. 1.
 (3) EFT L 310 af 5.11.1986, s. 19.
 (4) EFSA Journal 2012;10(6):2738.
 BILAG
 Tilsætningsstoffets identifikationsnummer
 Navn på indehaveren af godkendelsen
 Tilsætningsstof
 Sammensætning, kemisk betegnelse, beskrivelse, analysemetode
 Dyreart eller -kategori
 Maksimumsalder
 Minimumsindhold
 Maksimumsindhold
 Andre bestemmelser
 Godkendelse gyldig til
 mg/kg fuldfoder med et vandindhold på 12 %
 Kategori: zootekniske tilsætningsstoffer. Funktionel gruppe: andre zootekniske tilsætningsstoffer (reduktion af urins pH-værdi)
 4d8
 BASF SE
 Ammoniumchlorid
 Tilsætningsstoffets sammensætning
 Ammoniumchlorid ≥ 99,0 %
 (i fast form)
 Aktivstoffets karakteristika
 Ammoniumchlorid ≥ 99,0 %
 NH4Cl CAS-nr.: 12125-02-9
 Natriumchlorid ≤ 0,5 %
 Fremstillet ved kemisk syntese
 Analysemetode
 (1)
 Kvantificering af ammoniumchlorid i fodertilsætningsstoffet: titrering med natriumhydroxid (Den Europæiske Farmakopé, monografi 0007) eller titrering med sølvnitrat (JECFA, monografi om ammoniumchlorid).
 Drøvtyggere
 —
 —
 10 000 i en periode på højst tre måneder
 5 000 i en periode på over tre måneder
 1.
 Tilsætningsstoffet skal anvendes i foder som forblanding.
 2.
 Sikkerhedsforanstaltninger: Åndedrætsværn, sikkerhedsbriller, handsker og beskyttelsesbeklædning skal bæres under håndteringen.
 3.
 Ved blanding af ammoniumchlorid fra forskellige kilder må det tilladte maksimumsindhold i fuldfoder til drøvtyggere ikke overskrides.
 16. august 2023
 Katte og hunde
 5 000
 (1) Nærmere oplysninger om analysemetoderne findes på referencelaboratoriets hjemmeside: http://irmm.jrc.ec.europa.eu/EURLs/EURL_feed_additives/Pages/index.aspx.


text:
 9.11.2013
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 L 299/20
 KOMMISSIONENS GENNEMFØRELSESFORORDNING (EU) Nr. 1118/2013
 af 6. november 2013
 om godkendelse af en væsentlig ændring af varespecifikationen for en betegnelse, der er opført i registret over beskyttede oprindelsesbetegnelser og beskyttede geografiske betegnelser [Miel de Corse – Mele di Corsica (BOB)]
 EUROPA-KOMMISSIONEN HAR —
 under henvisning til traktaten om Den Europæiske Unions funktionsmåde,
 under henvisning til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EU) nr. 1151/2012 af 21. november 2012 om kvalitetsordninger for landbrugsprodukter og fødevarer (1), særlig artikel 52, stk. 2, og
 ud fra følgende betragtninger:
 (1)
 Kommissionen har i overensstemmelse med artikel 53, stk. 1, første afsnit, i forordning (EU) nr. 1151/2012 behandlet Frankrigs ansøgning om godkendelse af en ændring af varespecifikationen for den beskyttede oprindelsesbetegnelse «Miel de Corse – Mele di Corsica», der er registreret i henhold til Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 1187/2000 (2).
 (2)
 Eftersom den pågældende ændring ikke er af mindre omfang, jf. artikel 53 i forordning (EU) nr. 1151/2012, har Kommissionen i overensstemmelse med artikel 50, stk, 2, litra a), i nævnte forordning offentliggjort ændringsansøgningen i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 (3).
 (3)
 Da Kommissionen ikke har modtaget indsigelser, jf. artikel 51 i forordning (EU) nr. 1151/2012, bør ændringen godkendes —
 VEDTAGET DENNE FORORDNING:
 Artikel 1
 Den ændring af varespecifikationen, der blev offentliggjort i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende, og som vedrører betegnelsen i bilaget til denne forordning, godkendes.
 Artikel 2
 Denne forordning træder i kraft på tyvendedagen efter offentliggørelsen i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende.
 Denne forordning er bindende i alle enkeltheder og gælder umiddelbart i hver medlemsstat.
 Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 6. november 2013.
 På Kommissionens vegne For formanden
 Dacian CIOLOȘ
 Medlem af Kommissionen
 (1) EUT L 343 af 14.12.2012, s. 1.
 (2) EFT L 133 af 6.6.2000, s. 19.
 (3) EUT C 134 af 14.5.2013, s. 39.
 BILAG
 Landbrugsprodukter bestemt til konsum, som er opført i traktatens bilag I:
 Kategori 1.4. Andre animalske produkter (æg, honning, forskellige mejeriprodukter undtagen smør, m.m.)
 FRANKRIG
 Miel de Corse – Mele di Corsica (BOB)