CELEX: 51994PC0517
Language: en
Date: 1994-12-01
Title: Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) amending the definitive anti-dumping measures applying to imports into the Community of urea originating in the former USSR and terminating the anti-dumping measures applying to imports into the Community of urea originating in the former Czechoslovakia

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
                                            COM(94) 517 final
                                           Brussels, 01.12.1994
                              Proposal for a
                         COUNCIL REGULATION (EC)'
   amending "the definitive anti-dumping measures applying to imports
     Into the Community of urea originating in the former USSR and
           terminating the anti-dumping measures applying to
             imports into the community of urea originating
                       in the former Czechoslovakia
                      (presented by the Commission)
 ---pagebreak---                                    EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
(1)     By Regulation (EEC) N° 3339/871, the Council accepted undertakings in respect of
        imports of urea from, amongst others, the USSR and Czechoslovakia. By
        Commission Decision dated 21 February 19892, the undertakings accepted by
        Regulation (EEC) N° 3339/87 were confirmed.
(2)     During 1992, information available to the Commission indicated that the quantity of
        imports from these countries was significantly greater than the quantities provided
        for in the undertakings. Accordingly, the Commission considered a review of the
        measures was warranted and published a Notice of Initiation to this effect in the
        Official Journal of the European Communities3.
(3)     As the review proceeding was still in progress beyond the normal period of expiry
        of the measures, the Commission gave notice4 in accordance with Article 15(4) of
        Regulation (EEC) N° 2423/885 that the measures concerning urea originating in the
        former USSR and the former Czechoslovakia would remain in force after the end of
        the relevant five year period, pending the outcome of the review.
(4)     The countries concerned by this review are the new republics of the former
        Czechoslovakia (i.e. the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic) and those
        republics of the former USSR in which there was reason to believe urea production
        facilities exist, namely the Republics of Belarus, Georgia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan,
        the Russian Federation (referred to hereafter as "Russia") and Ukraine.
(5)      It was found that Georgia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan had not exported any urea to
        the Community during the investigation period and that Belarus had only exported a
        tiny quantity. These countries were therefore excluded from the examination of
         dumping and injury.
(6)     Dumping margins were, however, established as follows for the other countries
         involved in this proceeding:
                  Czech Republic                     0.7%
         -        Slovak Republic                   11.8%
                  Russia                            28.2%
                  Ukraine                           20.4%
        In the case of the Czech Republic, the dumping margin found was considered to be
        'de-minimis' for the purposes of the present proceeding and therefore this country
        was also excluded from the examination of injury.
^ J N ' T ^ n , 7.11.1987, p. 1
2
  O J N ° L 5 2 , 24.2.1989, p. 37
3
  O J N ° C 8 7 , 27.3.1993, p. 7
4
  O J N ° C 4 7 , 15.2.1994, p. 3
5
  O J N ° L 2 0 9 , 2.8.1988, p. 1
 ---pagebreak---                                                   4 .a
(7) The investigation showed that the Community industry had suffered material injury
    and, with a view to establishing whether or not a causal link existed between this
    injury and the dumped imports from the countries concerned, careful account was
    taken of the volume of imports from these countries.
(8) It was considered that regard need only be paid to the effect of dumped imports
    from Russia and, in this respect, a causal link was established between dumped
    imports from Russia and the material injury suffered by the Community industry.
(9) With regard to the likelihood of injury being caused in the future by the countries
    concerned, only Russia was considered to pose a problem, therefore, anti-dumping
    measures are being proposed only for this country. Such measures are based on a
    level which would eliminate the injury suffered by the Community producers (which
    is lower than the dumping margin found) and take the form of a variable duty. This
    duty will be any difference between the actual CIF import price, free-at-Community
    frontier and a minimum price of 115 ECU per tonne.
 ---pagebreak---                                         <\t>r
                              Proposal for a
                         COUNCIL REGULATION (EC)
   amending the definitive anti-dumping measures applying to imports
     into the Community of urea originating in the former USSR and
            terminating the anti-dumping measures applying to
              imports into the community of urea originating
                        in the former Czechoslovakia
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2423/88 of 11 July 1988
on protection against dumped or subsidised imports from countries not
members of the European Union( 1 ), and in particular Articles 12, 14
and 15 thereof,
Having   regard   to  the   proposal  submitted  by  the  commission  after
consultation within the Advisory committee,
Whereas:
 (1) OJ No. L     209,  2.8.1988, p. .1.   Regulation  as  last  amended by
 Regulation (EC) No 522/â4 (OJ No L 66, 10.3.1994, P. 10)
 ---pagebreak---                                     - 2 -
                               A. PROCEDURE
(1)   By   Regulation   (EEC)  No.    3339/87( 2 ),  the   Council   accepted
      undertakings in respect of imports of urea from, amongst others,
      the USSR and Czechoslovakia.
(2)   By Commission Decision     (89/143/EEC) dated 21 February      1989( 3 ),
      the undertakings accepted by Regulation        (EEC) No. 3339/87 were
      confirmed.
(3)   During 1992, information available to the Commission          indicated
      that   the   quantity   of    imports   from    these   countries   was
      significantly greater than the quantities provided          for in the
      undertakings. Accordingly, the Commission considered a review of
      the measures was warranted and published a Notice of initiation
      to   this  effect   in  the    Official    Journal   of  the   European
      Communities^).
(4)   As the review proceeding was still in progress beyond the normal
      period of expiry of the measures, the Commission gave notice^ )
      in accordance with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EEC) No. 2423/88
      that the measures concerning urea originating in the former USSR
      and the former Czechoslovakia would remain in force after the end
      of the relevant    five year period, pending the outcome of the
      review.
(2) OJ No. L 317, 7.11.1987, p. 1
(3) OJ No. L 52, 24.2.1989, p. 37
(4) OJ No. C 87, 27.3.1993, p. 7
(5)   OJ UQ C 47, 15.2.1994, P.3
 ---pagebreak---                                     3 -
(5) The countries concerned by this review are the new republics of
    the former Czechoslovakia (i.e. the Czech Republic and the Slovak
    Republic) and those republics of the former USSR in which there
    was reason to believe urea production facilities exist, namely
    the Republics of Belarus, Georgia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, the
    Russian   Federation   (referred   to  hereafter   as  "Russia")  and
    Ukraine.
(6) The  Commission   officially    notified  the   Community  producers,
    exporters    and  importers    known   to   be   concerned   and  the
    representatives of the exporting countries of the initiation of
    the proceeding and gave the parties concerned the opportunity to
    make their views known in writing and to request a hearing.
(7) Representatives    of    the   European   Fertiliser    Manufacturers
    Association   (hereafter   referred  to as   "EFMA") were  granted  a
    hearing and made their views known in writing.
(8) Representatives of the European Fertiliser Importers Association
    (hereafter referred to as "EFIA") whose members import urea from
    the countries concerned, were also granted a hearing and made
    their views known in writing.
(9) The Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed
    to be necessary for the purpose of its investigation and visited
    the premises of the following companies:
 ---pagebreak---                          - 4 -
(a) Community producers:
  - Hydro Agri GmbH, Brunsbuettel, Germany
  - Stickstoffwerke AG, Wittenberg-Piesteritz, Germany
  - Fertilizantes Enfersa, SA, Madrid, Spain
  - FESA Fertilizantes Espanoles, SA, Madrid, Spain
  - Grande Paroisse SA, Paris, France
  - Irish Fertilizer Industry Ltd, Dublin, Ireland
  - Enichem Agricoltura, SpA, Milan, Italy
    DSM Meststoffen BV, Sittard, Netherlands
  - Kemira BV, Rotterdam, Netherlands
(b) Producer/exporter in the Czech Republic:
  - Chemopetrol s.p., Litvinov
(c) Producers/exporters in the Slovak Republic:
  - Duslo s.p., Sala (producer/exporter)
  - Petrimex Foreign Trade Company Ltd, Bratislava     (exporter
    and former Czechoslovakian export monopoly holder)
(d) Importers in the Community:
  - Interore SA, Brussels, Belgium
  - Unifert SA, Brussels, Belgium
  - Champagne Fertilisants SA, Reims, France.
 ---pagebreak---                                        5 -
(10) The  Commission   received    and  used  information   from   four  other
     Community    producers     which    had   replied   to    the    relevant
     questionnaire.
(11) with regard to producers in Belarus, Georgia, Russia, Tajikistan,
     Ukraine and Uzbekistan, information supplied indicated that there
     were a total of 24 plants in these countries known or thought to
     produce urea. - Questionnaires requesting information were sent to
     all these producers, however, reactions were only received from
     three of them.    Of these three, two were producers situated in
     Russia   and both stated that they did not export urea to the
     Community during the investigation period.         The third producer,
     the only known fertiliser manufacturer in Georgia, said it had
     ceased urea production some years ago.
(12) The    investigation     of    dumping   covered    the    period    from
     1 January 1992 to 31 December 1992 (the "investigation period").
(13) All the parties concerned were informed of the essential facts
     and  considerations    on the    basis  of which   it was   intended   to
     recommend the imposition of definitive measures.         They were also
     granted a period within which to make representations subsequent
     to these disclosures.
(14) Some of the parties concerned submitted that they had not been
     provided with sufficient detailed information by the Commission
     concerning    the   calculation     of  dumping   margins    and   injury
     elimination levels and that this might affect their ability to
     defend their interests.
 ---pagebreak---                                    - 6 -
(15) As regards disclosure, exporters were informed of details of how
     their individual dumping margins were calculated and the injury
     elimination    levels    established.    Community    producers     were
     supplied  with   details   of  average   Community   producers'    sales
     prices, undercutting, profit levels, and any injury elimination
     level  established;   importers   received    disclosure   of   detailed
     information  on   all  aspects   of  the   investigation   and   of  the
     reasons on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the
     imposition of definitive duties.
     Thus, in the Commission's view, each interested party received,
     within the constraints laid down in Article 8 of Regulation (EEC)
     N°  2423/88, all available     information   required   for   the  party
     concerned to protect its interests and relevant for its defence.
                     B. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION
                         1. Product description
(16) The  product  concerned   is urea.    It  is produced    from   ammonia,
     which in turn is produced mainly from natural gas, although it
     can also be produced from the waste products of oil refining.
     When in solid form, it is either in small "granules" (which have
     a rough surface) or small "prills" (which are also granular but
     have a smooth surface).     Solid urea can also be mixed with water
     to make "liquid" urea.
 ---pagebreak---                                      - 7 -
(17) Urea   in   granular    and   prilled    forms   can  be   used    for  both
     agricultural and industrial purposes:
     - agricultural     grade urea can be used either          as  a  fertiliser
       which is spread onto the soil or as an animal feed additive;
     - industrial     (or "technical") grade urea is a raw material for
        certain glues and plastics.
     Liquid urea can be used both as a fertiliser and for industrial
     purposes.    Although    urea   is   presented   in  the  different    forms
     mentioned    above, its chemical properties         remain   basically   the
     same   and   may   be  regarded     for   the  purposes   of   the   present
     proceeding as one product.
                                2. Like product
(18) It was established that urea produced and sold by the Community
     industry on the Community market is a like product within the
     meaning   of   Article    2(12)   of   Regulation   (EEC)  N°   2423/88   as
     regards its physical and technical characteristics when compared
     to   the   urea    produced   by   the    countries   concerned     in  this
     proceeding.
 ---pagebreak---                                     - 8 -
                              COMMUNITY INDUSTRY
( 19 )  The investigation showed that the producers which cooperated in
       the investigation accounted for the entire production of urea in
       the Community and may therefore, in accordance with Article 4(5)
       of Regulation (EEC) N° 2423/88,      be considered as the Community
       industry.
                                 D. DUMPING
                   1. Czech Republic and Slovak Republic
                                (a) General
(20)   Following the division of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic
       and the Slovak Republic at the beginning of 1993, each of these
       new countries now has one urea production company situated within
       its borders.
(21)   Since  1 March   1992, Czechoslovakia      and,  latterly,  the  Czech
       Republic and the Slovak Republic, have been considered as market
       economies.   Accordingly, normal value was established using data
       relating to the domestic     sales prices and production costs of
       each producer.   It should be noted that during the investigation
       period,   Czechoslovakia   had   not   yet   become  two   independent
,      countries, therefore any reference to Czech or Slovak "domestic"
       sales prices in this Regulation means sales prices in the former
       Czechoslovakia.
 ---pagebreak---                                   - 9 -
(22) Given that the two countries were coming through the transitional
     stage between centrally planned and free market economies at the
     time of the investigation, particular attention was paid to the
     question of whether the prices     and costs of the producers were
     still influenced by the continuation of historical links between
     State owned companies.    Such links may have resulted in     prices
     and costs not being capable of being considered in the ordinary
     course   of  trade   and  may   have  necessitated   an appropriate
     adjustment of normal value. In the present case, however, this
     was not considered necessary following analysis of the producers'
     accounting data.
(23) Historically, the two production companies have always maintained
     their own accounting records and organised their own domestic
     sales of urea.    With regard to export sales, even prior to the
     division of Czechoslovakia into two separate Republics, the two
     production companies always knew the final destination of their
     goods.   It is therefore possible to determine domestic prices in
     Czechoslovakia and export prices for each producer separately.
                            (b) Normal value
(24) In accordance with Article 2(3)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 2423/88,
     normal value was established on the basis of the price actually
     paid in the ordinary course of trade for domestic sales of the
     like product, which were made in sufficient quantities to permit
     a   proper   comparison.   To  determine   that   such  sales   were
     profitable, the cost of production data provided were analysed.
 ---pagebreak---                                   - 10 -
     It was first necessary, however, to establish whether the data
     were both reliable and in accordance with acceptable accounting
     standards. Examination of the Czech and Slovak producers' records
     showed that costs had been kept on a cost centre basis and that,
     in particular, depreciation had been taken into account as well
     as financing costs. With regard to purchases of raw materials, it
     was found that the Slovak producer had purchased its gas from
     Russia at open market prices.       The Czech producer did not use
     natural gas as a raw material but instead produced urea from the
     waste products of oil refining.
(25) It  was   established   that   domestic    prices   were    profitable.
     Consequently, normal value was calculated on the basis of each
     producer's   weighted   average    net   domestic    sales    price   of
     agricultural  and industrial prilled urea sold        in the ordinary
     course of trade during 1992.
                            (c) Export price
(26) In  the  case  of  direct   sales   made  by  the   Czech   and   Slovak
     producers  to  customers   in  the   Community,   export   prices   were
     established on the basis of the prices paid or payable, to the
     producer concerned.
 ---pagebreak---                                 - 11 -
(27) In addition to direct sales to the Community, the Czech and
     Slovak  producers   both  made   some export   sales  during  the
     investigation period to customers in the Community via the former
     Czechoslovakian export monopoly holder, Petrimex Foreign Trade
     Company Ltd (hereafter called "Petrimex").    In such cases, the
     net price at which the production companies sold the urea to
     Petrimex has been considered as the export price within the
     meaning of Article 2.8(a) of Regulation N° 2423/88, taking into
     consideration the fact that the ultimate destination of the goods
     was known to the manufacturer at the time of their delivery and
     that normal value has been established at a corresponding level.
                            (d) Comparison
(28) In accordance with Article 2(10)(c) of Regulation N° 2423/88,
     adjustments were made, where appropriate, to both normal value
     and export price in order to take account of directly related
     selling expenses and enable them to be compared at the same
     level.  These adjustments included transport and related costs,
     packing costs and commissions.
(29) A comparison was then made between normal value (ex-works) and
     export price (ex-works) on a transaction-by-transaction basis.
 ---pagebreak---                                   - 12
                          (e) Dumping margins
(30) The dumping margins, expressed as percentages of the CIF price,
     free at Community frontier, were as follows:
     - Czech Republic:        Duslo s.p.               0.7%
     - Slovak Republic:       Chemopetrol s.p.       11.8%
      2. Republics of Belarus, Georgia, Russia, Tajikistan, Ukraine
                             and Uzbekistan
                               (a) General
(31) In  view   of   the  non-cooperation      of  the   majority   of  the
     producers/exporters   in   Belarus,    Georgia,   Russia,  Tajikistan,
     Ukraine and Uzbekistan',    in accordance with Article 7(7) (b) of
     Regulation (EEC) N° 2423/88 the facts available have been used to
     examine the question of dumping.
(32) To this end, consideration was given as to whether Eurostat data
     could be used for establishing export prices for these countries.
     A problem   arose, however, in view of the        fact that prior to
     January 1992 only one geo-nomenclature Eurostat code existed for
     the USSR  (including the three Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia
     and Lithuania). From January      19 92 onwards, separate codes were
     created for these Baltic States, however the other Republics of
     the former USSR continued to be grouped together under one code.
 ---pagebreak---                                 - 13 -
     It was only in mid-1992 that separate statistical import codes
     for Belarus, Georgia, Russia, Tajikistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan
     were established.  Available Eurostat data for the second half of
     1992  show that no imports    into the Community    were made  from
     Belarus, Georgia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan (with the exception
     of a negligible quantity of 119 tonnes from Belarus).
(33) During the course of the investigation, the Community producers
     and importers also indicated that most of the urea exported from
     the former USSR was of Russian origin.    In addition, the Ministry
     of Foreign Affairs of Uzbekistan informed the Commission that no
     exports of urea had been made to the Community in 1992 by any of
     the  Uzbek  producers.  With   regard  to   Georgia,  as  mentioned
     previously in this Regulation, the only known producer of urea in
     that country stated that it ceased urea production some years
     ago.                                            /
(34) For these reasons and for the purposes of the current        review
     proceeding, it has been concluded that none of the urea imports
     under the geo-nomenclature code    "USSR" in Eurostat during the
     first part of   1992 should  be attributed    to Belarus, Georgia,
     Tajikistan or Uzbekistan.   Accordingly, these four countries are
     to be excluded from the examination of dumping.
 ---pagebreak---                                   - 14 -
(35) With regard to establishing separate import volumes for Russia
     and Ukraine, the individual ratios found for these two countries
     in respect of their imports during the second part of 1992 were
     also applied to the "USSR" import volume during the first part of
     1992. For previous years, the same ratios of import volumes from
     Russia and Ukraine     found in 1992 were also applied to establish
     separate import volumes.
                 (b) Normal value (Russia and Ukraine)
                      - choice of analogue country
(36) In order to establish the normal value of urea produced in Russia
     and Ukraine, account was taken of the fact that these countries
     do not have market economies.         In accordance, therefore, with
     Article 2(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, a          determination of
     normal  value had to be based        on the   conditions     in a   market
     economy country (the "analogue" country).
(37) With regard to the choice of an analogue country, Australia was
     suggested by EFMA.     On the other hand, EFIA objected to the use
     of any analogue country and proposed that the actual costs in the
     countries concerned by the proceeding be used instead.
(38) In view of the lack of alternatives, contact was made with the
     sole  Australian   producer   of  urea   and  this   company    agreed  to
     cooperate  with   the   investigation.    At   a  later    stage   in  the
     proceeding,   EFIA   submitted   that   Canada   was   a   more   suitable
     analogue  country   and provided    data   concerning    urea   production
     there.
 ---pagebreak---                                      15 -
     As the suggestion to use Canada as an analogue country had come
     late  and,   in  order  not   to  unduly  delay   the   length  of  the
     investigation   at that   time,   it was   decided   to proceed   using
     Australia as the provisional analogue country.
(39) The investigation revealed, however, that Australia was not the
     most appropriate choice of analogue country given its isolated
     position in relation to the world markets and also the fact that
     domestic   sales  prices   were   higher  than   those   prevailing  in
     Europe.
(40) As the Slovak Republic had already been investigated and the data
     provided by the producer there verified, consideration was given
     to using this country as the analogue country.
(41) The  investigation    had   revealed   that   the   Slovak   producer's
     production process was based on natural gas, as are the Russian
     and  Ukrainian    manufacturers.    Moreover,   the   Slovak   producer
     bought its gas from Russia at open market prices.          In view also
     of the fact that the Slovak sales prices reflected the real cost
     of production under market economy conditions and that there was
     a substantial domestic market, the Slovak Republic was considered
     to be an appropriate analogue country        for establishing    normal
     value for Russia and Ukraine.
 ---pagebreak---                                       - 16 -
(42) Certain    parties    concerned    objected    to  this    and   argued    that
     Slovakia was inappropriate due to its small production volume in
     comparison to that of the USSR. Moreover, because of its reliance
     on Russian gas, it was alleged that production costs were not
     comparable.     The   investigation     showed,   however,     that   although
     Russia    has    large    production    capacity,    its   exports     to   the
     Community    are broadly      similar   to the    level   of   production    in
     Slovakia. Furthermore, the sole Slovak producer bought the basic
     raw material      - gas - at open market prices           from Russia. The
     requirement      to   establish     normal    value    at    market    economy
     conditions was therefore duly respected.
     Following    disclosure      to  all   the   interested     parties    of   the
     essential facts and considerations upon which it was intended to
     propose   measures, the Russian         authorities,    although     admitting
     that there are similarities between their urea production process
     and that of the Slovak producer, suggested that Canada should be
     used   as   the   analogue    country   in   this  particular     case.    This
     request    came    extremely    late   in   the   proceeding     despite    the
     invitation     made    in   the   Notice   of   Initiation      for   comments
     concerning    the   selection    of  the   analogue   country.      Therefore,
     the Slovak Republic        is still considered      to be an      appropriate
     analogue country for the reasons stated above.
          (c) Normal value (Russia and Ukraine) - calculation
(43) As already established        in recital 25 of this Regulation, when
     compared to the cost of production data, the weighted average net
     domestic sales price in 1992 of Slovak-produced agricultural and
     industrial prilled urea yielded a profit overall.               Consequently,
     in   accordance     with    Article   2(5)(a)(i)     of   Regulation      (EEC)
     No.2423/88, normal value for Russia and            Ukraine has been based
     on  the   ex-works    sales    prices   of  the   Slovak   producer     on  the
     Czechoslovakian market during the investigation period.
 ---pagebreak---                                    - 17 -
                             (d) Export price
(44) With regard to establishing the export price, the Ministry of
     Foreign Economic Relations of the Russian Federation          submitted
     that the calculations should be made separately for each of the
     two Combined Nomenclature (CN) Codes under which Russian urea is
     imported.   Furthermore,    EFIA    submitted   that   the   comparison
     between  prices   of Russian    and  Community   urea  should  be  made
     separately for agricultural and industrial grades.
(45) In this context, all urea has been considered one product (see
     recital  17 above) and it should be noted that no           information
     concerning Russian or Ukrainian exports has been provided by the
     producers/exporters in these countries.       Moreover, the importers
     of  urea   which   cooperated   with   the   investigation   and  which
     purchased the product directly from the countries concerned only
     accounted   for approximately 1.5% of the total imports of urea
     from Russia and Ukraine during the investigation period.
     In  view  of   this  and   in  accordance   with  Article   7(7) (b) of
     Regulation   (EEC) No. 2423/88, the facts available were used to
     calculate export prices.     Eurostat data, which comprise all forms
     and grades of urea, has been used in the determination of export
     prices being considered the most reasonable facts available.
 ---pagebreak---                                   - 18 -
(46) It was considered that the most reasonable basis for establishing
     export prices was to take the CIF Eurostat import values for the
     Combined   Nomenclature  codes   in question   and   adjust  them  to
     Russian and Ukrainian frontier prices. Certain interested parties
     contested this approach and submitted that a more accurate method
     would be to calculate the ex-works price in Russia and Ukraine.
     This argument cannot be accepted as, in non-market economies, the
     siting of industrial production     facilities  (such as those for
     urea) need not be determined by free-market considerations such
     as access to transport     facilities, proximity    to  raw  material
     sources  or   user  markets,   etc. Furthermore,   costs,   including
     transport costs, in such economies are not governed by market
     forces.  Accordingly, the view has been taken that export prices
     should  be  calculated  at ex-frontier   level  in this    particular
     case.
                             (e) Comparison
(47) Normal value in the Slovak Republic was compared with the export
     price as established in recital 46 for Russia and Ukraine. For
     the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison, the Commission first
     examined the question of whether there were physical or technical
     differences between the Slovak product and urea manufactured in
     Russia and the Ukraine.    No differences were found, therefore no
     adjustments to the normal value or export prices on these grounds
     were necessary.
 ---pagebreak---                                 - 19 -
(48) The Commission was requested to address the question of whether
     an adjustment to the normal value was necessary in order to take
     account of the difference in the price paid for Russian      gas by
     the urea producer in the Slovak Republic and the price paid for
     Russian gas by urea producers in Russia and Ukraine.        To this
     end, it was found that the Slovak producer had paid the free
     market price to Russia for its gas while producers in Russia and
     Ukraine, it is believed, paid considerably less.
(49) Nevertheless, for the purposes of making a correct       comparison
     between normal value in the Slovak Republic and export prices in
     Russia and Ukraine, any difference is irrelevant as these two
     countries were  not considered    as market economies   during  the
     investigation period and therefore their raw material costs were
     not governed by market forces.   Thus, no adjustments were made to
     the  normal value  for  reasons  of  differences   in raw  material
     costs.
(50) The question of whether an adjustment to the normal value was
     necessary to take account of the costs of sending gas by pipeline
     from Russia to the Slovak Republic was also considered. The view
     has been taken  that no adjustment is necessary as the majority
     of Russian and Ukrainian urea producers are situated considerable
     distances away  from the gas    fields.  It  follows that, if the
     costs  in these countries had been governed      by market  forces,
     Russian and Ukrainian urea producers would also, like the Slovak
     producer, have incurred costs for piping gas to the production
     sites.
 ---pagebreak---                                  - 20 -
(51) Normal value and export prices were, however, adjusted to take
     account of certain of the     selling expenses  listed  in Article
     2(10)(c) of Regulation   (EEC) N° 2423/88.  Such adjustments were
     made, where appropriate, for transport and insurance costs.
(52) In particular, the CIF Eurostat import values were adjusted to
     Russian  and  Ukrainian  frontier  prices. This   was  achieved  by
     deducting a certain amount for freight and insurance costs which
     were  derived   from   the   data  supplied  by   the   cooperating
     importers.
(53) A comparison was then made, at the same level of trade, between
     normal value (ex-works) in the Slovak Republic and export prices
     (ex-frontier) for Russia and Ukraine respectively.
                          (f) Dumping margins
(54) The dumping margins, expressed as percentages of the CIF price,
     free at Community frontier, were as follows:
     - Russia         28.2%
     - Ukraine        20.4%
 ---pagebreak---                                   - 21 -
                                E. INJURY
                     1. Preliminary considerations
(55) The  Commission   has  established  that during  the  investigation
     period the only producer in the Czech Republic was dumping at a
     rate of 0.7%.   It was considered that this dumping margin is de-
     minimis for the purpose of the present proceeding.      It follows,
     therefore, that it was not necessary to examine the question of
     whether  imports originating    in the Czech Republic  have caused
     injury to the Community industry.
(56) With regard to the Republics of Belarus, Georgia, Tajikistan and
     the Uzbekistan, it should be remembered that these four countries
     were excluded from the examination of dumping on the grounds of
     no exports or negligible exports to the Community.       It follows
     that  these  four   countries  are  also to be  excluded   from the
     examination of injury in the present proceeding.
 ---pagebreak---                                   - 22 -
             2. Volume and market shares of dumped imports
                        (a) Community consumption
(57) In calculating the total consumption of all types of urea in the
     Community (agricultural, industrial, prilled, granules, in liquid
     form, etc.), the Commission added the total EC urea sales of the
     Community producers to the total imports into the Community of
     all types of urea from all sources.        On this basis, Community
     consumption   of  urea   declined  by   2.7%  between   1989  and  the
     investigation period.
                        (b) Former Czechoslovakia
(58) On the basis of information contained in Eurostat, the Commission
     found that declared imports of Czechoslovakian origin apparently
     stood   at   134,930   tonnes   during   the   investigation   period.
     However, the Commission's investigation at the premises of the
     Czech and Slovak producer showed that they had only exported a
     combined total of 84,504 tonnes to the Community.          Information
     received from two separate sources indicated that the difference
     of 50,426 tonnes comprised urea of Ukrainian origin which was
     transhipped through Czechoslovakia by newly formed trading houses
     and   incorrectly    attributed   with   Czechoslovakian    origin  on
     importation into the Community.     A similar situation occurred in
     1991  when   the  quantities   involved   were  approximately   14,000
     tonnes.
 ---pagebreak---                                       - 23 -
(59) Accordingly, for the purposes of calculating the volume of dumped
     imports    and   market    shares,    the   Commission    has    treated   the
     difference     in   quantities     referred    to   above    as   being   urea
     originating in Ukraine and has attributed the said quantities to
     import data relating to Ukraine.          The Ukrainian authorities were
     advised   of these findings and raised no objections. All data
     concerning     exports    made    by  the    Czech   or   Slovak     producers
     therefore     reflects    their    actual     level   of   exports     to  the
     Community.
                           (c) The Slovak Republic
(60) It has been established that dumped imports of Slovakian origin
     increased by 77% between 1989 and the investigation period.                The
     market share, however, of such imports rose from 0.3% in 1989 to
     0.5%  during     the   investigation    period.     Given   this    negligible
     market   share,    it   is   considered    that   there   are    insufficient
     grounds to cumulate imports originating in the Slovak Republic.
     It follows     that the question of whether imports from the            Slovak
     Republic have caused injury need not be addressed.
                                   (d) Ukraine
(61) The  investigation      has shown    that dumped     imports    of   Ukrainian
     origin rose between        1989 and the     investigation     period with a
     resultant increase in market share from 0,2% to 1,7%. Given this
     very   low   share   of   sales    within   the   Community,     it   is  also
     considered     that   there    are   insufficient     grounds    to   cumulate
     Ukrainian urea imports. As with the Slovak Republic, it follows
     that there is no need to examine the question of whether such
     imports have caused injury to the Community industry concerned.
 ---pagebreak---                                       - 24 -
                                   (e) Russia
(62) The investigation revealed that dumped imports of Russian origin
     went up from 39,873 tonnes in 1989 to 117,706 tonnes during the
     investigation     period,    an    increase     of    195%.    Although    this
     quantity    significantly      exceeded     the    amount    agreed    in   the
     undertaking    given   in   1987, it     should be      borne   in  mind   that
     following the political break-up of the USSR, the export monopoly
     holder lost its monopoly and, in effect, the undertaking became
     totally    unmanageable.      Certain     producers       in   Russia     began
     exporting direct to the Community without the intervention of the
     export monopolist and this lack of a restraining presence led to
     the   large    influx     of    imports    which     occurred     during    the
     investigation    period.    It was     found   that    the market    share   of
     dumped imports from Russia rose from 0.9% in 1989 to 2.6% during
     the investigation period.
                        3. Prices of dumped imports
(63) For imports of urea from Russia, the weighted average duty paid
     CIF Community frontier price was compared to the weighted average
     ex-works selling price of urea in the Community of the Community
     producers.    All prices were compared at the same level of trade
     and all discounts and rebates were excluded. With regard to the
     duty  paid   price, this was        calculated    by    taking   the  Eurostat
     import price     and  adding     customs   duty   at   a rate    of  10,6%   (a
     weighed average - based on volume - of the two customs duty rates
     of 11% and 8% applicable to imports of urea under the different
     CN codes).
 ---pagebreak---                                   - 25 -
(64) In making   such a comparison, however,      it was brought    to   the
     attention of the Commission that a certain difference in price
     existed between Community-produced urea and that from the former
     USSR as a result of the imported product's inferior quality and
     finish.   Its tendency to deteriorate during transport, combined
     with  the   fact   that  importers   cannot  always  offer   the   same
     security of supply as the Community producers, leads naturally to
     lower prices.    While these differences are difficult to evaluate
     in monetary terms, it has been concluded that such a difference
     exists and that a 10% adjustment in value is considered to be
     appropriate.
(65) Whilst admitting that the Community producers' product commanded
     a higher price, EFMA considered that the level of the adjustment
     was too high.    Moreover, they argued that the conclusions drawn
     were without basis given the lack of factual supporting evidence.
     EFIA  also  contested   the  level  of  the  adjustment, but   on the
     grounds that it was insufficient given the significantly inferior
     state of the Russian product on arrival at the end user in the
     Community.   They   argued  that   this  poorer  quality   had   to  be
     compensated for by lower prices.
(66) In view of the inconclusive and conflicting information received
     by the Commission, it was concluded, based on the          information
     available, that a 10% adjustment level was both reasonable and
     appropriate.   It also found the middle ground between the figure
     put forward by the Community producers and the amount requested
     by EFIA.
 ---pagebreak---                                       26 -
(67) Allowing for these differences, the level of undercutting of the
     Community producers' prices was found to be approximately 10% for
     urea of Russian origin.
                 4. Situation of the Community industry
      (a) Production, production capacity, capacity utilisation
                              rate and stock
(68) It was found that the Community producers' production of urea
     increased by 1.4% between 1989 and the investigation period.          It
     should be noted that although one of the Community             producers
     (Stickstoffwerke    A.G.)    was    situated   in  the   former   German
     Democratic Republic, the output and sales of this company have
     been  included   in the    Community    producers'   figures  from  1989
     onwards.
(69) With regard to the Community producers' production capacity, it
     was established that this declined by 1.6% between 1989 and the
     investigation   period.    In view of these minor       fluctuations  in
     production and capacity, capacity utilisation rose slightly from
     75% in 1989 to 77% during the investigation period.
(70) The  investigation    also   showed    that  the  Community   producers'
     stocks   of   urea   increased     by   8.7%   between   1989   and  the
     investigation period.
 ---pagebreak---                                    - 27 -
                       (b) Sales and market shares
(71) Sales on the Community market by the industry concerned decreased
     by 1.7% between 1989 and the investigation period.        The Community
     producers' market share, on the other hand, rose from 77.5% in
     1989 to 78.5% during the investigation period.        Such an increase,
     however, coincided with a decrease in the level of imports from
     third countries not concerned by this present proceeding.
         (c) Sales prices, profitability and profit shortfall
(72) The  Community   producers' average    sales prices dropped      by 10%
     between   1989   and  the   investigation   period.    With  regard   to
     profitability,    the  investigation    showed    that   the  Community
     industry's    position    had   worsened   between      1989   and   the
     investigation period as, on a weighted average basis, losses had
     increased from 3.7% to 6%.
(73) The majority of Community producers claimed that a minimum pre-
     tax profit of 10-15% was required for them to remain competitive.
     However,   this was   not   substantiated  and,    as  urea  is  a  long
     established product, this figure is considered to be high.           The
     Commission is of the opinion that after taking account of the
     decline  in   demand  for   urea,  the  need   to   finance  additional
     investments in manufacturing facilities and the profit which is
     considered reasonable in the original anti-dumping investigation
     concerning this product, a pre-tax profit rate of 5% should be
     used as the basis for assessing profit shortfall in this present
     proceeding.
 ---pagebreak---                                  - 28 -
                             (d) Employment
(74) The investigation showed    that the number of people employed by
     the Community producers in the urea sector fell by 8% between
     19 89 and the investigation period.
                   5. Conclusions concerning injury
(75) It is noted that between 1989 and the investigation period anti-
     dumping measures in the form of quantitative undertakings were in
     force. Nevertheless, despite these measures, the situation of the
     Community  producers has worsened.     Although, many   of  the main
     economic indicators of injury have remained fairly static, the
     fall in prices combined with increased stock levels and loss of
     employment are particularly significant.    It is also evident that
     the Community demand for urea has contracted slightly since 19 89
     and  that  to maintain   production  levels  and  market   share the
     Community producers have been obliged to lower their prices to
     levels which cause even, greater losses than those which occurred
     in 1989.
(76) In view of the above factors, it is concluded that the Community
     industry  has  suffered  material   injury  within  the  meaning  of
     Article 4(1) of Regulation (EEC) N" 2423/88.
 ---pagebreak---                                      29 -
                            F. CAUSE OF INJURY
                       1. Effect of dumped imports
(77) In the examination of the extent to which the material injury
     suffered by the Community industry was caused by dumped imports,
     it was found, as explained in recital 62       above, that the Russian
     market  share    rose   from  0.9%   in   1989   to   2.6%   during  the
     investigation period.
(78) With regard to sales, the investigation showed that the Community
     producers' sales decreased by 63,700 tonnes between 1989 and the
     investigation period while the volume of imports from Russia rose
     by 77,833 tonnes.    As stated below, it was also found that there
     had been a decline in imports of 263,802 tonnes from other third
     countries (excluding the Czech Republic,       the Slovak Republic and
     Ukraine).   Accordingly, it is considered that all the sales in
     the Community lost by the Community producers can be attributed
     to dumped imports from Russia.
(79) As  far   as  prices   and   profitability   are    concerned,   it  was
     established   that during the     investigation period, the      average
     selling price per tonne of the Community producers had declined
     by  10% compared    with  1989.   It  is  clear   that   the  increasing
     presence of imports from Russia played a considerable part in
     this fall in prices since they were being offered on the market
     at duty paid prices of up to 14% below the Community producers '
     production costs.
 ---pagebreak---                                  - 30 -
                      2. Effect of other factors
(80) The question of   whether the injury suffered by the Community
     industry had been caused by factors other than dumping by Russian
     exporters has also been examined.    There is, however, no evidence
     of increased imports from any third country not subject to anti-
     dumping  measures.   In  1989  global   imports  from  other  third
     countries accounted for 92.7% of all imports into the EC of urea,
     whereas in the investigation period this figure had dropped to
     71.4%. The estimated EC market share of such imports decreased
     from 20.8% to 15.6% over the same period.
(81) As far as the prices of such imports are concerned, it was    found
     that the weighted average CIF import price (before duty) from
     these other third countries was 22.5% higher than the comparable
     CIF import price of Russian urea. At a duty paid level, their
     price  to the   importer would    be  just below   the  loss-making
     weighted average selling price of the Community producers during
     the investigation period.    It can be argued that the prices of
     these imports also contributed to the depressed state of the EC
     industry as such prices were well below the theoretical level
     needed to enable Community producers to cover all costs and
     achieve a reasonable profit.
 ---pagebreak---                                    - 31 -
(82) It is considered     that even though there was a       fall in prices,
     the  minor   reduction    in  the   overall  demand   for  urea  in  the
     Community   between 1989 and the investigation         period  indicates
     that the level of consumption for this product has more or less
     reached  its peak.     In   addition, the    Community   producers  have
     slightly increased their market share which would indicate that
     the shrinking market has not been a major contributory factor to
     the poor situation of the EC producers.
(83) Whilst it can be argued that imports from other third countries
     may  have contributed     to the losses     suffered  by the   Community
     industry, this does not detract from the fact that imports from
     Russia, taken in isolation, by virtue of their low prices and
     increasing market penetration, have caused material injury to the
     Community industry.
           G. LIKELIHOOD OF FURTHER INJURY IN THE EVENT OF
               EXPIRY OF EXISTING ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
                      1. Czech and Slovak Republics
                     (a) Preliminary considerations
(84) As the normal five year duration period for the measures being
     reviewed   would   normally    have   lapsed   in  February   1994,  the
     question of likelihood of recurrence of injury was examined.          To
     this end, the following factors were considered:
 ---pagebreak---                                    - 32 -
     - production and capacity levels in the exporting countries;
     - the rate of increase of dumped imports to the EC;
     - the likelihood of Czech or Slovak urea entering the Community
       at price levels which will have a depressing effect on the
       Community producers' prices;
     - the actual and potential negative effects of such imports on
       the development and production of the Community industry.
(85) With   regard   to   the   Czech   and    Slovak   producers'     capacity
     utilisation, the investigation established that there is either
     limited scope for increasing production levels or there is no
     stated intention to do so.       Unless N there were to be a dramatic
     change in the pattern of their domestic and export sales, it is
     considered   unlikely   that  imports    into the Community      from  the
     Czech  Republic   and  Slovak   Republic will     increase   much   beyond
     current levels.
(86) With regard to the rate of increase of imports from these two
     countries, it has been established that most, if not all, of the
     apparent rise in volume stems from the reunification of Germany
     and the inclusion of sales to traditional customers in the former
     German   Democratic    Republic     (GDR)    in  the    Eurostat    import
     statistics.    If  these   sales   to   the   former   GDR   were   to  be
     excluded,. the    quantitative    limits    originally    agreed   in  the
     undertaking would have been respected.
 ---pagebreak---                                     33 -
(87) Given  that   the  Czechs   and   Slovaks  are  coming    through    the
     transitional   stage between    centrally  planned   and  free   market
     economies, it is considered inevitable that the export prices of
     urea must   rise  in line with market     determined   production    and
     transport  costs. In the medium      term,  it is thought     that   the
     current price advantage of the Czech and Slovak producers will be
     diminished and that they will be obliged to sell at higher prices
     which are more comparable to those of the Community producers.
(88) The investigation has shown that the impact of Czech and Slovak
     imports has been negligible on the Community market and that,
     given the production and trading patterns of the producers in
     these two countries, it is unlikely that their exports to the
     Community will rise to significant levels in the future.           As a
     result, it is considered that imports from the Czech Republic and
     the  Slovak  Republic   will  not   have  any  major   effect   on   the
     development and production of the Community industry.
                             (b) Conclusion
(89) In view of the above factors and the minimal actual and potential
     market  penetration  of   the  Czech  and  Slovak  Republics,     it  is
     concluded that there is little likelihood of injury being caused
     by dumped imports from these two countries in the near future and
     that there is no necessity to renew the protective measures.
 ---pagebreak---                                    - 34 -
                        2. Russia and the Ukraine
                      (a) Preliminary consideration
(90) As with the Czech and Slovak Republics, it is necessary to make a
     reasoned forecast of what would happen in the future if there
     were to be no anti-dumping measures in force against Russia and
     Ukraine.
                                 (b) Russia
(91) With  regard   to   Russia,   information   available   indicates    that
     producers there have the capacity to produce 6,4 million tonnes
     of' urea per   annum.   The data provided     also  shows that     Russia
     actually produced 4,5 million tonnes of urea in 1992.         In view of
     the breakdown of the collective farming system in this country,
     it is highly probable that the domestic demand           for urea will
     plummet as the newly privatised farms will have no money to pay
     for fertilisers.    The urea producers will therefore be obliged to
     explore further the possibility of increasing their trade with
     the Community.
(92) Given also that the introduction of "set-aside" under the Common
     Agricultural    Policy   has   caused   many   Community     farmers   to
     economise   with  regard   to   fertiliser  purchases,    it   is  highly
     likely   that   the   market   will   contract   further   and    Russian
     exporters will increase export volumes and reduce their dumped
     prices even more to gain market share.
 ---pagebreak---                                     - 35 -
                     (c) Conclusion regarding Russia
(93) It is concluded on the basis of the foregoing that the negative
     effects of    dumped    imports   from  Russia would     continue   in   the
     absence of measures.
                                  (d) Ukraine
(94) With   regard   to   Ukraine,    information    supplied    indicates    the
     producers there have the capacity to produce 3.1 million tonnes
     of urea per annum. Unlike Russia, however, Ukraine is not self
     sufficient in natural gas        (the raw material used by Ukrainian
     urea  producers)    and   relies   heavily   upon  imports    of  gas   from
     Russia. Information available shows that the gas supply has been
     severely disrupted and that Ukraine may no longer be capable of
     utilising its existing capacity.
(95) As  to   the   level   of   imports   from   Ukraine,   the    latest   data
     available shows that these         have  dropped to    negligible     levels
     (6102 tonnes during the period January - October 1993).
                    (e) Conclusion concerning Ukraine
(96) Given the above, it is considered unlikely that import                levels
     from Ukraine will be in sufficient quantities in the future to
     cause injury to the Community industry concerned. Accordingly, it
     is  concluded    that   there   is  no  need   to  renew   the   protective
     measures against Ukraine.
 ---pagebreak---                                     - 36
                           H. COMMUNITY INTEREST
(97) In examining whether the interest of the Community is best served
     by  the   maintenance    of   anti-dumping     measures,    it  should   be
     recalled   that    the   purpose    of   such   measures     -  preventing
     distortion    of    competition     arising    from    unfair   commercial
     practices   in the    Community   market    -  is  fundamentally    in  the
     general Community interest.
(98) With regard to this proceeding, it is considered that without
     measures to correct the effects of dumped imports, one or more of
     the  Community    producers     may   be   forced   to    close  its   urea
     production facilities.      This would lead to a loss of employment
     in the Community and would reduce the amount of competition on
     the market.
(99) It is true that      farmers and     industrial users of urea in the
     Community have benefitted in the short term from the low price of
     dumped imports, however, it must also be borne in mind that urea
     purchases   by   such   customers    account   for   a   relatively   small
     percentage of their total inputs.         Given also that the price of
     urea has dropped in recent years, any adjustment to the dumping
     measures is unlikely to have a major impact on users' budgets
     and, on balance, is not        sufficient    reason to deny     legitimate
     protection to the Community producers.
 ---pagebreak---                                   - 37
                                 TERMINATION
            (a) Termination as regards the Czech Republic and
                           the Slovak Republic
(100) As explained previously in this Regulation, but for the inclusion
      of sales to the former GDR in Eurostat import statistics, the
      Czech and Slovak Republics have in essence respected the terms of
      the undertaking and the quantitative limits laid down therein.
      Given   also  the limited   scope for  increasing  exports to the
      Community much above current levels, the very low dumping margin
      of the Czech products, the minimal market share and penetration
      of Czech and Slovak imports and the limited effect on prices of
      such imports, it is considered    that the measures against these
      two countries should be terminated.        '
      No objection to this course of action was raised in the Advisory
      Committee.
 ---pagebreak---                                     - 38 -
         (b) Termination as regards Belarus, Georgia, Tajikistan
                               and Uzbekistan
(101) The conclusion was drawn in recital 34 of this Regulation that
      there is no evidence of significant imports into the Community
      from   the  above-mentioned    countries   during   the   investigation
      period. Whilst    it is acknowledged     that  substantial   production
      capacity exists in these countries, there is no evidence of any
      imminent or foreseeable change in circumstances which could lead
      to an influx of low-priced imports into the Community from the
      countries in question.     In view of the above, the anti-dumping
      proceeding   with   regard   to   Belarus,  Georgia,    Tajikistan  and
      Uzbekistan should be terminated.
      No objection to this course of action was raised in the Advisory
      Committee.
                    (c) Termination as regards Ukraine
(102) As with the countries mentioned in the previous recital, it is
      acknowledged   that a considerable     capacity   for urea   production
      exists in Ukraine. Nevertheless, given the relatively low level
      of   market  share   held   by   Ukrainian   exports   and   given  the
      uncertainties of the gas supply from Russia, there is no clear
      evidence of any imminent change in circumstances. Accordingly, it
      is concluded that there is no need to renew the            anti-dumping
      measures against Ukraine.
 ---pagebreak---                                     39 -
      No objection to this course, of action was raised in the Advisory
      Committee.
                         J. DEFINITIVE MEASURES
(103) The investigation has clearly shown in the case of Russia that:
      - the quantities   stipulated   in the undertaking  have not   been
        respected, although, for the reasons stated elsewhere in this
        Regulation, this is not held to be the fault of the party which
        originally gave the undertaking;
      - in  spite  of the   anti-dumping   measures introduced  in  1987,
        imports  from  Russia  have   continued  to be  dumped  and  have
        contributed to the material injury suffered by the Community
        industry;
      - Russia has a large excess production capacity       and there is
        potential for increasing its dumped exports to the Community.
(104) Given the above, anti-dumping measures should be imposed against
      Russia.
 ---pagebreak---                                      - 40 -
(105) It has been established in recitals 72          and 73 of this Regulation
      that   the   Community     producers    suffered     a   loss   during   the
      investigation period and that a pre-tax profit rate of 5% was
      considered    reasonable    for   the   purposes    of   this    proceeding.
      Accordingly, in order to establish a level of duty adequate to
      remove the injury caused by dumping, a price was calculated which
      would   allow    the   Community    industry     to  cover    its   cost  of
      production    and to achieve this reasonable profit            of  5%. This
      price was then compared to the Russian CIF duty paid import price
      (adjusted   to    take   account   of   the   differences     in   quality).
      Expressed   as a percentage       of  the   CIF   import   price,   free-at-
      Community frontier, the injury elimination figure is 26,8%.
(106) This  injury    elimination   percentage     is   less  than   the   dumping
      margin   of    28.2%    established    for    Russia.    Consequently,    in
      conformity with Article 13(3) of Regulation (EEC) N — 2423/88, the
      definitive anti-dumping duty        should be established at the level
      of the injury elimination figure.
(107) In  view   of   the  downward    trend   of   Russian   import    prices,  a
      variable duty is considered to be the most appropriate course of
      action in this particular case. This form of duty also allows the
      exporters to obtain a more adequate return for their exports. The
      variable duty to be imposed should be based on any difference
      between the actual CIF import price, free-at-Community frontier
      and a minimum price of 115 ECU per tonne,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
 ---pagebreak---                                        41 -
                                  Article 1
1.    A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of
      urea   falling   within   CN   codes   3102    10   10   and   3102   10  90
      originating in the Russian Federation.
2.    The amount of the duty shall be the difference between 115 ECU
      per tonne and the net, free-at-Community frontier price, before
      customs clearance, if this price is lower.
3.    Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning
      customs duties shall apply.
                                  Article 2
The  undertakings    offered   by   Petrimex    Foreign    Trade    Company   Ltd.
(Bratislava)   and  Sojuzpromexport     (Moscow)    and   accepted    by   Article
2(1) of Regulation (EEC) No. 3339/87, are hereby terminated.
                                   Article 3
This  Regulation   shall   enter   into   force   on   the   day   following   its
publication in the official Journal of the European Community.
This  Regulation    shall   be   binding    in   its   entirety     and   directly
applicable in all Member states.
Done at Brussels,                           For the Council
 ---pagebreak---                                                                      ISSN 0254-1475
                                                              COM (94) 517 final
                                                      DOCUMENTS
EN                                                                         i l 02
                                 Catalogue number : CB-CO-94-543-EN-C
                                                             ISBN 92-77-82410-7
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
L-2985 Luxembourg