CELEX: 51994PC0656
Language: en
Date: 1994-12-12
Title: Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) IMPOSING A DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY ON IMPORTS OF UREA AMMONIUM NITRATE SOLUTION ORIGINATING IN BULGARIA AND POLAND, EXPORTED BY COMPANIES NOT EXEMPTED FROM THE DUTY, AND COLLECTING DEFINITIVELY THE PROVISIONAL DUTY IMPOSED

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
                                        COM(94) 656 final
                                        Brussels, 12.12.1994
                         Proposal for a
  IMPOSING A DEFINITIVE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ON IMPORTS OF
     UREA AMMONIUM NITRATE SOLUTION ORIGINATING IN
    BULGARIA AND POLAND, EXPORTED BY COMPANIES NOT
  EXEMPTED FROM THE DUTY, AND COLLECTING DEFINITIVELY
              THE PROVISIONAL DUTY IMPOSED
                 (presented by the Commission)
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---                                           1 o-
                               EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
(1.) By Regulation (EC) 1506/94 (1> the Commission imposed a provisional anti-
     dumping duty on imports into the Community of urea-ammonium-nitrate
     solution ("UAN") originating in Bulgaria and Poland, which was extended by
     Regulation (EC) No 2620/94 (2) until 31 December 1994.
(2.) Following the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duty, the Bulgarian
     and Polish exporters and producers, an importers association and the
     complainants submitted comments in writing on the basis of which the
     Commission, where appropriate modified its final determinations. Comments
     made by the Bulgarian parties and the importers association relate to the
     injury and causality, those by the Polish producers to the determination of
     normal value and the export price and those of the complainants to the
     calculation of the injury threshold.
(3.) Taking into account the submissions made, the dumping margin for
     Bulgarian imports was determined at a levé! of 33.3% , for the Polish
     producers the margins determined were between 27 and 40%.
(4.) As far as the injury situation is concerned, the provisional determinations
     were confirmed, i.e. that low priced increasing volumes of the imports
     concerned caused injury in the form of financial losses to the Community
     industry. Given that it was also concluded that it was in the interest of the
     Community to remedy the injurious situation, the Commission has
     determined that anti-dumping measures should be imposed.
(1)  O J N ° L 1 6 2 , 30.06.1994, p. 16
(2)  OJ N° L 280, 29.10.1994, p.1
 ---pagebreak---                                            2 ^ -
(5.) After disclosure the Bulgarian and Polish exporters and producers have
     offered undertakings. Whereas the Commission considered the offer of the
     undertaking by the Bulgarian parties acceptable as the undertaking ensured
     the removal of injury, the offer of the undertaking by the Polish parties was
     not considered acceptable.
(6.) Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Article 10 and 12 of
     Regulation (EEC) N° 2423/88, the Commission, after consultation within the
     Advisory Committee, has accepted the undertaking offered by the Bulgarian
     parties and furthermore proposes to impose definitive anti-dumping
     measures in the form of a variable duty at a level of 89 ECU per tonne
     product concerning imports originating in Poland.
(7.) The Commission in line with consistent practice in such circumstances,
     proposes to collect definitively the amounts secured by way of provisional
     anti-dumping duty.
 ---pagebreak---                                 COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) N«
  IMPOSING A DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY ON IMPORTS OF
       UREA AMMONIUM NITRATE SOLUTION ORIGINATING IN
     BULGARIA AND POLAND, EXPORTED BY COMPANIES NOT
    EXEMPTED FROM THE DUTY, AND COLLECTING DEFINITIVELY
                               THE PROVISIONAL DUTY IMPOSED
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) N° 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on
protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the
European Economic Community^), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No
522/94(2), and in particular Article 12 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consultation
within the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
A.      Provisional Measures
(1.)    The Commission, by Regulation (EC) 1506/94 <3) (hereinafter referred to as
        the 'provisional duty Regulation'), imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty
(1)     O J N ° L 2 0 9 , 2.8.1988, p. 1
(2)     OJ No L 66, 10.03.1994, p. 10
(3)     OJN° L 162, 30.06.1994, p. 16
 ---pagebreak---      on imports into the Community of urea-ammonium-nitrate solution ("UAN")
     originating in Bulgaria and Poland, and falling under CN code 3102 80 00.
(2.) By Regulation (EC) No 2620/94 (4), the Council extended the validity of this
     duty until 31 December 1994.
B.   Subsequent Procedure
(3.) Following the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duty,
     •        the Bulgarian exporter, Chimimport, and the Bulgarian producer,
              Agropolychim Devnia,
     •        the Polish exporter, CIECH, and the two Polish producers, Z.A.
              Kedzierzyn and Z.A. Pulawy,
              the European Fertilizer Import Association ("EFIA") and
     •        the European Fertilizer Manufacturer Association ("EFMA"), i.e. the
              complainants,
     submitted comments in writing. Parties who so requested were granted an
     opportunity to be heard by the Commission.
(4.) Upon request, parties were informed of the essential facts and
     considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the
     imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures and the definitive collection of
     amounts secured by way of a provisional duty. They were also granted a
     reasonable period within which to make representations subsequent to the
     disclosure.
(5.) The parties' comments were considered, and the Commission altered its
     conclusions where deemed appropriate.
(4)  OJ N" L 280, 29 10.1994, p.
 ---pagebreak--- (6.)  Owing to the complexity of the case, in particular due to the number of
      producers located in the Community and due to the fact that the Polish
      producers and exporter as well as the producers located in the analogue
      country were newly operating under market economy conditions, the
      investigation overran the normal duration of one year provided for in Article 7
      (9) (a) of Regulation (EEC) No. 2423/88 (hereafter referred to as the 'basic
      Regulation').
C.    Product under investigation; like product
(7.)  As no comments have been presented by any party regarding the product
      under consideration and the like product after the imposition of provisional
      anti-dumping measures, the findings set out in recitals (9) and (10) of the
      provisional duty Regulation are hereby confirmed.
D.     Dumping
1.    Bulgaria
(8.)  No new issues were raised by the Bulgarian interested parties concerning
      the determination of dumping. Therefore the conclusions reached at the
      provisional stage are hereby confirmed.
      The dumping margin for Bulgarian imports is therefore definitively determined
      at a level of 33.3% expressed as a percentage of the free-at-Community
      frontier price.
2.     Poland
a.   Normal value
(9.)  One Polish producer, Z.A. Pulawy ("ZAP"), as for the provisional
      determination, has submitted that the Commission should base the
 ---pagebreak---        determination of normal value on the cost of production information
       specifically prepared by the company for its response to the questionnaire.
       However, ZAP did not supply any supporting information to show that this
       information better reflected the company's cost situation than its general cost
       accounting data.
       With respect to certain substantial monthly variations in ZAP's unit cost of
       production as contained in the company's general cost accounting data, the
       company submitted supporting documentation after the imposition of the
       provisional anti-dumping measures. However, the company was not in a
       position to explain the underlying reasons for the cost variations in any
       satisfactory manner.
       In these circumstances, it is considered that the cost of production
       information as contained in this producer's internal cost accounting records
       for the nine months during which the substantial variations did not occur, is
       representative and that the determination of the constructed normal value at
       the definitive stage should be based thereon.
b.    Export price
(10.)  One producer, Z.A. Kedzierzyn ("ZAK"), has submitted that adjustments
       made by the Commission, in the light of the missing and contradictory
       information received, to certain export transaction prices at the provisional
       stage in order to take into account commissions paid to the exporter via
       which the sales transactions were made, were not justified. However, ZAK
       did not submit any information in support of this claim showing that the
       approach taken by the Commission at the provisional stage was not
        appropriate. Therefore, the approach taken at the provisional stage is hereby
        maintained with respect to ZAK's export price.
 ---pagebreak--- (11.) The other producer, i.e. ZAP, has made a submission concerning the
        completeness of the reporting of its export sales transactions. At the
        provisional stage the Commission had not considered the reporting complete
        on the basis of the information available. However, at the definitive stage, in
        the light of the additional and conclusive information provided, it is
        considered appropriate to alter this approach and to base ZAP's export price
        on the information submitted without making the adjustment made at the
        provisional stage.
c.     Comparison
(12.) ZAP has requested that certain adjustments should be made in comparing its
        constructed normal value to its export price. It should be noted that such
        adjustments can be granted In accordance with Article 2 (9) and (10) of the
        basic Regulation if there are differences affecting price comparability. In such
        circumstances any claim must be proved to be justified. ZAP has not
        submitted any such justification, any quantification of its claim nor any
        supporting documentation. Therefore this claim has not been accepted.
d.     Conclusion
 (13.)   in the light of the approaches and conclusions set out above with respect to
         the determination of normal value, the export price and the comparison
         between the two, the dumping margins at the definitive stage expressed as a
         percentage of the free-at-Community frontier level are set at the following
         level:
                 ZAK: 40%.
                 ZAP: 27%.
 (14.)    For the case of any other Polish exporting producer or exporter who failed to
          reply to the Commission's questionnaire or did not otherwise make itself
 ---pagebreak---        known, dumping was determined on the basis of the facts available in
       accordance with the provisions of Article 7 (7) (b) of the basic Regulation.
       In this connection, it is considered that the highest dumping margin
       determined with regard to a producer which had co-operated in the
       framework of this investigation was appropriate.
       This approach was considered necessary in order not to provide an
       unacceptable bonus for non-co-operation and to avoid creating an
       opportunity for circumvention.
3.    General:
(15.)  In view of the approach taken with respect to the determination of the normal
       value for Bulgaria and Poland described above, the Commission considers it
       necessary to foresee the review of the measures imposed in this Regulation
       after one year if changes in the production cost structure of the producers
       located in the exporting countries warrant such a review.
E.      Injury
1.     Volume of Community market
(16.)  Concerning total Community consumption of UAN, no new information was
       received after the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping measures.
       Therefore the size of this market provisionally established, i.e. 2.8 million
       tons in 1992 as well as in the investigation period measured in UAN with a
       nitrogen content of 32%, is hereby confirmed.
 ---pagebreak--- 2.     Cumulation of dumped Bulgarian and Polish imports
(17.)  Based on Community import statistics, the Bulgarian exporter and the
       Bulgarian producer have reiterated the argument already put forward at the
       provisional stage, namely that imports into the Community originating in
       Bulgaria should not have been cumulated with those of Poland (see recital
       (32) of the provisional duty Regulation).
(18.)  It should be noted that Bulgarian imports of UAN in the investigation period
       represented a Community market share of about 7%.
       Given the justification provided in the provisional duty Regulation (see
       recitals (33) and (34) of the provisional duty Regulation) and the market
       position reached by Bulgarian imports, it is hereby concluded at the definitive
       stage that all the elements that justify the cumulation of imports for the
       purposes of the injury assessment, notably a parallel trend in volumes and
       prices are present in this proceeding. In particular neither the level of imports
       into the Community of UAN originating in Bulgaria or in Poland can be
       regarded as negligible.
3,     Volume and Prices of dumped Bulgarian and Polish imports
 (19.) With respect to the imports concerned, EFIA has submitted that these
       imports replaced UAN imports from third countries and that overall imports of
        UAN into the Community declined. Therefore, EFIA has concluded, that
        imports of Bulgarian and Polish origin cannot constitute an injury factor in the
        assessment of the situation of the Community industry.
 (20.) With respect to the situation concerning import volumes as described above,
        it is noted that an assessment of import volumes alone is not sufficient in
        order to evaluate the injurious situation of the Community industry. Such an
 ---pagebreak---       evaluation must also cover the analysis of the prices of these imports. Such
      an analysis was made for the determination of the provisional anti-dumping
      measures and it was concluded, as set out in recitals (36) and (37) of the
      provisional duty Regulation, that the prices of the imports concerned
      decreased substantially and were at a level substantially below the prices of
      the Community industry.
4.    Situation of the Community industry
(21.) Following the adoption of the provisional duty Regulation, EFIA has
      submitted that the Community industry has not lost market share up to the
      investigation period. EFIA has concluded that this development is not
      compatible with the conclusion on the injurious situation reached by the
      Commission at the provisional stage.
(22.) It should be noted in this context that it is not considered necessary for all
      injury factors enumerated in Article 4 (2) (c) of the basic Regulation to show a
      negative trend in order to reach a conclusion that the Community industry
      has suffered material injury. The Community industry has kept its market
      share on the Community UAN market in 1992, slightly increasing it up to the
      investigation period as pointed out in recital (40) of the provisional duty
      Regulation. However, the stabilisation of the market position of the
      Community industry could only be achieved by a substantial reduction in the
      Community industry's sales prices (see recitals (38) to (41) of the provisional
      duty Regulation). It is this price reduction that has led to a substantial
       reduction of the Community industry's turnover and, ultimately, to substantial
      financial losses.
 ---pagebreak--- 5,    Conclusion
(23.) In conclusion, the significant price depression registered on the Community
      market and the negative development of the Community industry's financial
      situation leading to significant financial losses, led the Commission to
      conclude at the provisional stage that the Community UAN industry has been
      suffering material injury within the meaning of Article 4 (1) of the basic
      Regulation.
      This conclusion is hereby confirmed.
F.    Causation
1.    Impact of the imports concerned
(24.) With respect to the causation of the Community industry's injury, EFIA stated
      that Bulgarian and Polish UAN import prices could not have caused injury to
      the Community industry. On the contrary, EFIA alleged that pricing behaviour
      between the companies of the Community industry caused substantia!
      downward price movements and, ultimately, injury to the Community
      industry. EFIA has stated furthermore that the imports concerned were not
      substantial enough in volume to influence prices on the Community UAN
      market.
(25.) With respect to the above submission by EFIA, the Commission established
      that there were variations between the prices obtained by different
      Community producers. However, as already pointed out in the provisional
       duty Regulation in recitals (36) and (37), the investigation has confirmed that
      the imports concerned consistently undercut the Community producers'
       prices. The detailed analysis of the prices obtained by the Community
 ---pagebreak---                                             10
      producers and the exporters' prices showed that the imports concerned did
      not merely follow price decreases of the Community producers but were
      consistently made at lower levels. Moreover, EFIA's claim that a combined
      volume of the UAN imports concerned which represents 27 % of the
      Community market is not sufficient in order to influence prices cannot be
      accepted, UAN being a commodity type product which is highly price
      sensitive.
(26.) Finally, as far as the injurious situation of the Community industry is
      concerned, the investigation conducted revealed that the deterioration of the
      financial situation of the Community industry leading to substantial financial
      losses in the investigation period coincided with the surge of the low-priced
      imports concerned. In the light of the above, it is concluded that the imports
      concerned significantly contributed to the material injury suffered by the
      Community industry.
2.    Other factors
(27.) EFIA has further argued that a decrease in consumption and demand on the
      Community fertiliser market was the cause of the Community UAN-industry's
      problems. Moreover, EFIA stated that the production overcapacity of the
      fertiliser producers concerned and price decreases for intermediary products
      of UAN were the reason for the Community industry's injurious situation.
(28.) With respect to the above arguments, the Commission notes that, while it
       can not be excluded that the development of the Community fertiliser market,
      the industry's fertiliser production capacity and prices of intermediary
       products may have had some impact on the general situation of the
       Community UAN market and UAN industry, this cannot alter the fact that a
       continuous increase in import volumes of UAN originating in Bulgaria and
 ---pagebreak---                                             11
      Poland together with prices which substantially undercut the prices of the
      Community industry, contributed to, and caused to a large extent, the
      difficulties which the Community UAN industry faces. Moreover, it has to be
      pointed out that the claims made by EFIA were largely supported by
      information referring to the Community fertiliser market as a whole, while the
      present anti-dumping proceeding deals specifically with UAN. In that respect,
      it must be emphasised that contrary to the development of the market
      situation for other fertiliser products, the demand situation on the Community
      UAN market, as shown in the provisional duty Regulation, was relatively
      stable only showing a slight decrease up to and including the investigation
      period (see recital (31) of the provisional duty Regulation).
      In the light of the above, it is concluded that the arguments and claims put
      forward by EFIA were based on statistical data which did not reflect the
      evolution of the UAN market and completely left aside a very significant
      reason of the Community industry's situation. Therefore these arguments
      and claims have to be rejected.
3.     Conclusion
(29.) As no other arguments concerning the causation of the injury sustained by
      the Community industry were submitted after the imposition of the provisional
      anti-dumping measures and in the light of the above considerations, it is
      hereby concluded that the high volume, low-priced dumped imports of UAN
      originating in Bulgaria and Poland have, independently of other factors
      affecting the Community industry caused material injury to the Community
      industry, particularly in the form of heavy financial losses.
 ---pagebreak---                                             12
G. Community interest
(30.) EFIA has submitted in this respect, that as the Community industry cannot
      satisfy the total Community demand of UAN, the imposition of anti-dumping
      measures limiting the sources of supply is not in the Community interest.
(31.) While this argument appears to be in contradiction with the argument put
      forward by EFIA concerning causality in recital (26.) that the Community UAN
      industry has suffered injury due to its production overcapacity, it must be
      emphasised in any event that the aim of the imposition of anti-dumping
      measures is not to prevent imports of the product concerned into the
      Community. The aim is to eliminate the trade distorting effects of injurious
      dumping and restore effective competition.
      With respect to the various sources of supply available to Community users,
      there were substantial imports of UAN from other third countries before the
      substantial increase of the dumped imports concerned as was pointed out in
      the provisional duty Regulation (see recital (44). These sources of supply are
      potentially still available at the present time and there is no reason to believe
      that a shortage of the product will occur, bearing in mind that the Community
      market will be potentially more attractive for suppliers from third countries
      once a fair competitive situation is re-established.
      Given, that no other arguments concerning the Community interest have
      been raised after the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping measures it
       is hereby concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping measures is in the
       Community interest.
 ---pagebreak---                                            13
H. Anti-dumping measures
(32.) After the imposition of the provisional duties, EFIA has submitted that the
      imposition of these duties was illegal, given the existence of a consultation
      clause in the trade agreements concluded between the Community and the
      two exporting countries.
(33.) With respect to the two trade agreements concerned, these provide for the
      application of anti-dumping measures. Furthermore, the agreements
      specifically allow the imposition of anti-dumping measures in the case of
      particular urgency without prior consultation of the other party. It was
      concluded by the Commission that given the length of the investigation
      carried out prior to the imposition of provisional anti-dumping measures and
      given the substantial dumping of exports and the consequent material injury
      inflicted on the Community industry established by the Commission,
      provisional anti-dumping measures had to be imposed urgently.
      It is therefore confirmed that the course of action taken therefore conforms
      with the obligations of the Community as foreseen in the trade agreements
      with the two exporting countries.
(34.) Based on the conclusions of dumping, injury, causality and Community
      interest reached above, consideration was given to the form and level of anti-
      dumping measures required in order to eliminate the trade distorting effect of
      the injurious dumping.
      In the present circumstances, the overall loss-making situation of the
      Community industry of UAN had to be taken into account.
 ---pagebreak---                                             14
(35.) Accordingly, the Commission calculated the level of prices at which the
      Community industry would be able to cover its average costs of production
      and to obtain a reasonable profit.
      As far as the determination of the reasonable profit is concerned, EFMA has
      claimed that the profit rate used by the Commission in the provisional
      determination, i.e. at a level of 5% on turnover, is too low. In particular EFMA
      has put forward that such a rate would not allow the Community UAN
      industry to sustain production of UAN in the EU, that the target price
      calculated would not allow the Community UAN industry to finance
      necessary replacement and investment costs and, finally, that the same
      profit rate should be used in the UAN proceeding as in a previous regional
      anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of ammonium nitrate5 ("AN")
      since AN is one of the two main ingredients of UAN.
(36.) As far as the above claim by EFMA is concerned, the Community producers
      put forward in the response to the questionnaire a variety of profit targets
      used by the companies internally. These targets varied significantly among
      companies and in a number of cases were not established specifically for
      UAN but were the result of an overall group policy in the assessment of
      investment projects. In these circumstances, the Commission considered at
      the provisional stage that the Community industry had not specifically
      supported its claim on the level of a reasonable profit margin. After the
      provisional determinations EFMA has supplied no new information.
      For the provisional determination, the Commission derived the profit margin
      used by reference to the fact that the product concerned is a mature product
      needing only moderate funding for investment and research and
      development. No information has been received from EFMA justifying a
      different assessment at the definitive stage.
      Commission Decision (94/293/EC), OJ L 129, 21.5.94, p. 24
 ---pagebreak---                                            15
      As far as the comparison with the regional AN case is concerned, the claim
      put forward by EFMA is not deemed justified. Indeed, the target price
      calculated in that anti-dumping proceeding took particular account of the
      production and sales situation of the regional industry concerned which was
      not identical to the one of the Community UAN industry. In particular the
      profit margin used in the AN anti-dumping proceeding was not applied on the
      actual costs of production of the industry concerned but on that industry's
      actual cost of production adjusted to exclude a cost increase during the
      investigation period due to factors other than dumped imports.
      In conclusion the claim put forward by EFMA has not been found acceptable
      and the profit margin determined at the provisional stage should be
      maintained for the definitive determination.
(37.) On this basis and taking account of the Community industry's cost of
      production a minimum import price was calculated which would permit the
      Community industry to raise its prices to a profitable level.
(38.) It was established that the injury thresholds thus established are lower than
      the dumping margins of both producers located in Poland and of the exporter
      located in Bulgaria, after taking into account all changes made on the basis
      of the assessments carried out after the imposition of provisional anti-
      dumping measures.
(39.) Given the material injury suffered by the Community industry in the form of
      financial losses, given the possibility of the absorption of an ad-valorem duty
      with a detrimental effect on the price situation in the Community market for
      this seasonal and highly price sensitive product and given the existence of a
       number of import channels via third country companies, it is considered
       appropriate to impose a variable duty at the level which would permit the
 ---pagebreak---                                            16
      Community industry to raise its prices to profitable levels for imports invoiced
      directly by Bulgarian or Polish producers or by parties which have exported
      the product concerned during the investigation period and a specific duty on
      the same basis for all other imports in order to avoid the circumvention of the
      anti-dumping measures.
I.     Undertakings
(40.) Having been informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis
      of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-
      dumping measures, the exporters and producers concerned located in
      Bulgaria and Poland have offered undertakings. However, the Commission
      only considers the offer of undertaking jointly offered by the Bulgarian
      producer and exporter as acceptable as only this undertaking would ensure
      that the injury inflicted on the Community industry was removed by raising
      the export price to a non-injurious level. In these circumstances the
      Commission has considered the offer of undertakings at a lower level by the
      Polish producers and exporter as unacceptable and has informed the
      exporters and producers concerned accordingly.
      The undertakings offered by the Bulgarian producer and exporter were
      accepted by Commission Decision 94/..../EC.
      Notwithstanding the acceptance of the undertaking, a residual duty should be
      imposed on imports originating in Bulgaria in order to avoid the circumvention
      of the anti-dumping measures.
J.    Collection of the provisional duties
(41.) In view of the dumping margins established, the injury caused to the
      Community industry and of the latter's precarious financial situation, it is
 ---pagebreak---                                              17
        considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of provisional anti-
        dumping duty for all companies should be collected definitively,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
                                         Article 1
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of urea ammonium
nitrate solution originating in Bulgaria and Poland and falling within
CN code 3102 80 00.
2. The amount of anti-dumping duty for imports originating in Bulgaria shall be 20
ECU per tonne product (TARIC additional Code: 8792) except for imports of the
product directly invoiced to an unrelated importer after the entry into force of this
Regulation by the following exporters or producers located in Bulgaria:
        Chimimport Investment and Fertilizer Inc., Sofia,
        Agropolychim, Devnya,
        (TARIC additional Code: 8791)
which shall be exempt from the duty subject to the above conditions pursuant to
the acceptance of a joint undertaking by Commission Decision 94/.../EC.
3. The amount of anti-dumping duty for imports originating in Poland shall be the
difference between the minimum import price of 89 ECU per tonne product and the
CIF Community frontier price plus the CCT duty payable per tonne product in all
cases where the CIF Community frontier price plus the CCT duty payable per tonne
product is less than the minimum import price and where the imports put into free
circulation are directly invoiced to the unrelated importer by the following exporters
or producers located in Poland:
        CIECH, Warsaw,
 ---pagebreak---                                             18
       Zakiady Azotowe Kedzierzyn, Kedzierzyn,
       Zaklady Azotowe Pulawy, Pulawy,
       (TARIC additional Code:8793).
For imports put into free circulation which are not directly invoiced by one of the
above exporters or producers located in Poland to the unrelated importer the
following specific duty is set:
       for the product originating in Poland: 22 ECU per tonne product (TARIC
        additional Code:8794) with the exception of the product certified to be
        produced by Zaklady Azotowe Pulawy for which the specific duty is 19 ECU
        per tonne product (TARIC additional Code:8795)
4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties
shall apply.
                                        Article 2
The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to
Regulation (EC) No 1506/94 shall be definitively collected in full.
                                         Article 3
This Regulation shall enter 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,
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---                                                                      ISSN 0254-1475
                                                              COM (94) 656 final
                                                      DOCUMENTS
EN                                                                         i l 02
                                Catalogue number : CB-CO-94-674-EN-C
                                                             ISBN 92-77-83979-1
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
L-2985 Luxembourg