CELEX: 51994PC0013
Language: en
Date: 1994-01-21
Title: Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) IMPOSING DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON IMPORTS INTO THE COMMUNITY OF ETHANOLAMINE ORIGINATING IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND COLLECTING DEFINITIVELY THE PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
                                                                  COM(94) 13  final
                                                                  Brussels, 21.01.1994
                                                       Proposal for a
                                                  COUNCIL REGULATION (EC)
      SSfssS*^1^                    IMPOSING DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DOTIBS ON IMPORTS
                          INTO THE COMMUNITY OP ETHANOLAMINE ORIGINATING IN THE UNITED STATES OP
                                   AMERICA, AND COLLECTING DEFINITIVELY THE PROVISIONAL
                                                    ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES
                                               (presented by the Commission)
        fins
      mm
   fg^l)^--:^i,-i-;--yi
            ffifc
         m
         WB-:;W'5'4
            ^0
">. - « - *B»
            «re % - i *
 ---pagebreak---                         EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
1. By Commission Regulation (EEC) N° 2172/93, whose applicability was
   extended by Council Regulation (EC) N° 3344/93, provisional anti-
   dumping duties were imposed on imports of ethanolamine originating
   in the United States of America.
2. Subsequent  submissions   and  information  provided by  interested
   parties confirmed largely the findings of the Commission, as stated
   in the recitals of Regulation (EEC) N° 2172/93.
3. The definitive anti-dumping measures proposed in the present draft
   Regulation are therefore substantially the same as the provisional
   measures.
 ---pagebreak---          DRAFT COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) N°         OF           1993
            IMPOSING DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON IMPORTS
 INTO THE COMMUNITY OP ETHANOLAMINE ORIGINATING IN THE UNITED STATES CF
          AMERICA, AND COLLECTING DEFINITIVELY THE PROVISIONAL
                            ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES
THE COUNCIL OP THE EUROPEAN UNION
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to the Council Regulation      (EEC) N° 2423/88 of 11 July
1988 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries
not members of the European Communityd>        (hereinafter referred to as
the "basic Regulation"), and in particular Article 12 thereof,
Having   regard  to  the  proposal   presented   by  the  Commission   after
consultation within the Advisory Committee as provided for by the above
Regulation,
Whereas :
A.   PROVISIONAL MEASURES
 (1) By Regulation   (EEC) N° 2172/93< 2J  (hereafter referred    to as  the
     "provisional duty Regulation"), the Commission imposed provisional
     anti-dumping duties on imports into the Community of ethanolamines
     originating in the United States of America      (hereinafter referred
     to as "the USA) falling under CN codes 29 22 11 00, 29 22 12 00 and
     29 22 13 00.
 (1) O.J. L 209 of 2.8.1988, p. 1
 (2) O.J. L 195 Of 4.8.1993, p. 5
 ---pagebreak--- B.   SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURES
(2) Following the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duties,
     the producers      in the USA,    and their   related   importers  in the
     Community submitted comments in writing, and asked for an extension
     of the duration of the provisional duty Regulation, in order to
     establish in particular the effects of the provisional measures on
     the level of prices and       imports. The extension was granted by
     Council Regulation (EC) N°3344/93<3>.
     Also a number of end-users of ethanolamine made certain allegations
     to the Commission concerning the effects of the provisional duty
     Regulation on their businesses.
     Parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard by
     the Commission.
 (3) The producers in the USA, their related importers in the Community
     and the Community producers were informed of the essential facts
     and    considerations   on the   basis  of   which   it  was  intended  to
     recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties and the
     definitive     collection of amounts secured by way of         provisional
     duty.     They  were  also granted    a  period   within   which  to  make
     representations subsequent to the disclosure.
 (4) The parties' comments were considered, and the Commission altered
     its conclusions where justified.
C.   PRODUCT UNDER INVESTIGATION
 (5) In its provisional duty Regulation (recital 7) a description of the
     product, i.e. ethanolamine, was given.
     One end-user claimed that the several types of ethanolamine should
     not be considered as like products because the different types show
      a   different    reaction to   market   forces.    However,  the  further
      information brought forward by this party        confirmed the findings
      of the Commission with regard to similarity in production process
      and    interchangeability  of   end-use   of   the   different  types  of
                                    - * -
 (3) O.J. L 299 of 4.12.1993, p.43
 ---pagebreak---      ethanolamine, on which, inter alia, the Commission had founded its
     conclusion of like product for the different types concerned.
(6) Since the CN codes referred to above also contained the salts made
     from ethanolamine which axe however not covered by the complaint
     and the proceeding, the Regulation establishing definitive duties
     and collecting the provisional duties, should exclude these salts
     from the scope of this Regulation.
     The Commission has accordingly adjusted the description of          the
     product In Articles 1 and 2 below.
     The Council confirms the findings of the Commission with regard to
     the like product definition and the adjustment of the description
     of the product for customs purposes.
D.   DUMPING
Normal value, export price, comparison and dumping margins
(7) No comments were received on the determination of the normal velue,
     export   price, comparison    and  dumping margins    as  described  in
     recitals    (8),   (9),  (10)  and   (11)  of   the  provisional   duty
     Regulation.
B.    INJURY
 (8)      With regard to price undercutting, one USA producer and Its
          related Importer, questioned the validity of the Commission
          findings on price undercutting. The companies were however not
          able to support their claims by evidence not already taken Into
          account by the Commission. There was, therefore,     considered to
          be no reason to change the price undercutting calculations as
          given in the provisional duty Regulation.
 (9)      The same companies repeated their claim that the Commission
          should have come to the conclusion of        "no injury" because,
          during the period from 1988 until the end of the investigation
          period,three Community producers had imported       from that USA
          company a total of 4587 tonnes and should therefore be excluded
          from  the   injury analysis. The    remaining  Community  producer
                                      5
 ---pagebreak---          allegedly represented only 16% of the Community production
         capacity,   and  could   therefore    not  constitute    "a  major
         proportion" of Community ethanolamine producers. The companies
         furthermore claimed that the Community producers concerned had
         obtained   significant   benefits    from   the   importation   of
         ethanolamines from the USA.
         The Commission requested the companies mentioned to support
         their allegations by reference to the timing and the prices at
         which the imports by the indicated Community producers took
         place. No details have been given, however, other than further
         allegations that the imports from the USA were made at a time
         when the Community producers had insufficient capacity to meet
         demand from ethanolamine users in the EC, and that the imports
         enabled the Community producers to derive substantial profits
         in the market for other products that, like ethanolamine, are
         also derivatives of ethyleneoxide.
         In the absence of the requested information, the Commission
         considered that the demand for exclusion of the Community
         producers concerned should be rejected since, even if the
         allegations   were   confirmed,   the   tonnage   involved   would
         represent, over the five year period in question, no more than
         1.2% of the sales of the EC producers concerned, and no more
         than 2% of the total imports from the USA.
         The Council confirms this approach.
F.   CAUSATION
(10)     The   Commission's  conclusions   on   causality,   laid  down  in
         recitals (25) to (30) of the provisional duty Regulation were
         not contested by any party, and are therefore confirmed by the
         Council.
G.   COMMUNITY INTEREST
 (11)     Recitals (31) to (34) of the provisional duty Regulation dealt
          with the considerations of the Commission with respect to the
          Community interest involved. These have not met with subsequent
          objections from any party.
                                   .4.
 ---pagebreak--- (12)The end-users which supplied the Commission with information on the
    price   rises  by  the   Community   producers,  also  pointed   out   the
    effects of these price rises on their cost of production and on
    their competitive position on the Community market.
    The Commission has asked those end-users to indicate more precisely
    the effects on the costs of production of the provisional measures
    and additionally the benefits they drew from the         dumped imports.
    No additional information has, however, been provided by those end-
    users.
    The Commission therefore maintains its position that, since the
    provisional measures do not increase the prices of ethanolamine
    above the average price of the last 5 years, the effect of the
    provisional measures on the cost of production of the end products
    was   limited.  The   imposition   of  definitive  measures   is   further
    justified in view of the price rises in the longer run that would
    occur   in  their   absence   as  indicated   in  recital   (32)   of  the
    provisional duty Regulation.
    Since all intermediate users of ethanolamine are confronted with
    the same effects of the provisional measures, these measures do not
    affect the competitive position of these users.
    The Council confirms these conclusions of the Commission.
H.  LEVEL OP MINIMUM IMPORT PRICE
(13)USA exporters and their related importers expressed doubts,
    however, about the preparedness of the Community industry to raise
     its prices to a level necessary to enable it to cover its costs and
     to  obtain a   reasonable   return   on  sales. They   feared   that  the
     Community industry would undercut the prices of the USA suppliers
     in order to increase its market share. In this way, the effect of
     the minimum-import price would be a limitation of competition on
     the market, which would not be in the interest of the Community.
     One of these interested parties referred to the actual decrease of
     exports directly after the entering into force of the provisional
     measures as proof of the probability of price undercutting by the
     Community producers.
                                     ï
 ---pagebreak---    During the extended period of validity of the provisional duty
   Regulation, no     further  information was   submitted   by  any USA
   producers or related importer confirming the alleged development.
   The Commission, however, received information from a number of end-
   users pointing to an increase in the Community producers' prices
    and at their lack of capacity to fulfill competely the demand on
    the Community market.
    The Commission therefore recalls its conclusions, as stated        in
    recitals 33 and 35 of the provisional duty Regulation, and in
    particular that, while the chosen level of minimum import prices
    would enable the Community industry to cover its costs and to
    obtain a reasonable return on sales, its lack of capacity would
    also enable third country producers to continue to supply the EC
    market. Under such competitive conditions, the Community industry
    would not be able to achieve oligopolistic profitability.
    In view of this situation, there is no reason for the Commission to
    change its approach for establishing the level of the minimum
    import prices.
(14)One USA exporter and its related Importer submitted a cost
    calculation for the most efficient Community producer, attempting
    to show that the level of the minimum import price was higher than
    that necessary for the Community industry to cover its costs and
    obtain a reasonable return on sales, and would therefore not be in
    the interest of the end-users of ethanolamine.
    The Commission compared this cost calculation with its own findings
    during the investigation, and has come to the conclusion that the
    assumptions in the calculation of the USA company were not fully in
    conformity with     the real  situation  with which    the  Community
    industry was confronted during the investigation period.
    Additional information gathered by the Commission in respect of the
    present   costs  in the   Community  does  not   show  a  significant
    difference between the present costs and the costs during the
     investigation period.
    Another USA exporter and its related importer claimed that the 8%
    profit level used by the Commission was totally unrealistic and did
                                    Î-
 ---pagebreak---     not take account of the nature of the market.
    The Commission had, however, based this figure on the information
    obtained   during  the  investigation  from  all parties, and, in
    particular on that from the USA producers.
    The Commission therefore finds no reason to change the level cf the
    minimum import price.
    The Council confirms this conclusion.
I. NATURE OP THE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
(15)The reasoning of the Commission as regards the type of the
    provisional anti-dumping measures, as laid down in recitals (35) to
     (38) has not been contested by any party. The Commission therefore
    maintains the same reasoning as far as the definitive measures are
    concerned.
    The Council confirms this approach.
J.  COLLECTION OP PROVISIONAL DUTIES
(16)With respect to provisional duties, it is Community practice to
    collect these duties definitively if substantial injurious dumping
    provisionally determined is confirmed at the definitive stage and
    if the situation with respect to the injurious effect of the dumped
    imports to the Community market has not fundamentally changed since
    the imposition of the provisional duties.
     In the present case, substantial injurious dumping was definitively
    confirmed. It was therefore considered that these duties should be
    collected in full.
     Imports of ethanolamine salts should however be exempted from this
    collection.
     HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION :
                                Article 1
    A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of
     ethanolamine, with the exclusion of salt of ethanolamine, falling
                                   - f-
 ---pagebreak---          within CN codes ex 29 22 11 00, ex 29 22 12 00 and ex 29 22 13 00,
         originating in the United States of America.
     2. The amount of duty shall be the difference between the CIF price
         Community frontier per tonne, exclusive of duty, when lower, and
         the following levels :
         a)  in the case of MEA, CN code 29 22 11 00       :
                   (Taric code 29 22 11 00 10)             :   606 ECU
 |        b) in the case of DBA, CN code 29 22 12 00       :
,f'                (Taric code 29 22 12 00 10)             :   584 ECU
i ;
(v        c)  in the case of TEA, CN code 29 22 13 00
 11            - with a content of less than 99%
   \               (Taric code 29 22 13 00 11)              :  609 ECU
               - with a content of 99% or more
                   (Taric code 29 22 13 00 91)             :   652 ECU
     3. The provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.
                                     Article 2
     a) The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty
         pursuant to Regulation (EEC) n° 2172/93 shall be definitively
         collected.
     b) The amounts so secured in the case of imports of salts of
         ethanolamine shall be released.
                                     Article 3
     This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its
     publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
     This Regulation shall be binding        in its   entirety and  directly
     applicable in all Member States.
     Done at Brussels,
     For the Council
                                       -M>
 ---pagebreak---                                                                      ISSNC254-;4'
                                                               COM(94) 13 final
                                                     DOCUMENTS
EN                                                                        i l 02
                                Catalogue number : CB-CO-94-014-EN-C
                                                             ISBN 92-77-64494-X
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
JLr2985 Luxembourg