title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/481 of 1 April 2016 repealing Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code

text:
               2.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 87/24

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/481
   of 1 April 2016
   repealing Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1), and in particular Articles 247 to 249 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) lays down the Union Customs Code and applies from 1 May 2016. That Regulation replaces Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 with effect from 1 May 2016. It also confers powers on the Commission to adopt delegated acts in order to supplement certain non-essential elements of the Union Customs Code and to adopt implementing acts to provide uniform conditions for its implementation.

               (2)

               The Commission has exercised its delegated powers by adopting Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (3). The Commission has exercised its implementing powers by adopting Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 (4). Both those Regulations are also to apply from 1 May 2016.

               (3)

               Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (5), which lays down provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, becomes redundant from the date of application of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 and should therefore be repealed with effect from that date.

               (4)

               The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 is repealed.
   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.
   It shall apply from 1 May 2016.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 1 April 2016.

            For the Commission

            The President

         Jean-Claude JUNCKER

      (1)  OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1.

      (2)  Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ L 269, 10.10.2013, p. 1).

      (3)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 of 28 July 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the Union Customs Code (OJ L 343, 29.12.2015, p. 1).

      (4)  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).

      (5)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1).


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 87/2013 of 31 January 2013 correcting the Polish version of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 29/2012 on marketing standards for olive oil

text:
               1.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 32/7

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 87/2013
   of 31 January 2013
   correcting the Polish version of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 29/2012 on marketing standards for olive oil
   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 113, paragraph 1, point (a), and Article 121, first paragraph, point (a), in conjunction with Article 4,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The Polish version of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 29/2012 of 13 January 2012 on marketing standards for olive oil (2) contains an error. The text of the first of the two labels provided for in point (d) of the second paragraph of Article 3 of that Regulation incorrectly refers to ‘the pomace obtained after the extraction of olive oil’ instead of ‘the product obtained after the extraction of olive oil’. In consequence the meaning of both labels in the Polish version of the Regulation overlaps.

               (2)

               Implementing Regulation (EU) No 29/2012 should therefore be corrected accordingly.

               (3)

               In order to avoid any prejudice to the interests of those economic operators who have complied with the incorrect obligation provided for by the Polish version of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 29/2012, they should be allowed to continue using incorrect labels for a certain period. In order to minimise the duration of that period, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following that of its publication.

               (4)

               The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   Concerns only the Polish version.
   Article 2
   Products which have been manufactured and labelled in the Union or imported into the Union and put into free circulation in accordance with the Polish version of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 29/2012 before the entry into force of this Regulation may be marketed until 2 February 2014.
   Article 3
   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, 31 January 2013.

            For the Commission

            The President

         José Manuel BARROSO

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

      (2)  OJ L 12, 14.1.2012, p. 14.


title: Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 78/2013 of 17 January 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain tube and pipe fittings of iron or steel originating in Russia and Turkey

text:
               29.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 27/1

         COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 78/2013
   of 17 January 2013
   imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain tube and pipe fittings of iron or steel originating in Russia and Turkey
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   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 9 thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after having consulted the Advisory Committee,
   Whereas:
   A.   PROCEDURE

   1.   Provisional measures

               (1)

               On 31 July 2012, the European Commission (‘the Commission’), by Regulation (EU) No 699/2012 (2) (‘the provisional Regulation’) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain tube and pipe fittings of iron or steel originating in Russia and Turkey.

               (2)

               The proceeding was initiated by a notice of initiation (3) published on 1 November 2011, following a complaint lodged on 20 September 2011 by the Defence committee of the Steel Butt-Welding Fittings Industry of the European Union (‘the complainants’) on behalf of producers representing more than 40 % of the total Union production of certain tube and pipe fittings of iron or steel.

               (3)

               As set out in recital 15 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011 (‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2008 to the end of the IP (‘period considered’).

         2.   Subsequent procedure

               (4)

               Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping measures (‘provisional disclosure’), several interested parties made written submissions making their views known on the provisional findings. The parties who so requested were also granted the opportunity to be heard.

               (5)

               The Commission continued to seek and analyse all information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings.

         3.   Sampling

               (6)

               In the absence of any comments concerning the sampling of Union producers, unrelated importers and exporting producers, the provisional findings in recitals 5 to 11 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

         4.   Measures in force in respect of other third countries

               (7)

               It is reiterated that definitive anti-dumping measures are in force in respect of certain tube and pipe fittings of iron or steel originating in Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and Thailand, and following circumvention practices also in respect of certain tube and pipe fittings of iron or steel originating in the People’s Republic of China consigned from Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines and Taiwan (with certain exceptions) (4). The countries mentioned in the preceding sentence shall hereafter be referred to as ‘countries under anti-dumping measures’.

         B.   PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

               (8)

               As set out in recital 17 of the provisional Regulation, the product concerned 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, currently falling within CN codes ex 7307 93 11, ex 7307 93 19 and ex 7307 99 80 (‘the product concerned’).

               (9)

               In the absence of any comments concerning the product concerned and the like product, the provisional findings in recitals 17 to 20 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

         C.   DUMPING

   1.   Russia

   1.1.   Normal value

               (10)

               One Russian exporting producer claimed that only data obtained from Russian companies should have been used in the dumping margin calculations and that it is not accurate to use data from Turkish companies. It should be recalled that in the absence of cooperation by any Russian exporting producer, the normal value for Russia has been established in accordance with Article 18(1) and 18(5) of the basic Regulation on the basis of the facts available, i.e. information obtained from those Turkish exporting producers that use Russian seamless steel pipes and tubes as input for the production of the product concerned. The claim is therefore rejected.

               (11)

               In the absence of any other comments concerning the determination of normal value, the provisional findings in recitals 22 to 25 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

         1.2.   Export price

               (12)

               In the absence of any comments concerning the determination of export price, the provisional findings in recitals 26 and 27 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

         1.3.   Comparison

               (13)

               In the absence of any comments concerning the comparison of export price and normal value, the provisional findings in recitals 28 and 29 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

         1.4.   Dumping margin

               (14)

               One Russian exporting producer claimed that the provisional anti-dumping duty of 23,8 % is not justified in light of the fact that the company only exports steel elbows to the Union and even those in only very small quantities. However, steel elbows are part of the product subject to this investigation and this has not been contested by any interested party. In addition, the criterion to consider imports into the Union as negligible as referred to in Article 5(7) and Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation is only considered on a countrywide level and not individually per company. The claim is therefore rejected.

               (15)

               Another Russian exporting producer claimed it has not been dumping and that this is reflected by the fact that on multiple occasions it has lost tenders to Union competitors for supplying elbows and bends. As mentioned above, it is recalled that no Russian exporting producer cooperated in this investigation and therefore the dumping calculations for Russia were made in accordance with Article 18(1) and Article 18(5) of the basic Regulation on the basis of the facts available. Even if the claim is considered, it should be noted that the loss of tenders to Union competitors does not contradict the finding about dumping by the Russian exporting producer. The claim is therefore rejected.

               (16)

               In the absence of any other comments concerning the dumping margin calculation, the findings in recitals 30 and 31 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

               (17)

               The countrywide dumping margin finally determined, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, is the following:

                           Company

                           Dumping margin

                           All companies

                           23,8 %

         2.   Turkey

   2.1.   Normal value

               (18)

               In the absence of any comments concerning the determination of normal value, the provisional findings in recitals 32 to 40 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

         2.2.   Export price

               (19)

               One exporting producer claimed that the profit margin achieved on the ocean freight, i.e. the difference between the freight charged to its customers and the freight paid by the exporting producer to the shipping company, should be included in the export price. However, pursuant to Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation the export price shall be the price actually paid or payable for the product when sold for export from the exporting country to the Union. A profit margin achieved on the transport of the product to the customer cannot be considered as part of the export price of the product itself. The claim is therefore rejected.

               (20)

               In the absence of any other comments concerning the determination of export price, the provisional findings in recitals 41 to 43 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

         2.3.   Comparison

               (21)

               The Turkish Steel Exporters’ Association (ÇIB) claimed that the significant price differences between seamless and welded pipe fittings have not been properly taken into account in the comparison between export price and normal value. However, all cooperating companies have submitted information on a transaction-to-transaction basis with regard to sales of seamless and welded fittings. That information has been explicitly used for the comparison between export price and normal value. In other words, seamless fittings have only been compared with seamless fittings and welded fittings have only been compared with welded fittings. Therefore, the claim is rejected.

               (22)

               In the absence of any other comments in respect of comparison, the findings in recital 44 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

         2.4.   Dumping margins

   (a)   Dumping margin for companies investigated

               (23)

               It is recalled that the individual dumping margin provisionally established for one of the three cooperating exporting producers was determined on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value with the company’s weighted average export price of the product concerned to the Union. In the absence of any comments concerning the determination of that company’s dumping margin, the provisional findings in recital 46 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

               (24)

               The dumping calculations in respect of the two other cooperating companies showed that they conducted targeted dumping in terms of a given time period as well as in respect of given customers and regions. Indeed, there was a clear pattern of their export prices which differed significantly among different purchasers and regions, as well as time periods (up to 30 % for identical models of the product concerned). Furthermore, the dumping calculation based on the comparison of a weighted average normal value to a weighted average of export prices in accordance with the method provided in Article 2(11) first part of the first sentence of the basic Regulation did not reflect the full degree of dumping being practised by the two producers concerned, as demonstrated in recital 27 of this Regulation. The dumping margin could also not be established by a comparison of individual normal values and individual export prices to the Union on a transaction-to-transaction basis in accordance with Article 2(11) second part of the first sentence of the basic Regulation, given the lack of sufficient domestic transactions for normal value corresponding to the export transactions as demonstrated in recital 28.

               (25)

               Therefore, in order to reflect the full amount of dumping being practised by the two companies concerned, in accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the normal value established on a weighted average basis was compared in their case to prices of all individual export transactions to the Union. Given that such method of comparison is an exception to the two first methods provided for in Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the Commission carefully checked whether the conditions to resort to it were clearly met in this case. The detailed dumping calculations, including the established export price patterns, have been disclosed. None of the Turkish exporting producers contested the underlying data.

               (26)

               However, both cooperating companies, the ÇIB and the Turkish Government claimed that insufficient explanation had been provided as to the targeted dumping established for the two Turkish exporting producers and that in any event, any pattern of export prices was unintended. In a hearing with the Hearing Officer, requested by the two Turkish exporters, detailed explanations were provided to the two companies with regard to the establishment of targeted dumping and the underlying dumping margin calculations. The Commission also clarified that even if unintentional (5), their practices had the effect of targeted dumping. It is noted that the basic regulation does not require the investigating authority to identify potential reasons for targeted dumping, such as currency fluctuations, different regional pricing policies, etc. The mere establishment of patterns of export prices differing significantly among different purchasers, regions or time periods, is sufficient (6). Further to the hearing, company-specific explanations have also been disclosed to the two companies. Moreover, a Note Verbale has been sent to the Permanent Delegation of Turkey to the Union with clarifications on the establishment of targeted dumping and the methodology applied for the dumping margin calculation. Furthermore, in another hearing with the Hearing Officer, requested by the ÇIB, detailed explanations have been provided to the ÇIB with regard to the establishment of targeted dumping and the underlying dumping margin calculations.

               (27)

               The investigation has established for each of the two exporting producers three clear patterns of export prices covering the vast majority of their export sales to the Union, i.e. export prices differed significantly among different purchasers and regions, as well as time periods, as was demonstrated by the underlying data disclosed to the parties. This was the result of a thorough examination of the exceptional circumstances of this case, on the basis of which it was considered necessary to resort to targeted dumping. Having established significant export price differences, and whereas only one of those three patterns of export prices would be sufficient to resort to the weighted average to all individual export transaction comparison methodology, this comparison method was considered appropriate in this particular case. Furthermore, for each of the two companies, the total amount of dumping established by comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export price of the product concerned to the Union (the first symmetrical method) significantly differs from the amount of dumping established by comparison of the normal value established on a weighted average basis with prices of all individual export transactions to the Union (the asymmetrical method), as was demonstrated by the underlying data disclosed to the parties. Therefore it can be concluded that the use of the first symmetrical method would have the effect of inappropriately disguising the targeted dumping which took place during a specific time period, in specific regions and to specific customers. In other words, the dumping margin established by the first symmetrical method would not reflect the full degree of dumping being practiced by the two companies concerned.

               (28)

               The dumping margin could also not be established by a comparison of individual normal values with individual export prices to the Union on a transaction to transaction basis in accordance with Article 2(11) second part of the first sentence of the basic Regulation (the second symmetrical method). That method involves identifying individual domestic transactions which are comparable to individual export transactions, taking into account factors such as sales quantity and transaction date. Given the lack of sufficient domestic transactions for normal value corresponding to the export transactions, it was not possible to establish the dumping margin on the basis of the second symmetrical method. Therefore, given the establishment of a pattern of export prices which differed significantly among different purchasers, regions and time periods, and given that the two symmetrical methods would not reflect the full degree of dumping, it has been decided, in accordance with the second sentence of Article 2(11), to establish the dumping margin on the basis of the asymmetrical method.

               (29)

               Both cooperating companies and the ÇIB claimed that it was unjustified to compare export prices converted in Turkish Lira, given the fact that sales to the Union have been made in euro while Turkish Lira is only used for accountancy reasons. It was argued that currency exchange fluctuations between euro and Turkish Lira have had a significant effect on the price determinations which would inevitably affect the result of export price comparison between different time periods in an unjustified manner. However, the Commission’s consistent practice is to carry out export price comparison and dumping margin calculations in the accounting currency of cooperating exporting producers in the exporting country. It should be noted that costs and domestic prices used as a basis for normal value are expressed in Turkish Lira. Consequently, the comparison of export prices with the normal value is carried out in that currency. Thus, the only logical approach to establish a pattern of export prices, within the framework of the same dumping calculation, is to use the same export prices already expressed in Turkish Lira. In addition, as stated above, the basic Regulation does not require an analysis of possible reasons of targeted dumping, such as exchange rate fluctuations (7). The claim is therefore rejected.

               (30)

               Both cooperating exporting producers claimed that, in order to establish a pattern of export prices, weighted average prices of comparable product types should be taken into account rather than arithmetic average prices. However, Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation refers to a pattern of export prices and not to a pattern of weighted average export prices or a pattern of export values. The use of a weighted average export price would distort the analysis by taking into account the volume of exports instead of only the export prices. In any case, even when weighted average prices are used instead of arithmetic average export prices, a pattern of export prices could still be established which differs significantly among different purchasers and regions, as well as time periods. Two parties contested the significance of differences in patterns of export prices, if any, in case weighted averages are used. It is noted that the parties do not contest the factual findings based on the arithmetic average, which is the appropriate methodology as explained above. This claim is therefore rejected.

               (31)

               The ÇIB claimed that the application of zeroing is unjustified by referring to a WTO Appellate Body Report (8) (the Bed Linen Report) in which the zeroing practice was found to be contrary to the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. The General Court (9) has, however, confirmed that the findings of the Bed Linen Report are not applicable in a situation of targeted dumping. Indeed, the Bed linen Report concerns only the zeroing technique in the context of the first symmetrical method and cannot be considered to deal with this mechanism when it is used in the context of the asymmetrical method. Therefore, even if, as the WTO Appellate Body found, it might indeed be contrary to Article 2.4.2 of the 1994 Anti-dumping Code and unfair to employ the zeroing technique in the context of the first symmetrical method, and especially in the absence of an export price pattern, it is not contrary to that provision or to Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, nor is it unfair within the meaning of Article 2(10) of that Regulation, to employ the zeroing technique in the context of the asymmetrical method, where the two conditions for applying that method are met. Furthermore, the zeroing technique has proved to be mathematically necessary in order to distinguish, in terms of its results, the asymmetrical method from the first symmetrical method. In the absence of that reduction, the asymmetrical method will always yield the same result as the first symmetrical method. This claim is therefore rejected.

               (32)

               Further, the ÇIB claimed that the use of zeroing causes a violation of the lesser duty rule. It was argued that, because of the zeroing practice used, margins of dumping have been calculated at a level higher than they should actually have been.

               (33)

               However, the use of zeroing in the asymmetrical method does not preclude the application of the lesser duty rule. For all three cooperating companies the dumping margins, regardless of the methodology used, have been compared with the companies’ injury elimination levels to ensure that the lower of the two would determine the duty. The claim is therefore rejected.

               (34)

               In the absence of any other comments in respect of the dumping margins for companies investigated, the findings in recitals 47 and 48 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

         (b)   Dumping margin for non-cooperating companies

               (35)

               In the absence of any comments concerning the dumping margin for non-cooperating companies, the provisional findings in recital 49 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

               (36)

               The countrywide dumping margins finally determined, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are the following:

                           Company

                           Dumping margin (%)

                           RSA

                           9,6

                           Sardogan

                           2,9

                           Unifit

                           12,1

                           All other companies

                           16,7

         D.   INJURY

   1.   Union production, Union industry and consumption

               (37)

               In the absence of any comments with regard to Union production, Union industry and consumption the content of recitals 51 to 54 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.

         2.   Imports from the countries concerned

   2.1.   Cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports concerned

               (38)

               Following provisional disclosure, the ÇIB argued that the cumulative assessment of dumped imports from the two countries concerned is not warranted. In principle, they echoed the comments made by the Turkish exporting producers following the initiation and claimed that imports from Russia and Turkey show different trends in terms of volume and prices.

               (39)

               It is reiterated in this regard, as already stated in recital 59 of the provisional Regulation, that the investigation established that while imports from Turkey are relatively stable in terms of volumes, imports from Russia are increasing in absolute terms. However, given the contraction in demand in the period considered, the market shares of imports from both countries are increasing.

               (40)

               At the same time their pricing do not appear to be substantially different, with Russian average prices being somewhat lower but very close to the average Turkish prices. It is also reiterated in this regard that for companies in both countries the investigation established significant undercutting of up to ca. 30 % (see recital 65 of the provisional Regulation). Consequently, the claim is rejected.

               (41)

               The ÇIB also argued that imports from Turkey should be considered insignificant and pointed out that in a previous case concerning a similar product — namely in ‘pipe and tube fittings from the PRC, Croatia, Slovakia, Taiwan and Thailand’ (10) — imports from Slovakia and Taiwan were considered insignificant (although they were above the de minimis threshold) and therefore not cumulated with dumped imports from other countries.

               (42)

               It is noted in this regard that in pipe and tube fittings from the PRC, Croatia, Slovakia, Taiwan and Thailand, imports from Slovakia and Taiwan were indeed found to be dumped and despite being above the 1 % market share threshold they were not cumulated with other dumped imports. The situation in that case, however, was very different from the current one, as imports from Slovakia and Taiwan were actually sharply losing their market share and were not considered significant when compared to the volume of imports from the other countries and consequently were considered not to be causing injury. In contrast, in the case at hand imports from both Turkey and Russia are increasing their market share and are comparable to each other in terms of volumes. Consequently, the claim is rejected.

               (43)

               The ÇIB also argued that imports from Turkey and Russia are not similar in terms of conditions of competition as there are ‘differences in geographical concentration of sales’. They have provided statistics showing that during the IP Turkey has concentrated over 70 % of their sales on Spain, France, Italy and Poland, while Russia concentrated almost all of their sales on the Czech Republic and Germany.

               (44)

               It is noted in this regard that differences in geographical concentration of sales cannot be considered to be an indication of different conditions of competition. Given that the Union is a single market, the point of entry of any imports will normally not be decisive for the competitiveness of those imports with each other and vis-à-vis the like product. It is also reiterated with respect to conditions of competition that Russian and Turkish imports are similar in respect of price and were both found to undercut Union prices and that their channels of sales are similar. Consequently, the claim is rejected.

               (45)

               In the absence of any other comments with regard to cumulative assessment of the dumped imports from the countries concerned the content of recitals 55 to 60 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.

         2.2.   Volume, market share of the dumped imports concerned, their import prices and undercutting

               (46)

               In the absence of any comments with regard to volume and market share of the dumped imports concerned, their import prices and undercutting, the content of recitals 61 to 65 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.

               (47)

               It is reiterated that the dumped product concerned originating in the countries concerned sold in the Union undercut the Union industry’s prices by up to about 30 %.

         3.   Situation of the Union industry

               (48)

               Following provisional disclosure, the ÇIB and the Turkish Government claimed that given that the Union industry increased their market share by some 3 % between 2008 and the IP, the Commission should have concluded that the Union industry did not suffer material injury in the period considered.

               (49)

               It is noted in this regard that firstly, it was clearly recognised in the provisional Regulation (see for example recitals 72, 86 or 91 of the provisional Regulation) that there was a slight increase in the market share of the Union industry. Secondly, recital 72 of the provisional Regulation clarifies that the increased market share is a reflection of the fact that the sales volumes of the Union producers dropped slightly less than the consumption in the period considered.

               (50)

               Moreover, apart from falling stocks referred to below, it is the only injury indicator that shows a positive development over the period considered. Consequently, the claim is rejected.

               (51)

               The Turkish government also claimed that a dropping closing stock of the sampled Union producers is an indication of a non-injurious situation of the Union industry.

               (52)

               It is noted in this regard that indeed as stated in recital 79 of the provisional Regulation the closing stock of the sampled Union producers decreased by 18 % between 2008 and the IP.

               (53)

               At the same time it is recognised that a drop in stocks could be seen as a positive sign but only in a situation when sales would be growing at a pace faster than production. However, this is not the case in the current investigation. On the contrary, the drop in stocks in this case is merely a reflection of production volumes dropping at a faster pace than sales. In this situation the drop in stocks cannot be seen as a positive development. Consequently, the claim is rejected.

               (54)

               In the absence of any other claim or comments, the content of recitals 66 to 88 of the provisional Regulation, including the conclusion that Union industry has suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, is hereby confirmed.

         E.   CAUSATION

   1.   Effect of the dumped imports

               (55)

               In the absence of any specific comments, recitals 90 to 93 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

         2.   Effect of other factors

               (56)

               Following the provisional disclosure, the ÇIB and the Turkish Government claimed that the actual cause of any injury suffered by the Union industry would be low priced imports from other third countries and in particular from countries under anti-dumping measures.

               (57)

               In this regard it is noted that, as already stated in recital 96 of the provisional Regulation, imports from the eight countries under anti-dumping measures continued to penetrate the Union market although their market share declined from 21 % in 2008 to 17 % in the IP. The average prices of those imports are generally lower than those of the dumped imports from the countries concerned. Even when the applicable anti-dumping duty is taken into account, the prices of those imports remain low and comparable with the prices of Russian and Turkish imports and are below the average prices of the Union producers.

               (58)

               However, it is noted that for the countries under anti-dumping measures (as for all third countries) only limited statistical information and average prices are available and the established price difference is not necessarily conclusive and may be a result of a different product mix. Moreover, imports from countries under anti-dumping measures show a clear downward trend. Hence, the conclusion that they were not breaking the causal link between injury to the Union industry and the increased dumped imports from Turkey and Russia.

               (59)

               With regard to imports from other third countries, their market share declined during the period considered from 7 % in 2008 to 6 % in the IP while those of Russia and Turkey increased. The average prices of those imports were generally higher than the dumped imports from the countries concerned and close to the average prices of the Union producers and as such are considered not to break the causal link between injury to the Union industry and the increased dumped imports from Turkey and Russia. Consequently, the claim is rejected and the provisional conclusion that imports from third countries are not breaking the causal link is confirmed.

               (60)

               The Turkish Government also argued that any injury suffered by the Union industry would be caused by the increased cost of production resulting from contraction in demand.

               (61)

               It is noted in this regard that, as already stated in recital 101 of the provisional Regulation, the financial and economic crisis of 2008/2009 is in all likelihood the reason behind the decreased consumption for pipe fittings. Consumption dropped by over 40 % between 2008 and 2009, and remained at that low level throughout the rest of the period considered (although slightly increasing in the IP). Given that fixed costs make up to 40 % of the manufacturing costs of the Union producers, the decreased demand, sales and output result in significantly higher unit manufacturing costs. This obviously has had an important impact on the profitability of the Union industry.

               (62)

               At the same time, any negative impact of higher unit manufacturing cost was clearly deepened by the fact that the prices of the Union industry were dropping subject to severe price pressure and significant undercutting by the dumped imports from Turkey and Russia. In a normal market situation the Union industry should have a possibility of minimising the impact of any unit cost increase by at least keeping the normal price level, which was clearly not possible in the situation of price pressure exerted by artificially cheap dumped imports from the countries concerned.

               (63)

               Consequently, the claim is rejected and it is definitely concluded that any negative effect of contraction in demand is not such as to break the causal link between the injury suffered by the Union industry and the dumped imports from Russia and Turkey.

               (64)

               In the absence of any other claim or comments, the content of recitals 94 to 106 of the provisional Regulation, including the conclusion that the dumped imports from the countries concerned have caused material injury to the Union industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation is hereby confirmed.

         F.   UNION INTEREST

               (65)

               Following the provisional disclosure, the ÇIB claimed that imposition of any measures would lead to a situation in which ERNE Fittings, a complainant would have a monopoly-like position in the Union market.

               (66)

               It is noted in this regard that ERNE is only one of two complainants and that the second one — INTERFIT — is similar in size to ERNE. In addition, data in the provisional Regulation concerning the sampled Union producers also included a third Union producer — Virgilio CENA & Figli. Moreover, there is a significant number of smaller companies in the Union producing and selling the product under investigation and there are significant imports from other sources. Given the above, it is considered that there is no risk of monopolisation of ERNE’s position.

               (67)

               In the absence of any other comments, recitals 107 to 117 of the provisional Regulation, including the conclusion that no compelling reasons exist against the imposition of measures on the dumped imports from the countries concerned are hereby confirmed.

         G.   DEFINITIVE MEASURES

   1.   Injury elimination level

               (68)

               In the absence of any specific comments, the content of recitals 118 to 120 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.

         2.   Definitive measures

               (69)

               In view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, and in accordance with Article 9 of the basic Regulation, it is considered that a definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed on imports of the product concerned originating in Russia and Turkey at the level of the lowest of the dumping margin and injury elimination level found, in accordance with the lesser duty rule, which is in all cases the dumping margin.

               (70)

               For Russia, in the absence of cooperation by Russian exporting producers, a countrywide dumping margin was calculated as explained in recitals 21 to 31 of the provisional Regulation and that margin is hereby confirmed.

               (71)

               For Turkey, given that the level of cooperation was considered to be relatively low, the residual dumping margin was based on a reasonable method leading to a margin which is higher than the highest among the individual margins of the three cooperating companies as explained in recital 49 of the provisional Regulation, and that residual dumping margin is hereby confirmed.

               (72)

               On the basis of the above, the proposed duty rates are:

                           Country

                           Company

                           Definitive anti-dumping duty (%)

                           Russia

                           All companies

                           23,8

                           Turkey

                           RSA

                           9,6

                           Sardogan

                           2,9

                           Unifit

                           12,1

                           All other companies

                           16,7

               (73)

               The individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that investigation with respect to those companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the countrywide duty applicable to ‘all other companies’) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the countries concerned and produced by the companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with its name and address, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and will be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’.

               (74)

               Any claim requesting the application of an individual company anti-dumping duty rate (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (11) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company’s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will then be amended accordingly by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.

               (75)

               All parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain tube and pipe fittings of iron or steel originating in Russia and Turkey and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty (‘final disclosure’). They were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure.

               (76)

               Following the final disclosure, submissions were received from the complainant as well as from two cooperating exporting producers from Turkey and the ÇIB. Both Turkish producers and the ÇIB requested and have been granted hearings.

               (77)

               The complainant agreed with all findings as disclosed. The oral and written comments submitted by two Turkish exporters and the ÇIB were a reiteration of the comments already made following the provisional disclosure. It is noted that none of the interested parties contested the underlying data.

               (78)

               A justification and a reply to the claim for the application of the asymmetrical method including zeroing in the dumping calculation is provided in recitals 24 to 33 above. The use of Turkish Lira for the establishment of export price patterns is explained and the relevant claim addressed in recital 29 above. The use of arithmetical average prices instead of weighted average prices in identifying patterns of export prices is explained and the relevant claim addressed in recital 30 above . The claim to include the profit margin achieved on the ocean freight into the export price is described and dismissed in recital 19 above. The claim that no cumulative assessment of Turkish and Russian imports is warranted in view of differences in geographical concentration of Turkish and Russian sales is described and dismissed in recitals 43 and 44 above. The claim that Union industry suffered no injury given their increased market share is addressed and dismissed in recitals 48 to 50 above.

               (79)

               Given that following the final disclosure no arguments that would influence the outcome of the assessment of the case were brought forward, no modification of the findings as detailed above is warranted.

         H.   DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTY

               (80)

               In view of the magnitude of the dumping margin found and given the level of the injury caused to the Union industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty imposed by the provisional Regulation be definitively collected to the extent of the amount of the definitive duty imposed,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   1.   A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of 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, currently falling within CN codes ex 7307 93 11, ex 7307 93 19 and ex 7307 99 80 (TARIC codes 7307931191, 7307931193, 7307931194, 7307931195, 7307931199, 7307931991, 7307931993, 7307931994, 7307931995, 7307931999, 7307998092, 7307998093, 7307998094, 7307998095 and 7307998098) and originating in Russia and Turkey.
   2.   The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the products described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies listed below, shall be as follows:

               Country

               Company

               Anti-dumping duty (%)

               TARIC additional code

               Russia

               All companies

               23,8

               —

               Turkey

               RSA Tesisat Malzemeleri San ve Ticaret AȘ, Küçükköy, Istanbul

               9,6

               B295

               SARDOĞAN Endüstri ve Ticaret, Kurtköy Pendik, Istanbul

               2,9

               B296

               UNIFIT BORU BAĞLANTI ELEM. END. MAM. SAN. VE TİC. AȘ, Tuzla, Istanbul

               12,1

               B297

               All other companies

               16,7

               B999

         3.   Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.
   Article 2
   The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 699/2012 on imports of certain tube and pipe fittings of iron or steel originating in Russia and Turkey shall be definitively collected.
   Article 3
   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, 17 January 2013.

            For the Council

            The President

         E. GILMORE

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

      (2)  OJ L 203, 31.7.2012, p. 37.

      (3)  OJ C 320, 1.11.2011, p. 4.

      (4)  OJ L 275, 16.10.2008, p. 18 and OJ L 233, 4.9.2009, p. 1.

      (5)  Case T-274/02 Ritek Corp. and Prodisc Technology Inc. v Council [2006] ECR II-4305, paragraph 57.

      (6)  Case T-274/02 Ritek Corp. and Prodisc Technology Inc. v Council [2006] ECR II-4305 paragraph 60.

      (7)  Case T-274/02 Ritek Corp. and Prodisc Technology Inc. v Council [2006] ECR II-4305 paragraph 51 — last sentence.

      (8)  WTO Appellate Body Report, European Communities — Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India.

      (9)  Case T-274/02 Ritek Corp. and Prodisc Technology Inc. v Council [2006] ECR II-4305 paragraphs 98-103.

      (10)  OJ L 234, 3.10.1995, p. 4.

      (11)  European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, Directorate H, Office N105 08/20, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 160/2013 of 21 February 2013 amending Regulations (EC) No 162/2003, (EC) No 971/2008, (EU) No 1118/2010 and (EU) No 169/2011 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 888/2011 as regards the name of the holder of the authorisation of diclazuril in animal feed  Text with EEA relevance

text:
               22.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 49/50

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 160/2013
   of 21 February 2013
   amending Regulations (EC) No 162/2003, (EC) No 971/2008, (EU) No 1118/2010 and (EU) No 169/2011 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 888/2011 as regards the name of the holder of the authorisation of diclazuril in animal feed
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Janssen Pharmaceutica NV has submitted an application under Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 proposing to change the name of the holder of the authorisation as regards Commission Regulations (EC) No 162/2003 of 30 January 2003 concerning the authorisation of an additive in feedingstuffs (2), (EC) No 971/2008 of 3 October 2008 concerning a new use of a coccidiostat as additive in feedingstuffs (3), (EU) No 1118/2010 of 2 December 2010 concerning the authorisation of diclazuril as a feed additive for chickens for fattening (holder of authorisation Janssen Pharmaceutica NV) and amending Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 (4) and (EU) No 169/2011 of 23 February 2011 concerning the authorisation of diclazuril as a feed additive for guinea fowls (holder of authorisation Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V.) (5) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 888/2011 of 5 September 2011 concerning the authorisation of diclazuril as a feed additive for turkeys for fattening (holder of authorisation Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V.) and amending Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 (6).

               (2)

               The applicant claims that, with effect from 7 July 2011, Janssen Animal Health, a division of Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, was acquired by Eli Lilly and Company Ltd, which now owns the marketing rights for the additive diclazuril. The applicant has submitted relevant data supporting its request.

               (3)

               The proposed change of the terms of the authorisation is purely administrative in nature and does not entail a fresh assessment of the additive concerned. The European Food Safety Authority was informed of the application.

               (4)

               To allow Eli Lilly and Company Ltd to exploit its marketing rights it is necessary to change the terms of the authorisations.

               (5)

               Regulations (EC) No 162/2003, (EC) No 971/2008, (EU) No 1118/2010 and (EU) No 169/2011 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 888/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.

               (6)

               Since safety reasons do not require the immediate application of the amendments made by this Regulation to Regulations (EC) No 162/2003, (EC) No 971/2008, (EU) No 1118/2010 and (EU) No 169/2011 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 888/2011, it is appropriate to provide for a transitional period during which existing stocks may be used up.

               (7)

               The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   Amendment to Regulation (EC) No 162/2003
   In column 2 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 162/2003 the words ‘Janssen Pharmaceutica NV’ are replaced by ‘Eli Lilly and Company Ltd’.
   Article 2
   Amendment to Regulation (EC) No 971/2008
   In column 2 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 971/2008 the words ‘Janssen Pharmaceutica nv’ are replaced by ‘Eli Lilly and Company Ltd’.
   Article 3
   Amendment to Regulation (EU) No 1118/2010
   In column 2 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 1118/2010 the words ‘Janssen Pharmaceutica NV’ are replaced by ‘Eli Lilly and Company Ltd’.
   Article 4
   Amendment to Regulation (EU) No 169/2011
   In column 2 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 169/2011 the words ‘Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V.’ are replaced by ‘Eli Lilly and Company Ltd’.
   Article 5
   Amendment to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 888/2011
   In column 2 of the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 888/2011 the words ‘Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V.’ are replaced by ‘Eli Lilly and Company Ltd’.
   Article 6
   Transitional measure
   Existing stocks of this additive which are in conformity with the provisions applying before the date of entry into force of this Regulation may continue to be placed on the market and used until they are exhausted.
   Article 7
   Entry into force
   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, 21 February 2013.

            For the Commission

            The President

         José Manuel BARROSO

      (1)  OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 29.

      (2)  OJ L 26, 31.1.2003, p. 3.

      (3)  OJ L 265, 4.10.2008, p. 3.

      (4)  OJ L 317, 3.12.2010, p. 5.

      (5)  OJ L 49, 24.2.2011, p. 6.

      (6)  OJ L 229, 6.9.2011, p. 9.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 94/2013 of 1 February 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 162/2011 as regards the intervention centres for rice in Spain

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 33/17

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 94/2013
   of 1 February 2013
   amending Regulation (EU) No 162/2011 as regards the intervention centres for rice in Spain
   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 41 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 162/2011 of 21 February 2011 determining the intervention centres for rice (2) designates the intervention centres for rice.

               (2)

               In accordance with Article 55(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3), Spain has communicated to the Commission the amended list of its intervention centres for rice and the list of storage premises (4) attached to those centres which have been approved as fulfilling the minimum standards required by EU legislation.

               (3)

               Regulation (EU) No 162/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly, and the list of storage premises attached thereto should be published on the internet, together with all the information required by the operators involved in public intervention.

               (4)

               The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The Annex to Regulation (EU) No 162/2011 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the third 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, 1 February 2013.

            For the Commission

            The President

         José Manuel BARROSO

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

      (2)  OJ L 47, 22.2.2011, p. 11.

      (3)  OJ L 349, 29.12.2009, p. 1.

      (4)  The addresses of the storage premises of the intervention centres are available on the European Commission website EUROPA/agriculture http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cereals/legislation/index_en.htm

      ANNEX
      In the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 162/2011, the section entitled ‘SPAIN’ is replaced by the following:

         ‘SPAIN

                     Andalucía

                     Aragón

                     Castilla y León

                     Castilla-La Mancha

                     Extremadura

                     Navarra’


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1380/2011 of 21 December 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 as regards the specific conditions for breeding and productive ratites  Text with EEA relevance

text:
               23.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 343/25

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1380/2011
   of 21 December 2011
   amending Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 as regards the specific conditions for breeding and productive ratites
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Directive 2009/158/EC of 30 November 2009 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs (1), and in particular Article 25(1)(b) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Annex VIII to Commission Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 of 8 August 2008 laying down a list of third countries, territories, zones or compartments from which poultry and poultry products may be imported into and transit through the Community and the veterinary certification requirements (2) sets out the specific conditions which apply to imports of breeding and productive poultry other than ratites and to imports of hatching eggs and day-old chicks other than ratites.

               (2)

               Point 2 of Part II of that Annex provides that, where day-old chicks are not reared in the Member State which imported the hatching eggs, they are to be transported directly to the final destination and kept there for at least three weeks from the date of hatching. That requirement is reflected in Part I of the relevant model veterinary certificate for day-old chicks laid down in Annex IV to Directive 2009/158/EC.

               (3)

               Annex IX to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 sets out the specific conditions which apply to imports of ratites for breeding and production, hatching eggs and day-old chicks thereof. Those specific conditions do not currently include a similar provision concerning ratites as the one included for poultry in point 2 of Part II of Annex VIII to that Regulation.

               (4)

               Experience in the application of that provision concerning poultry shows that it is appropriate to extend it also to day-old chicks of ratites.

               (5)

               Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.

               (6)

               The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   In Annex IX to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008, in Part II, point 3 is replaced by the following:

                  ‘3.

                  Ratites which have hatched from imported hatching eggs shall be kept for a period of at least three weeks from the date of hatching in the hatchery or for at least three weeks on the establishment(s) to which they have been sent after hatching.
                  Where day-old chicks of ratites are not reared in the Member State which imported the hatching eggs, they shall be transported directly to the final destination (as specified in points I.10 and I.11 of the health certificate, Model 2, in Annex IV to Council Directive 2009/158/EC (3)) and kept there for at least three weeks from the date of hatching.

   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
   It shall apply from 1 February 2012.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 21 December 2011.

            For the Commission

            The President

         José Manuel BARROSO

      (1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 74.

      (2)  OJ L 226, 23.8.2008, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 74.’


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 131/2013 of 15 February 2013 laying down exceptional measures as regards the release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during the 2012/2013 marketing year

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 45/1

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 131/2013
   of 15 February 2013
   laying down exceptional measures as regards the release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during the 2012/2013 marketing year
   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 64(2) and Article 186, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               During the 2011/2012 sugar marketing year, the Union average bulk white sugar ex-factory price reached a level of 175 % of the reference price of EUR 404 per tonne and was approximately EUR 275 per tonne higher than the world market price. The Union price is now stable at a level of around EUR 700 per tonne, which is the highest level reached since the reform of the sugar market organisation and disturbs the optimal fluidity of the sugar supply on the Union market. The expected increase of this already high price level during the 2012/2013 marketing year substantiates the risk of serious market disturbances which should be prevented by the necessary measures.

               (2)

               Based on the estimated supply and demand for 2012/2013, the ending stocks for the sugar market are expected to be lower by at least 0,5 million tonne than in 2011/2012. This figure already takes into account the imports from third countries benefiting from certain preferential agreements.

               (3)

               On the other hand, the expectations of a good harvest lead to estimate the production of nearly 5 400 000 tonnes in excess of the sugar quota set out in Article 56 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. Taking account of the foreseeable contractual commitments of sugar producers in respect of certain industrial uses provided for in Article 62 of that Regulation and of the 2012/2013 export commitments for out-of-quota sugar, substantial quantities of out-of-quota sugar of at least 2 000 000 tonnes would still be available. Part of this sugar could be made available to alleviate the tight supply of the Union sugar food market and to avoid excessive price increases.

               (4)

               In order to ensure the fluidity of the market, it is necessary to release out-of-quota sugar. It should be possible to take such a measure each time it is necessary during the marketing year 2012/2013.

               (5)

               Pursuant to Articles 186 and 188 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 measures may be taken, when necessary, to remedy market disturbances or the risk of disturbances, where, in particular, these result from a significant rise of prices in the Union, provided that this objective cannot be reached by means of other measures available under that Regulation. Given the current market circumstances, Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 does not provide for any specific measures aimed at limiting the high sugar price trend and allowing sugar supply at reasonable prices on the Union market, other than those based on Article 186 of that Regulation.

               (6)

               Article 64(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 empowers the Commission to fix the surplus levy on sugar and isoglucose produced in excess of the quota at a sufficiently high level in order to avoid the accumulation of surplus quantities. Article 3(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 of 29 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards sugar production in excess of the quota (2) has fixed that levy at EUR 500 per tonne.

               (7)

               For a limited quantity of sugar produced in excess of the quota, a reduced surplus levy should be fixed at a level per tonne allowing for a fair treatment of Union sugar producers, ensuring the good functioning of the Union sugar market and helping to reduce the difference between Union and world market sugar prices without creating risks of accumulation of surpluses in the Union market.

               (8)

               As Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 fixes quotas for both sugar and isoglucose, a similar measure should apply for an appropriate quantity of isoglucose produced in excess of the quota because the latter product is, to some extent, a commercial substitute for sugar.

               (9)

               With a view to increasing the supply, sugar and isoglucose producers should apply to the competent authorities of the Member States for certificates allowing them to sell certain quantities, produced above the quota limit, on the Union market with a reduced surplus levy.

               (10)

               The reduced surplus levy should be paid after the application is admitted and before the certificate is issued.

               (11)

               The validity of the certificates should be limited in time to encourage a fast improvement of the supply situation.

               (12)

               Fixing upper limits of the quantities for which each producer can apply in one application period and restricting the certificates to products of the applicant’s own production should prevent speculative actions within the system created by this Regulation.

               (13)

               With their application, sugar producers should commit themselves to pay the minimum price for sugar beet used to produce the quantity of sugar for which they apply. The minimum eligibility requirements for applications should be specified.

               (14)

               The competent authorities of the Member States should notify the Commission of the applications received. In order to simplify and standardise those notifications, models should be made available.

               (15)

               The Commission should ensure that certificates are granted only within the quantitative limits fixed in this Regulation. Therefore, if necessary, the Commission should be able to fix an allocation coefficient applicable to the applications received.

               (16)

               Member States should immediately inform the applicants whether the quantity applied for was fully or partially granted.

               (17)

               The competent authorities should notify the Commission of the quantities for which certificates with a reduction of the surplus levy have been issued. For this purpose, models should be made available by the Commission.

               (18)

               Sugar quantities released on the Union market of quantities in excess of the certificates issued under this Regulation should be subject the surplus levy set out in Article 64(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. It is therefore appropriate to provide that any applicant not fulfilling his commitment to release on the Union market the quantity covered by a certificate delivered to him, should also pay an amount of EUR 500 per tonne. This consistent approach is aimed at preventing abuse of the mechanism introduced by this Regulation.

               (19)

               For the purpose of establishing average prices for quota and out-of-quota sugar on the Union market in accordance with Article 13(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 952/2006 of 29 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards the management of the Community market in sugar and the quota system (3), sugar covered by a certificate issued pursuant to this Regulation should be considered as quota sugar.

               (20)

               In accordance with Article 2(1)(a) of Council Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities’ own resources (4) contributions and other duties provided for within the framework of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector are to constitute own resources. It is therefore necessary to set the date of establishment of the amounts in question within the meaning of Article 2(2) and Article 6(3)(a) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom on the system of the European Communities’ own resources (5).

               (21)

               The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   Temporary reduction of the surplus levy
   1.   By way of derogation from Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 967/2006, the amount of the surplus levy for a maximum quantity of 150 000 tonnes of sugar in white sugar equivalent and 8 000 tonnes of isoglucose in dry matter, produced in excess of the quota fixed in Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and released on the Union market in the 2012/2013 marketing year, shall be fixed at EUR 224 per tonne.
   2.   The reduced surplus levy provided for in paragraph 1 shall be paid after the application referred to in Article 2 is admitted and before the certificate referred to in Article 6 is issued.
   Article 2
   Application for certificates
   1.   In order to benefit from the conditions specified in Article 1, sugar and isoglucose producers shall apply for a certificate.
   2.   Applicants may be only undertakings producing beet and cane sugar or isoglucose, which are approved in accordance with Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and have been allocated a production quota for the 2012/2013 marketing year, in accordance with Article 56 of that Regulation.
   3.   Each applicant may submit not more than one application for sugar and one for isoglucose per application period.
   4.   Applications for certificates shall be submitted by fax or electronic mail to the competent authority in the Member State in which the undertaking was approved. The competent authorities of the Member States may require that electronic applications be accompanied by an advance electronic signature within the meaning of Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6).
   5.   To be admissible, the applications shall fulfil the following conditions:

               (a)

               the applications shall indicate:

                           (i)

                           the name, address and VAT number of the applicant; and

                           (ii)

                           the quantities applied for, expressed in tonnes of white sugar equivalent and tonnes of isoglucose in dry matter, rounded to no decimal places;

               (b)

               the quantities applied for in this application period, expressed in tonnes of white sugar equivalent and tonnes of isoglucose in dry matter, shall not exceed 50 000 tonnes in the case of sugar and 2 500 tonnes in the case of isoglucose;

               (c)

               if the application concerns sugar, the applicant shall commit himself to pay the minimum beet price, set out in Article 49 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, for the quantity of sugar covered by certificates issued in accordance with Article 6 of this Regulation;

               (d)

               the application shall be written in the official language or one of the official languages of the Member State in which the application is lodged;

               (e)

               the application shall indicate a reference to this Regulation and the expiry date for the submission of the applications;

               (f)

               the applicant shall not introduce any additional conditions to those laid down in this Regulation.

         6.   An application which is not submitted in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 5 shall not be admissible.
   7.   An application may not be withdrawn or amended after its submission, even if the quantity applied for is granted only partially.
   Article 3
   Submission of applications
   The period during which applications may be submitted shall end on 26 February 2013 at 12 noon, Brussels time.
   Article 4
   Transmission of applications by the Member States
   1.   The competent authorities of the Member States shall decide on the admissibility of applications on the basis of the conditions set out in Article 2. Where the competent authorities decide that an application is inadmissible, they shall inform the applicant without delay.
   2.   The competent authority shall notify the Commission on Friday at the latest, by fax or electronic mail, of the admissible applications submitted during the preceding application period. That notification shall not contain the data referred to in Article 2(5)(a)(i). Member States that received no applications but have sugar or isoglucose quota allocated to them in the 2012/2013 marketing year, shall also send their nil returns notifications to the Commission within the same time limit.
   3.   The form and content of the notifications shall be defined on the basis of models made available by the Commission to the Member States.
   Article 5
   Exceeded limits
   When the information notified by the competent authorities of the Member States pursuant to Article 4(2) indicates that the quantities applied for exceed the limits set out in Article 1, the Commission shall:

               (a)

               fix an allocation coefficient, which the Member States shall apply to the quantities covered by each notified certificate application;

               (b)

               reject applications not yet notified.

         Article 6
   Issue of certificates
   1.   Without prejudice to Article 5, on the 10th working day following a week where the application period ended, the competent authority shall issue certificates for the applications notified to the Commission, in accordance with Article 4(2).
   2.   Each Monday Member States shall notify the Commission of the quantities of sugar and/or isoglucose for which they issued certificates in the preceding week.
   3.   A template of the certificate is set out in the Annex.
   Article 7
   Validity of certificates
   Certificates shall be valid until the end of the second month following the month of issue.
   Article 8
   Transferability of certificates
   Neither the rights nor the obligations deriving from the certificates shall be transferable.
   Article 9
   Price reporting
   For the purpose of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 952/2006, the quantity of sugar sold which is covered by a certificate issued pursuant to this Regulation shall be considered as quota sugar.
   Article 10
   Monitoring
   1.   Applicants shall add to their monthly notifications provided for in Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 952/2006 the quantities for which they received certificates in accordance with Article 6 of this Regulation.
   2.   Before 31 October 2013, each holder of a certificate under this Regulation shall submit to the competent authorities of the Member States proof that all quantities covered by his certificates were released on the Union market. Each tonne covered by a certificate but not released on the Union market for reasons other than force majeure, shall be subject to payment of an amount of EUR 276 per tonne.
   3.   Member States shall notify the Commission of the quantities not released on the Union market.
   4.   Member States shall calculate and notify the Commission of the difference between the total quantity of sugar and isoglucose produced by each producer in excess of the quota and the quantities which have been disposed by the producers in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 967/2006. If the remaining quantities of out-of-quota sugar or isoglucose of a producer are less than the quantities issued for that producer for under this Regulation, the producer shall pay an amount of EUR 500 per tonne on that difference.
   5.   The notifications provided for in paragraphs 3 and 4 shall be made not later than 30 June 2014.
   Article 11
   Date of establishment
   For the purposes of Article 2(2) and Article 6(3)(a) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000, the date of establishment of the Union’s entitlement shall be the date on which the surplus levy is paid by the applicants in accordance with Article 1(2) of this Regulation.
   Article 12
   Entry into force
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
   It shall expire on 30 June 2014.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 15 February 2013.

            For the Commission

            The President

         José Manuel BARROSO

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

      (2)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2006, p. 22.

      (3)  OJ L 178, 1.7.2006, p. 39.

      (4)  OJ L 163, 23.6.2007, p. 17.

      (5)  OJ L 130, 31.5.2000, p. 1.

      (6)  OJ L 13, 19.1.2000, p. 12.

      ANNEX

         Model for the certificate referred to in Article 6(3)

      CERTIFICATE
      for the reduction, for the 2012/2013 marketing year, of the levy provided for in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 967/2006

                  Member State:

                  Quota holder:

                  Product:

                  Quantities applied:

                  Quantities issued:

                  Levy paid (EUR/t):

                  224

                  For the 2012/2013 marketing year, the levy referred to in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 shall not apply to the quantities issued of this certificate, subject to the respect of the rules laid down in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 131/2013, in particular in Article 2(5)(c).

                  Signature of the competent authority of the Member State

                  Date of issue

                  This certificate shall be valid until the end of the second month following the date of issue.