COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1754/95 of 18 July 1995 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of monosodium glutamate originating in Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1754/95 of 18 July 1995 imposing a  provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of monosodium glutamate originating in Indonesia, the  Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3283/94 of 22 December 1994 on protection against  dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community  (1), as last amended by  Regulation (EC) No 1251/95  (2), in particular Article 23 thereof, which provides that Council  Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from  countries not members of the European Economic Community  (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC)  No 522/94  (4), shall continue to apply to proceedings in relation to which an investigation  pending on 1 September 1994 had not been concluded by the date of entry into force of Regulation  (EC) No 3283/94,
Having regard to Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, and in particular Articles 10 (6) and 14 thereof,
After consultation with the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
I.  PREVIOUS PROCEDURE
(1)  The Council, by Regulation (EEC) No 1798/90  (5), as amended by  Regulations (EEC) No 2966/92  (6) and (EEC) No 2455/93  (7), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty  on imports of monosodium glutamate originating in Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and  Thailand with the exception of imports from certain producers in these countries from which the  Commission accepted undertakings by Regulation (EEC) No 547/90  (8) and Decisions 92/493/EEC  (9)  and 93/479/EEC  (10).
(2)  During the review concluded by Regulation (EEC) No 2455/93 and Decision 93/479/EEC, all the  companies were informed of the essential facts and considerations on which it was intended to amend  the measures and were given the opportunity to make their views known. The Commission subsequently  accepted price undertakings from all known exporters. Exports from these countries made by other  exporters, which in this case were negligible, continued to be subject to anti-dumping duty.
(3)  By a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (11), the  Commission, after consultation with the Advisory Committee and in accordance with Article 14 of  Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Basic Regulation`), initiated a review  of the anti-dumping measures in force, following receipt of an application lodged by the Community  industry. The application alleged, inter alia, that the monosodium glutamate originating in the  countries concerned had been imported into the Community at prices lower than those required by the  existing price undertakings and, therefore, that the price undertakings are not suitable measures  in this proceeding. It should be noted that, with two exceptions, all exporters from which  undertakings have been accepted cooperated in this review. The following exporters cooperated in  this review:
Indonesia:
-  PT Indomiwon Citra Inti,
-  PT Jico Argung (related selling company of PT Indomiwon Citra Inti);
Republic of Korea:
-  Cheil Foods & Chemicals Inc.,
-  Miwon Co. Ltd,
-  Miwon Trading & Shipping Co., Ltd (related selling company of Miwon Co. Ltd);
Taiwan:
-  Ve Wong Corporation,
-  Tung Hai Fermentation Ind. Corp.;
Thailand:
-  Thai Fermentation Industry Corporation.
(4)  The product covered by the application and for which the review investigation was initiated is  monosodium glutamate produced in the form of crystals of various sizes and falling within CN code  ex  2922  42  10. It is mainly used as a flavour enhancer in soups, broths, fish and meat dishes  and ready made foods. The product is the same as that in the Regulation under review.
II.  REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT UNDERTAKINGS HAD BEEN VIOLATED
(5)  The application giving rise to  the abovementioned review, alleged, inter alia, that price undertakings had been violated. While  this review is still in progress and any conclusions on this issue are therefore necessarily  provisional, an examination of the allegation that price undertakings had been violated led to the  following results:
The Commission requested information on resale prices for the product concerned from all importers  having purchased monosodium glutamate from those exporters which cooperated in the abovementioned  review. The period for which such information was requested, i.e. 1 May 1993 to 30 April 1994,  corresponded to the investigation period of the review.
Information was received from independent importers relating to resale prices in the Community of  approximately 21  % of all the cooperating exporters' sales to the European Community. It covered  resales of the product concerned purchased from the aforementioned Indonesian, Korean and Taiwanese  exporters.
In spite of the fact that the Commission could only investigate resale prices from those importers  who agreed to cooperate, it found clear indications that the price undertakings were being violated  by the aforementioned Indonesian, Korean and Taiwanese exporters, as the great majority of resales  of the product concerned originating from each of them were made at prices which could not cover  the importers' purchase prices (i.e. set at the undertaking level) plus a reasonable amount for  selling, general and administrative expenses, profit and, where appropriate, customs duty. The  resale prices of this sample of transactions reflected the general situation on the Community  market, as described by the applicant.
Even if the export prices, taken at their face value did correspond to the terms of the  undertakings, the level of the resale prices of the merchandise in the Community nevertheless  constitutes a strong indication that compensation, in whatever form, was granted by the exporters  to their customers in the Community. This would constitute a violation of the undertakings.
(6)  In addition, two exporters refused to cooperate properly in the abovementioned review.
One of these exporters made some exports of the product concerned to a non-cooperating importer  located in Germany. The exporter concerned did not disclose fully its relationship with the German  importer, while the Commission had strong reasons to believe that these two companies were  related.
The other exporter submitted a response to the questionnaire which was issued in the course of the  abovementioned review, but it refused to cooperate in the verification of the information contained  therein.
(7)  Taking into consideration all the facts set out in recitals 5 and 6, the Commission concluded  that, in accordance with Article 10 (6) of the Basic Regulation, there were reasons to believe that  the price undertakings accepted by the Commission from the abovementioned exporters had been  violated. In these circumstances, the price undertakings concerned should be withdrawn and replaced  by a provisional anti-dumping duty based on the facts established before the acceptance of these  price undertakings.
III.  COMMUNITY INTEREST
(8)  The Council, in Regulation (EEC) No 2455/93, concluded that it was  in the Community interest that measures be imposed on imports of monosodium glutamate from the four  countries concerned.
(9)  It has been provisionally found that the conclusions on Community interest as set out in the  above Regulation are still valid and should remain unchanged. Moreover, it is in the fundamental  interest of the Community to take action in cases where undertakings are violated, as such  violation constitutes a circumvention of measures that have been duly adopted and should therefore  be remedied.
(10)  In the light of the above, it was considered to be in the interest of the Community that the  acceptance by the Commission of the price undertakings from the abovementioned companies be  withdrawn and replaced by a provisional anti-dumping duty.
IV.  EXPORTERS' COMMENTS
(11)  In accordance with Article 10 (6) of the Basic Regulation, the  exporters concerned were given the opportunity of expressing their views on the Commission's  observations and its intention to impose provisional anti-dumping duties. Their comments were taken  into account as appropriate.
V.  PROVISIONAL DUTIES
(12)  In the light of the above, the Commission concludes that, pursuant  to Article 10 (6) of the Basic Regulation, provisional duties should be calculated on the basis of  the facts established before the undertakings were accepted. The rate of duty corresponding to the  injury margin necessary to eliminate injurious dumping was established during the earlier  investigation for each exporter as an alternative to the price undertakings accepted by Decision  93/479/EEC. The amounts of these duties were disclosed to the exporters concerned and were not  disputed by them.
VI.  FINAL PROVISION
(13)  In the interests of sound administration, a period should be fixed  within which the parties concerned may make their views known in writing and request a hearing.  Furthermore, it should be stated that all findings made for the purpose of this Regulation are  provisional and may be reconsidered for the purpose of any definitive duty which the Commission may  propose,