title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/306 of 3 March 2016 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1283/2014 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel, originating in the Republic of Korea and Malaysia following an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009

text:
               4.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 58/38

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/306
   of 3 March 2016
   amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1283/2014 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel, originating in the Republic of Korea and Malaysia following an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 11(3) thereof,
   Whereas:
   1.   PROCEDURE

   1.1.   Previous investigations and existing anti-dumping measures

               (1)

               The anti-dumping measures in force on imports of certain tube and pipe fittings originating, inter alia, in the Republic of Korea were imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1514/2002 (2) (‘the original investigation’ and ‘the original measures’).

               (2)

               In October 2008, these measures were extended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1001/2008 (3) following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

               (3)

               In December 2014, the measures were further extended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1283/2014 (4) following a second expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation (‘the measures in force’).

               (4)

               The anti-dumping duty currently applicable to exports from all companies in the Republic of Korea is 44 %, based on the injury margin determined in the original investigation.

         1.2.   Request for a partial interim review

               (5)

               In January 2015, the Commission received a request for a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation. The request is limited in scope to the examination of dumping as far as TK Corporation, a Korean exporting producer, is concerned and it was lodged by that exporting producer. In its request, the exporting producer claimed that the circumstances on the basis of which measures were imposed have changed and that these changes are of a lasting nature. The exporting producer provided prima facie evidence that the continued imposition of the measure at its current level was no longer necessary to offset injurious dumping.

         1.3.   Initiation of a partial interim review

               (6)

               Having determined, after informing the Member States, that sufficient evidence existed to justify the initiation of a partial interim review limited to the examination of dumping as far as the exporting producer is concerned, the Commission announced by a notice published on 18 February 2015 in the Official Journal of the European Union
                   (5) (‘the Notice of Initiation’) the initiation of a partial interim review in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, limited in scope to the examination of dumping in respect of the exporting producer.

               (7)

               The Commission officially informed the exporting producer, the authorities of the exporting country and the Union industry of the initiation of the partial interim review investigation. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to be heard.

         1.4.   Investigation

               (8)

               In order to obtain the information necessary for its investigation, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the exporting producer and received a reply within the deadline set for that purpose.

               (9)

               The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the determination of dumping. A verification visit was carried out at the premises of the exporting producer.

         1.5.   Review investigation period

               (10)

               The investigation of the level of dumping covered the period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2014 (‘the review investigation period’).

               (11)

               In addition to those data, the exporting producer also provided cost and sales data for 2013 and proposed extending the review investigation period by adding the year 2013 to increase the representativeness of its sales volumes to the Union. However, the Commission established that adding 2013 Union sales would not increase the representativeness in terms of volume (as compared to overall sales or production volume) or types of sales (see recital 29 below). Therefore, the Commission had no sufficient reason to deviate from the usual 12-month period to serve as a review investigation period for a representative finding with regard to dumping.

               (12)

               Following final disclosure, the exporting producer reiterated its claim that 2013 should be added to the review investigation period to increase its representativeness. It argued that comparisons with factors such as total production volume were not relevant and that by adding 2013 to the review investigation period it became more representative in terms of additional product types, sales volume and turnover.

               (13)

               The basic Regulation does not specifically state how the representativeness of the review investigation period should be measured. In this case, the volumes allegedly sold by the exporting producer on the Union market during 2013 were less than half of the volumes allegedly sold on the Union market during the review investigation period, whereas its total sales and production volumes were in the same range for both years. It is thus clear in this case that in relative terms the addition of 2013 would decrease the representativeness of the exporting producer's Union sales whereas in absolute terms it would only provide limited improvement.

               (14)

               Therefore, the Commission confirms that there is no valid justification for extending the review investigation period beyond the one-year period usually applied by the Commission.

         2.   PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

   2.1.   Product concerned

               (15)

               The product under review is tube and pipe fittings (other than cast fittings, flanges and threaded fittings), of iron or steel (not including stainless steel), with a greatest external diameter not exceeding 609,6 mm, of a kind used for butt-welding or other purposes, originating in the Republic of Korea, currently falling within CN codes ex 7307 93 11, ex 7307 93 19 and ex 7307 99 80 (‘the product concerned’).

         2.2.   Like product

               (16)

               The review investigation confirmed that the product produced by the exporting producer, sold domestically and exported to the Union and other export markets, has the same basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics and basic uses as the products sold in the Union by the Union industry.

               (17)

               The Commission decided that those products are therefore like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

         3.   DUMPING

   (a)   Normal value

               (18)

               The Commission first examined whether the total volume of domestic sales for the exporting producer was representative, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. The domestic sales are representative if the total domestic sales volume of the like product to independent customers on the domestic market per exporting producer represented at least 5 % of its total export sales volume of the product concerned to the Union during the investigation period. On this basis, the total sales by the exporting producer of the like product on the domestic market were representative.

               (19)

               The Commission subsequently identified the product types sold domestically that were identical or comparable with the product types sold for export to the Union.

               (20)

               The Commission then examined whether the domestic sales by the exporting producer on its domestic market for each product type that is identical or comparable with a product type sold for export to the Union were representative, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. The domestic sales of a product type are representative if the total volume of domestic sales of that product type to independent customers during the investigation period represents at least 5 % of the total volume of export sales of the identical or comparable product type to the Union. The Commission established that most product types were representative.

               (21)

               The Commission next defined the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers on the domestic market for each product type during the investigation period in order to decide whether to use actual domestic sales for the calculation of the normal value, in accordance with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.

               (22)

               The normal value is based on the actual domestic price per product type, irrespective of whether those sales are profitable or not, if:

                           (a)

                           the sales volume of the product type, sold at a net sales price equal to or above the calculated cost of production, represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume of this product type; and

                           (b)

                           the weighted average sales price of that product type is equal to or higher than the unit cost of production.

               (23)

               In this case, the normal value is the weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of that product type during the review investigation period.

               (24)

               The normal value is the actual domestic price per product type of only the profitable domestic sales of the product types during the review investigation period, if:

                           (a)

                           the volume of profitable sales of the product type represents 80 % or less of the total sales volume of this type; or

                           (b)

                           the weighted average price of this product type is below the unit cost of production.

               (25)

               The analysis of domestic sales showed that a large majority of all domestic sales were profitable and that the weighted average sales price was higher than the cost of production. Accordingly, the normal value was calculated as a weighted average of the profitable sales only.

               (26)

               Where there were no or insufficient sales of a product type of the like product in the ordinary course of trade, or where a product type was not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market, the Commission constructed the normal value in accordance with Article 2(3) and (6) of the basic Regulation.

               (27)

               Normal value was constructed by adding the following to the average cost of production of the like product of the exporting producer during the review investigation period:

                           (a)

                           the weighted average selling, general and administrative (‘SG&A’) expenses incurred by the exporting producer on domestic sales of the like product, in the ordinary course of trade, during the review investigation period; and

                           (b)

                           the weighted average profit realised by the exporting producer on domestic sales of the like product, in the ordinary course of trade, during the review investigation period.

               (28)

               For the product types not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market, the average SG&A expenses and profit of transactions made in the ordinary course of trade on the domestic market for those types were added. For the product types not sold at all on the domestic market, the weighted average SG&A expenses and profit of all transactions made in the ordinary course of trade on the domestic market were added.

         (b)   Export price

               (29)

               In the review investigation period only negligible volumes of the product concerned were sold by the exporting producer to the Union, representing between 0,1 % and 0,3 % of its production volume (range given for reasons of confidentiality). In addition, for a number of transactions the exporting producer could not convincingly demonstrate that the anti-dumping duty had been effectively paid, which casts doubt on whether the goods had been released for free circulation in the Union customs territory. Moreover, those sales were all made to three customers for specific projects with their own specifications for fittings. In addition, the sales were made as a ‘package’ with other fittings and products that were not product concerned. In this context, the risk of cross-compensation was deemed substantial. For the above reasons, no meaningful analysis of dumping based on Union sales of the product concerned from the exporting producer during the review investigation period could be made.

               (30)

               In the absence of sufficient export volumes to the Union, exports to other third countries were considered for the determination of the export price. It was found that the exporting producer has four major export markets, which together cover over 50 % of the exporting producer's export sales to third countries during the review investigation period. The remainder consists of 39 other export destinations, each accounting for between 0,1 % to 5 % of the exporting producer's export sales. The export prices to these countries vary enormously reflecting the disparate nature of each market. Many of these disparate factors (such as the conditions of competition on each market) are not known. Therefore, it was further analysed whether one of the exporting producer's major export destinations could be used as a proxy for the Union market.

               (31)

               The United Arab Emirates (‘UAE’) is the largest export market for the exporting producer and accounted for 15 %-18 % of the exporting producer's export sales in weight and 15 %-18 % in value during the review investigation period. However, the UAE does not have domestic producers of the product concerned. It is therefore deemed to be rather different in terms of economic structure compared to the Union market.

               (32)

               As in the expiry review resulting in Regulation (EU) No 1283/2014, it was considered appropriate to analyse the exporting producer's sales to the United States (‘US’), which was the exporting producer's second biggest export destination in the review investigation period. The investigation confirmed that the US market is of a similar size to the Union market, with many domestic producers but also with a large proportion of imports. It also confirmed that the US market, in the review investigation period, had low import tariff rates and that no anti-dumping duties were applicable on imports from Korea, making it a very competitive market. Furthermore, the US is indeed a major destination for exports from Korea in general and also for the exporting producer concerned, representing 7 % to 12 % of its production volume and 11 % to 14 % of its export sales during the review investigation period.

               (33)

               Therefore, based on the merits and specificities of this case it was considered that in this particular investigation the US would constitute a reasonable basis for establishing an export price in the absence of sufficient export volumes to the Union. The verified export price of the exporting producer to the US was thus used for establishing an export price, adjusted back to an ex-works level by taking into account, where appropriate, for the costs of, inter alia, transport, duties and taxes.

               (34)

               Following final disclosure, the exporting producer contested that its Union sales transactions could not be used for establishing a representative export price, both on legal and on factual grounds.

               (35)

               Firstly, the exporting producer claimed that the export price can only be considered as unreliable by the Commission if it is established pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation that there is an association or compensatory arrangement between the exporting producer and the importer or a third party. In all other cases, the Commission would have to base the calculation of dumping on the (Union) export price and not to do so would entail a breach under Article 2.3 of the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement.

               (36)

               In this regard, the Commission does not agree with the narrow interpretation of Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, which is not supported by case-law. There is indeed nothing in the provision of Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation that prescribes an investigating authority to rely on unrepresentative volumes of export sales whose level of prices could in any event not be regarded as meaningful given the circumstances explained in recital 29 and further discussed in detail in this section. Therefore, the claims of the exporting producer should be rejected.

               (37)

               Secondly, the exporting producer claimed, from a factual point of view, that its Union sales were not negligible, pointing to the number of transactions, product types and Member States involved in their alleged sales to the Union in 2013 and 2014. However, in the review investigation period only 14 invoices for sales to the Union were issued by the exporting producer. The very low tonnage represented by these alleged Union sales, as mentioned in recital 29 above, was not contested by the exporting producer.

               (38)

               Thirdly, the exporting producer claimed, from a factual point of view, that the fact that its export sales to the Union were for specific projects with their own specifications is not relevant and that it had provided positive evidence that no cross-compensation had taken place. In this respect it should be pointed out that it was stated in the disclosure that the nature of the sales on the Union market meant that there was a risk of cross-compensation with other products, although it is conceded that no evidence was identified to prove or disprove that cross-compensation actually took place during the review investigation period. Bearing in mind that the cross-compensation issue was raised in the disclosure as merely a risk, it was only one of the factors the Commission took into consideration when determining the representativeness of the Union sales (see recital 29).

               (39)

               Fourthly, the exporting producer claimed, from a factual point of view, that the Commission had received evidence that all goods had been released for free circulation on the Union market and that anti-dumping duties were paid or payable.

               (40)

               Following the disclosure the exporting producer replied to a request from the Commission to clarify its view on this matter in relation to the source documents available to the Commission. The provided documents confirmed that for transactions covering around half of the sales volume to the Union there were unexplained irregularities concerning the payment of duties. In particular, those transactions for which no evidence could be provided as regards the payment of the anti-dumping duty of 44 %, render these Union sales prices clearly unreliable as these sales, in all likelihood, have thus been made on the false assumption that anti-dumping duties are not payable.

               (41)

               Fifthly, TK Corporation argued that as the interim review was initiated using prima facie evidence concerning export sales to the Union that indicated a lower dumping margin, then it must have been possible (as part of the final determination of dumping) to calculate dumping margin based on Union sales. This claim was rejected. First, the evidence required for the initiation of an interim review is by nature substantially different from that on which the investigating authority based its final findings. Second, the investigation established that those sales could not be validly used for all the reasons discussed in this section. It is also noted that the mere possibility to calculate a dumping margin does not render the dumping margin compliant with the relevant provisions of the basic Regulation.

               (42)

               Hence, bearing in mind that the Union sales were of such low quantities in absolute and comparable terms and that, moreover, there were legitimate reasons to doubt the reliability of a significant share of these sales for other than volume-related reasons, the claim that the Commission wrongly ignored export sales to the Union for the determination of the export price is rejected.

               (43)

               Finally, the analysis and findings in recitals 32 and 33 above, which were not contested by the exporting producer, clearly demonstrate that due care was taken in the construction of the export price and that the US can be considered a reasonable basis for establishing export prices in the absence of reliable Union prices.

         (c)   Comparison

               (44)

               The Commission compared the normal value and the export price of the exporting producer on an ex-works basis.

               (45)

               Where justified by the need to ensure a fair comparison, the Commission adjusted the normal value and/or the export price for differences affecting prices and price comparability, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Adjustments were made for inland and ocean freight, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs.

         (d)   Dumping margin

               (46)

               For the exporting producer, the Commission compared the weighted average normal value of each type of the like product with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned, in accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation.

               (47)

               On this basis, the weighted average dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, is 32,4 %.

         4.   LASTING NATURE OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES

               (48)

               In accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, the Commission also examined whether the changed circumstances could reasonably be considered to be of a lasting nature.

               (49)

               In this regard the investigation showed that TK Corporation indeed has undergone structural changes that led to cost reduction and efficiency improvements. Notably, the company added a second factory in 2010 and a third in 2012. As a result of significant increase in capacity, the production lines and warehouses could be reorganised in a more efficient manner and costs substantially declined. This cost reduction has a direct impact on the dumping margin. The circumstance here described is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future in a manner that would affect these findings.

               (50)

               This change in circumstances can therefore be considered to be of a lasting nature and the application of the measure at its current level is no longer justified.

               (51)

               The Defence Committee of the EU Steel Butt-Welding Fittings Industry commented that despite the structural changes by which TK Corporation was said to have decreased costs and improved efficiency, TK Corporation's profitability (for the overall company) did not improve during the period 2012-2014. Therefore, the Defence Committee of the EU Steel Butt-Welding Fittings Industry expressed doubts on the lasting nature of changed circumstances and the impact thereof on the dumping margin.

               (52)

               The Commission analysed this argument. First, it needs to be noted that the lasting nature of changed circumstances is assessed with reference to the original investigation in 2002. Secondly, the profitability of a company and the trend thereof is determined by a range of factors, of which efficiency is only one. Thirdly, the cost reduction as mentioned in recital 49 relates only to costs that can be associated with the structural changes mentioned in the same recital. For example, the trend of average raw material costs, labour costs and energy costs is not directly associable with the efficiency gains brought about by the establishment of the two factories. Lastly, the Defence Committee of the EU Steel Butt-Welding Fittings Industry supported its claim by reference to the overall profitability figures of TK Corporation and not to those specifically related to the product concerned. The Commission therefore rejected this claim.

         5.   ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

               (53)

               Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to propose to amend the duty rate applicable to the exporting producer and were given the opportunity to comment.

               (54)

               Following the review investigation, the proposed revised dumping margin and anti-dumping duty rate that would be applicable to imports of the product concerned manufactured by TK Corporation amounts to 32,4 %.

               (55)

               The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The table in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1283/2014 shall be amended by adding the following:

               Country

               Company

               Rate of duty (%)

               TARIC additional code

               Republic of Korea

               TK Corporation, 1499-1, Songjeong-Dong, Gangseo-Gu, Busan

               32,4

               C066

               All other companies

               44,0

               C999

         Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 3 March 2016.

            For the Commission

            The President

         Jean-Claude JUNCKER

      (1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

      (2)  OJ L 228, 24.8.2002, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 275, 16.10.2008, p. 18 as last amended by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2010 (OJ L 107, 29.4.2010, p. 1).

      (4)  OJ L 347, 3.12.2014, p. 17.

      (5)  OJ C 58, 18.2.2015, p. 9.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1384/2011 of 22 December 2011 on the minimum customs duty to be fixed in response to the third partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011

text:
               23.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 343/33

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1384/2011
   of 22 December 2011
   on the minimum customs duty to be fixed in response to the third partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 187, in conjunction with Article 4, thereof
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011 (2) opened a standing invitation to tender for the 2011/12 marketing year for imports of sugar of CN code 1701 at a reduced customs duty.

               (2)

               In accordance with Article 6 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011, the Commission is to decide, in the light of the tenders received in response to a partial invitation to tender, either to fix a minimum customs duty or not to fix a minimum customs duty per eight digit CN code.

               (3)

               On the basis of the tenders received for the third partial invitation to tender, a minimum customs duty should be fixed for certain eight digit codes for sugar falling within CN code 1701 and no minimum customs duty should be fixed for the other eight digit codes for sugar falling within that CN code.

               (4)

               In order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

               (5)

               The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   For the third partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 21 December 2011, a minimum customs duty has been fixed, or has not been fixed, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation for the eight digit codes for sugar falling within CN code 1701.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 22 December 2011.

            For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
         José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

            Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

      (1)  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 318, 1.12.2011, p. 4.

      ANNEX

         Minimum customs duties

                  (EUR/tonne)

                  Eight digit CN code

                  Minimum customs duty

                  1

                  2

                  1701 11 10

                  269,16

                  1701 11 90

                  —

                  1701 12 10

                  X

                  1701 12 90

                  X

                  1701 91 00

                  X

                  1701 99 10

                  —

                  1701 99 90

                  X

                              (—)

                              no minimum customs duty fixed (all offers rejected)

                              (X)

                              no offers


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1035/2013 of 24 October 2013 approving benzoic acid as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products for product-types 3 and 4 Text with EEA relevance

text:
               25.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 283/31

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1035/2013
   of 24 October 2013
   approving benzoic acid as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products for product-types 3 and 4
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 89(1) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Commission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3). That list includes benzoic acid.

               (2)

               Benzoic acid has been evaluated in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 98/8/EC for use in product-type 3, veterinary hygiene biocidal products, and product-type 4, food and feed area disinfectants, as defined in Annex V to that Directive, which correspond respectively to product-types 3 and 4 as defined in Annex V to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012.

               (3)

               Germany was designated as Rapporteur Member State and submitted the competent authority reports, together with recommendations, to the Commission on 3 February 2011 in accordance with Article 14(4) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007.

               (4)

               The competent authority reports were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission. In accordance with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the findings of the review were incorporated, within the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products on 27 September 2013, in two assessment reports.

               (5)

               It appears from those reports that biocidal products used for product-types 3 and 4 and containing benzoic acid may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC.

               (6)

               It is therefore appropriate to approve benzoic acid for use in biocidal products for product-types 3 and 4.

               (7)

               Since the evaluations did not address nanomaterials, the approvals should not cover such materials pursuant to Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012.

               (8)

               For the use in product-type 4, the evaluation did not adress the incorporation of biocidal products containing benzoic acid in materials and articles intended to come into contact directly or indirectly with food within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4). Such materials may require the establishment of specific limits on the migration into food, as referred to in Article 5(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004. The approval should therefore not cover such use unless the Commission has established such limits or it has been established pursuant to that Regulation that such limits are not necessary.

               (9)

               A reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is approved, in order to permit Member States, interested parties, and the Commission where appropriate, to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements entailed.

               (10)

               The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   Benzoic acid shall be approved as an active substance for use in biocidal products for product-types 3 and 4, subject to the specifications and conditions set out in the Annex.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 24 October 2013.

            For the Commission

            The President

         José Manuel BARROSO

      (1)  OJ L 167, 27.6.2012, p. 1.

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ L 325, 11.12.2007, p. 3).

      (3)  Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ L 123, 24.4.1998, p. 1).

      (4)  Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food and repealing Directives 80/590/EEC and 89/109/EEC (OJ L 338, 13.11.2004, p. 4).

      ANNEX

                  Common Name

                  IUPAC Name
                  Identification Numbers

                  Minimum degree of purity of the active substance (1)

                  Date of approval

                  Expiry date of approval

                  Product type

                  Specific conditions (2)

                  Benzoic acid

                  IUPAC Name: Benzoic acid
                  EC No: 200-618-2
                  CAS No: 65-85-0

                  990 g/kg

                  1 July 2015

                  30 June 2025

                  3

                  The product assessment shall pay particular attention to the exposures, the risks and the efficacy linked to any uses covered by an application for authorisation, but not addressed in the Union level risk assessment of the active substance.
                  Authorisations are subject to the following conditions:

                              (1)

                              For industrial or professional users, safe operational procedures and appropriate organizational measures shall be established. Where exposure cannot be reduced to an acceptable level by other means, products shall be used with appropriate personal protective equipment.

                              (2)

                              For products that may lead to residues in food or feed, the need to set new or to amend existing maximum residue levels (MRLs) in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) or Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) shall be verified, and any appropriate risk mitigation measures shall be taken to ensure that the applicable MRLs are not exceeded.

                  4

                  The product assessment shall pay particular attention to the exposures, the risks and the efficacy linked to any uses covered by an application for authorisation, but not addressed in the Union level risk assessment of the active substance.
                  Authorisations are subject to the following conditions:

                              (1)

                              For industrial or professional users, safe operational procedures and appropriate organizational measures shall be established. Where exposure cannot be reduced to an acceptable level by other means, products shall be used with appropriate personal protective equipment.

                              (2)

                              For products that may lead to residues in food or feed, the need to set new or to amend existing maximum residue levels (MRLs) in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 or Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 shall be verified, and any appropriate risk mitigation measures shall be taken to ensure that the applicable MRLs are not exceeded.

                              (3)

                              Products containing benzoic acid shall not be incorporated in materials and articles intended to come into contact with food within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004, unless the Commission has established specific limits on the migration of benzoic acid into food or it has been established pursuant to that Regulation that such limits are not necessary.

         (1)  The purity indicated in this column was the minimum degree of purity of the active substance used for the evaluation made in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012. The active substance in the product placed on the market can be of equal or different purity if it has been proven technically equivalent with the evaluated active substance.

         (2)  For the implementation of the common principles of Annex VI to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, the content and conclusions of assessment reports are available on the Commission website: http://ec.europa.eu/comm/environment/biocides/index.htm

         (3)  Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 and amending Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 152, 16.6.2009, p. 11).

         (4)  Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (OJ L 70, 16.3.2005, p. 1).


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/965 of 22 June 2015 determining the quantities to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2015 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 536/2007 for poultrymeat originating in the United States of America

text:
               23.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 157/36

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/965
   of 22 June 2015
   determining the quantities to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2015 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 536/2007 for poultrymeat originating in the United States of America
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), and in particular Article 188(2) and (3) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Commission Regulation (EC) No 536/2007 (2) opened an annual tariff quota for imports of poultrymeat products originating in the United States of America.

               (2)

               The quantities covered by the applications for import licences lodged from 1 to 7 June 2015 for the subperiod from 1 July to 30 September 2015 are less than those available. The quantities for which applications have not been lodged should therefore be determined and these should be added to the quantity fixed for the following quota subperiod.

               (3)

               In order to ensure the efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The quantities for which import licence applications have not been lodged pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 536/2007, to be added to the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2015, are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 22 June 2015.

            For the Commission,

            On behalf of the President,

         Jerzy PLEWA

            Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

      (1)  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 536/2007 of 15 May 2007 opening and providing for the administration of a tariff quota for poultrymeat allocated to the United States of America (OJ L 128, 16.5.2007, p. 6).

      ANNEX

                  Order No

                  Quantities not applied for, to be added to the quantities available for the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2015
                  (kg)

                  09.4169

                  5 336 250


title: Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/961 of 22 June 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria

text:
               23.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 157/20

         COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/961
   of 22 June 2015
   implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/ 2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (1), and in particular Article 32(1) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 18 January 2012, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 36/2012.

               (2)

               One person should be removed from the list of natural and legal persons, entities or bodies subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012.

               (3)

               Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 should therefore be amended accordingly,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Luxembourg, 22 June 2015.

            For the Council

            The President

         F. MOGHERINI

      (1)  OJ L 16, 19.1.2012, p. 1.

      ANNEX
      The name of the following person and the related entry are deleted from the list set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012:
      A.   Persons

                  12.

               Fawwaz (
                     ) Al-Assad (
                     )


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/272 of 16 February 2017 initiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1331/2011 on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the People's Republic of China by imports consigned from India, whether declared as originating in India or not, and making such imports subject to registration

text:
               17.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 40/64

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/272
   of 16 February 2017
   initiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1331/2011 on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the People's Republic of China by imports consigned from India, whether declared as originating in India or not, and making such imports subject to registration
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1) and in particular Articles 13(3) and 14(5) thereof,
   After having informed the Member States,
   Whereas:
   A.   REQUEST

               (1)

               The European Commission (‘the Commission’) has received a request pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (‘the basic Regulation’) to investigate the possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the People's Republic of China by imports consigned from India, whether declared as originating in India or not, and to make such imports subject to registration.

               (2)

               The request was lodged on 3 January 2017 by the Defence Committee of the Seamless Stainless Steel Tubes Industry of the European Union (‘the applicant’).

         B.   PRODUCT

               (3)

               The product concerned by the possible circumvention is certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel (‘SSSPT’) (excluding such pipes and tubes with attached fittings suitable for conducting gases or liquids for use in civil aircraft). It is currently falling within CN codes 7304 11 00, 7304 22 00, 7304 24 00, ex 7304 41 00, 7304 49 10, ex 7304 49 93, ex 7304 49 95, ex 7304 49 99 and ex 7304 90 00, originating in the People's Republic of China (‘the product concerned’). This is the product to which the measures that are currently in force apply.

               (4)

               The product under investigation is the same as that defined in the previous recital, but consigned from India, whether declared as originating in India or not, currently falling within the same CN codes as the product concerned (‘the product under investigation’).

         C.   EXISTING MEASURES

               (5)

               The measures currently in force and possibly being circumvented are anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1331/2011 (2) (‘the existing measures’).

         D.   GROUNDS

               (6)

               The request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the anti-dumping measures imposed on the product concerned are being circumvented by imports of the product under investigation consigned from India.

               (7)

               The evidence submitted is as follows:

               (8)

               The request shows that a significant change in the pattern of trade involving exports from the People's Republic of China and India to the Union has taken place following the imposition of the measures, without sufficient due cause or economic justification for such a change other than the imposition of the duty.

               (9)

               This change appears to stem from the consignment of the product concerned via India to the Union, either after having undertaken completion operations or not. The applicant has provided sufficient prima facie evidence showing that the value added during the completion operation is lower than 25 % of the manufacturing cost.

               (10)

               Furthermore, the request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the remedial effects of the existing anti-dumping measures on the product concerned are being undermined both in terms of quantity and price. Significant volumes of imports of the product under investigation appear to have replaced imports of the product concerned. In addition, there is sufficient prima facie evidence that imports of the product under investigation are made at prices below the non-injurious price established in the investigation that led to the existing measures.

               (11)

               Finally, the request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the prices of the product under investigation are dumped in relation to the normal value previously established for the product concerned.

               (12)

               Should circumvention practices via India covered by Article 13 of the basic Regulation, other than transhipment and assembly operations be identified in the course of the investigation, the investigation may also cover these practices.

         E.   PROCEDURE

               (13)

               In light of the above, the Commission has concluded that sufficient evidence exists to justify the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation and to make imports of the products under investigation subject to registration, in accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation.

         (a)   Questionnaires

               (14)

               In order to obtain information it deems necessary for its investigation, the Commission will send questionnaires to the known exporters/producers in India and to the known associations of exporters/producers in the PRC, to the known importers and to the known associations of importers in the Union and to the authorities of India and the PRC. Information, as appropriate, may also be sought from the Union industry.

               (15)

               In any event, all interested parties should contact the Commission, but not later than the time-limit set in Article 3 of this Regulation, and request a questionnaire within the time-limit set in Article 3(1) of this Regulation, given that the time-limit set in Article 3(2) of this Regulation applies to all interested parties.

               (16)

               The authorities of India and the PRC will be notified of the initiation of the investigation.

         (b)   Collection of information and holding of hearings

               (17)

               All interested parties are invited to make their views known in writing and to provide supporting evidence. Furthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request in writing and show that there are particular reasons why they should be heard.

         (c)   Exemption from registration of imports or measures

               (18)

               In accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, imports of the products under investigation may be exempted from registration or measures if the importation does not constitute circumvention.

               (19)

               Since the possible circumvention may take place outside the Union, exemptions may be granted, in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, to producers of the products under investigation in India that can show that they are not related (3) to any producer subject to the measures (4) and that are found not to be engaged in circumvention practices as defined in Article 13(1) and (2) of the basic Regulation. Producers wishing to obtain an exemption should submit a request duly supported by evidence within the time-limit indicated in Article 3(3) of this Regulation.

         F.   REGISTRATION

               (20)

               Pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, imports of the products under investigation shall be made subject to registration in order to ensure that, should the investigation result in findings of circumvention, anti-dumping duties of an appropriate amount can be levied from the date on which registration of such imports was imposed.

         G.   TIME-LIMITS

               (21)

               In the interest of sound administration, time-limits should be stated within which:

                           —

                           interested parties may make themselves known to the Commission, present their views in writing and submit questionnaire replies or any other information to be taken into account during the investigation,

                           —

                           producers in India may request exemption from registration of imports or measures,

                           —

                           interested parties may make a written request to be heard by the Commission.

               (22)

               Attention is drawn to the fact that the exercise of most procedural rights set out in the basic Regulation depends on the party's making itself known within the time-limits laid down in Article 3 of this Regulation.

         H.   NON-COOPERATION

               (23)

               In cases in which any interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time-limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, findings, affirmative or negative, may be made in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the facts available.

               (24)

               Where it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information shall be disregarded and use may be made of facts available.

               (25)

               If an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially and findings are therefore based on the facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.

               (26)

               Failure to give a computerised response shall not be deemed to constitute non-cooperation, provided that the interested party shows that presenting the response as requested would result in an unreasonable extra burden or unreasonable additional cost. The interested party should immediately contact the Commission.

         I.   SCHEDULE OF THE INVESTIGATION

               (27)

               The investigation will be concluded, pursuant to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation, within nine months of the date the date of entry into force of this Regulation.

         J.   PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA

               (28)

               It is noted that any personal data collected in this investigation will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5).

         K.   HEARING OFFICER

               (29)

               Interested parties may request the intervention of the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings. The Hearing Officer acts as an interface between the interested parties and the Commission investigation services. The Hearing Officer reviews requests for access to the file, disputes regarding the confidentiality of documents, requests for extension of time-limits and requests by third parties to be heard. The Hearing Officer may organise a hearing with an individual interested party and mediate to ensure that the interested parties' rights of defence are being fully exercised.

               (30)

               A request for a hearing with the Hearing Officer should be made in writing and should specify the reasons for the request. The Hearing Officer will also provide opportunities for a hearing involving parties to take place which would allow different views to be presented and rebuttal arguments offered.

               (31)

               For further information and contact details interested parties may consult the Hearing Officer's web pages on the Directorate-General for Trade's website: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/trade-policy-and-you/contacts/hearing-officer/,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   An investigation is initiated pursuant to Article 13(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036, in order to determine if imports into the Union of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel currently falling within CN codes ex 7304 11 00, ex 7304 22 00, ex 7304 24 00, ex 7304 41 00, ex 7304 49 10, ex 7304 49 93, ex 7304 49 95, ex 7304 49 99 and ex 7304 90 00 consigned from India (TARIC codes: 7304110011, 7304110019, 7304220021, 7304220029, 7304240021, 7304240029, 7304410091, 7304491091, 7304499391, 7304499591, 7304499991 and 7304900091), whether declared as originating in India or not, are circumventing the measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1331/2011.
   Article 2
   The Customs authorities shall, pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036, take the appropriate steps to register the imports into the Union identified in Article 1 of this Regulation.
   Registration shall expire nine months following the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
   The Commission, by regulation, may direct Customs authorities to cease registration in respect of imports into the Union of products manufactured by producers having applied for an exemption from registration and having been found to fulfil the conditions for an exemption to be granted.
   Article 3
   1.   Questionnaires must be requested from the Commission within 15 days from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
   2.   Interested parties, if their representations are to be taken into account during the investigation, must make themselves known by contacting the Commission, present their views in writing and submit questionnaire replies or any other information within 37 days from the date of entry into force of this Regulation, unless otherwise specified.
   3.   Producers in India requesting exemption from registration of imports or measures must submit a request duly supported by evidence within the same 37-day time-limit.
   4.   Interested parties may also apply to be heard by the Commission within the same 37-day time-limit.
   5.   Information submitted to the Commission for the purpose of trade defence investigations shall be free from copyrights. Interested parties, before submitting to the Commission information and/or data which is subject to third party copyrights, must request specific permission to the copyright holder explicitly allowing a) the Commission to use the information and data for the purpose of this trade defence proceeding and b) to provide the information and/or data to interested parties to this investigation in a form that allows them to exercise their right of defence.
   6.   All written submissions, including the information requested in this Regulation, completed questionnaires and correspondence provided by interested parties for which confidential treatment is requested shall be labelled ‘Limited’ (6).
   7.   Interested parties providing ‘Limited’ information are required to furnish non- confidential summaries of it pursuant to Article 19(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036, which will be labelled ‘For inspection by interested parties’. These summaries should be sufficiently detailed to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted in confidence. If an interested party providing confidential information does not furnish a non-confidential summary of it in the requested format and quality, such information may be disregarded.
   8.   Interested parties are invited to make all submissions and requests by email including scanned powers of attorney and certification sheets, with the exception of voluminous replies which shall be submitted on a CD-ROM or DVD by hand or by registered mail. By using email, interested parties express their agreement with the rules applicable to electronic submissions contained in the document ‘CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION IN TRADE DEFENCE CASES’ published on the website of the Directorate-General for Trade: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/june/tradoc_148003.pdf
   The interested parties must indicate their name, address, telephone and a valid email address and they should ensure that the provided email address is a functioning official business email which is checked on a daily basis. Once contact details are provided, the Commission will communicate with interested parties by email only, unless they explicitly request to receive all documents from the Commission by another means of communication or unless the nature of the document to be sent requires the use of a registered mail. For further rules and information concerning correspondence with the Commission including principles that apply to submissions by email, interested parties should consult the communication instructions with interested parties referred to above.
   Commission address for correspondence:

               European Commission

               Directorate-General for Trade

               Directorate H

               Office: CHAR 04/039

               1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

               BELGIQUE/BELGIË

               Email: TRADE-R670-SSSPT-CIRC@ec.europa.eu

         Article 4
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 16 February 2017.

            For the Commission

            The President

         Jean-Claude JUNCKER

      (1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1331/2011 of 14 December 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ L 336, 20.12.2011, p. 6).

      (3)  In accordance with Article 127 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ L 343, 29.12.2015, p. 558), two persons shall be deemed to be related if: (a) they are officers or directors of the other person's business; (b) they are legally recognised partners in business; (c) they are employer and employee; (d) a third party directly or indirectly owns, controls or holds 5 % or more of the outstanding voting stock or shares of both of them; (e) one of them directly or indirectly controls the other; (f) both of them are directly or indirectly controlled by a third person; (g) together they control a third person directly or indirectly; or (h) they are members of the same family. Persons shall be deemed to be members of the same family only if they stand in any of the following relationships to one another: (i) husband and wife, (ii) parent and child, (iii) brother and sister (whether by whole or half blood), (iv) grandparent and grandchild, (v) uncle or aunt and nephew or niece, (vi) parent-in-law and son-in-law or daughter-in-law, (vii) brother-in-law and sister-in-law. In this context ‘person’ means any natural or legal person.

      (4)  However, even if producers are related in the aforementioned sense to companies subject to the measures in place on imports originating in the People's Republic of China, an exemption may still be granted if there is no evidence that the relationship with the companies subject to the original measures was established or used to circumvent the original measures.

      (5)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1).

      (6)  A ‘Limited’ document is a document which is considered confidential pursuant to Article 19 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 and Article 6 of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 (Anti-Dumping Agreement). It is also a document protected pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43).


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1281/2011 of 8 December 2011 on the minimum customs duty to be fixed in response to the first partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011

text:
               9.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 327/60

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1281/2011
   of 8 December 2011
   on the minimum customs duty to be fixed in response to the first partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 187, in conjunction with Article 4, thereof
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011 (2) opened a standing invitation to tender for the 2011/12 marketing year for imports of sugar of CN code 1701 at a reduced customs duty.

               (2)

               In accordance with Article 6 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011, the Commission is to decide, in the light of the tenders received in response to a partial invitation to tender, either to fix a minimum customs duty or not to fix a minimum customs duty per eight digit CN code.

               (3)

               On the basis of the tenders received for the first partial invitation to tender, a minimum customs duty should be fixed for certain eight digit codes for sugar falling within CN code 1701 and no minimum customs duty should be fixed for the other eight digit codes for sugar falling within that CN code.

               (4)

               In order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

               (5)

               The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   For the first partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 7 December 2011, a minimum customs duty has been fixed, or has not been fixed, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation for the eight digit codes for sugar falling within CN code 1701.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 8 December 2011.

            For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
         José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

            Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

      (1)  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 318, 1.12.2011, p. 4.

      ANNEX

         Minimum customs duties

                  (EUR/tonne)

                  Eight digit CN code

                  Minimum customs duty

                  1

                  2

                  1701 11 10

                  252,50

                  1701 11 90

                  —

                  1701 12 10

                  X

                  1701 12 90

                  X

                  1701 91 00

                  X

                  1701 99 10

                  —

                  1701 99 90

                  X

                              (—)

                              no minimum customs duty fixed (all offers rejected)

                              (X)

                              no offers