title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 235/2012 of 16 March 2012 amending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 78/16

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 235/2012
   of 16 March 2012
   amending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 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),
   Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 230/2012 (4).

               (2)

               The data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.

               (3)

               Given the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.
   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, 16 March 2012.

            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 178, 1.7.2006, p. 24.

      (3)  OJ L 254, 30.9.2011, p. 12.

      (4)  OJ L 77, 16.3.2012, p. 15.

      ANNEX

         Amended representative prices and additional import duties applicable to white sugar, raw sugar and products covered by CN code 1702 90 95 from 17 March 2012

                  (EUR)

                  CN code

                  Representative price per 100 kg net of the product concerned

                  Additional duty per 100 kg net of the product concerned

                  1701 12 10 (1)

                  44,97

                  0,00

                  1701 12 90 (1)

                  44,97

                  1,12

                  1701 13 10 (1)

                  44,97

                  0,00

                  1701 13 90 (1)

                  44,97

                  1,41

                  1701 14 10 (1)

                  44,97

                  0,00

                  1701 14 90 (1)

                  44,97

                  1,41

                  1701 91 00 (2)

                  51,35

                  2,06

                  1701 99 10 (2)

                  51,35

                  0,00

                  1701 99 90 (2)

                  51,35

                  0,00

                  1702 90 95 (3)

                  0,51

                  0,21

         (1)  For the standard quality defined in point III of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.

         (2)  For the standard quality defined in point II of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.

         (3)  Per 1 % sucrose content.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 305/2012 of 10 April 2012 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

text:
               11.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 101/1

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 305/2012
   of 10 April 2012
   establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
   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),
   Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

               (2)

               The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore 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 standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed 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, 10 April 2012.

            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 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.

      ANNEX
      Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

                  (EUR/100 kg)

                  CN code

                  Third country code (1)

                  Standard import value

                  0702 00 00

                  IL

                  135,3

                  MA

                  63,1

                  TR

                  102,6

                  ZZ

                  100,3

                  0707 00 05

                  JO

                  225,1

                  TR

                  157,9

                  ZZ

                  191,5

                  0709 91 00

                  EG

                  66,1

                  ZZ

                  66,1

                  0709 93 10

                  MA

                  78,6

                  TR

                  111,6

                  ZZ

                  95,1

                  0805 10 20

                  EG

                  52,7

                  IL

                  73,2

                  MA

                  47,3

                  TN

                  59,9

                  TR

                  61,6

                  ZA

                  34,5

                  ZZ

                  54,9

                  0805 50 10

                  MX

                  39,8

                  TR

                  42,9

                  ZZ

                  41,4

                  0808 10 80

                  AR

                  83,6

                  BR

                  84,9

                  CL

                  93,1

                  CN

                  95,1

                  MK

                  31,8

                  US

                  170,3

                  ZA

                  76,1

                  ZZ

                  90,7

                  0808 30 90

                  AR

                  104,3

                  CL

                  121,8

                  CN

                  89,0

                  US

                  107,0

                  UY

                  67,7

                  ZA

                  113,7

                  ZZ

                  100,6

         (1)  Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Code ‘ZZ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/635 of 30 March 2017 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature

text:
                  5.4.2017

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  L 91/1

            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/635
      of 30 March 2017
      concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature
      THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
      Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
      Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (1), and in particular Article 57(4) and Article 58(2) thereof,
      Whereas:

                  (1)

                  In order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (2), it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.

                  (2)

                  Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific provisions of the Union, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.

                  (3)

                  Pursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2), by virtue of the reasons set out in column (3) of that table.

                  (4)

                  It is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information issued in respect of the goods concerned by this Regulation which does not conform to this Regulation may, for a certain period, continue to be invoked by the holder in accordance with Article 34(9) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013. That period should be set at three months.

                  (5)

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

            HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
      Article 1
      The goods described in column (1) of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN code indicated in column (2) of that table.
      Article 2
      Binding tariff information which does not conform to this Regulation may continue to be invoked in accordance with Article 34(9) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 for a period of three months from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
      Article 3
      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, 30 March 2017.

               For the Commission,

               On behalf of the President,

            Stephen QUEST

               Director-General

               Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union

         (1)  OJ L 269, 10.10.2013, p. 1.

         (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

         ANNEX

                     Description of the goods

                     Classification (CN code)

                     Reasons

                     (1)

                     (2)

                     (3)

                     An article in the form of an empty cylindrical cartridge made of clear plastic approximately 44 mm long and sealed with a removable plastic stopper at the lower end as a protective cap. The upper part of the cartridge is shaped like a mouthpiece and has a small hole through which vapour can be inhaled.
                     The user fills the empty cartridge with a special liquid called ‘e-liquid’ and the cartridge is then inserted into the e-cigarette. The same cartridge can be refilled and reused for smoking between 10 and 20 times before being disposed of as waste.
                     The mouthpiece plays the role of the filter on conventional tobacco cigarettes. When the cartridge is inserted in the e-cigarette, the user places the mouthpiece end in the mouth and inhales. This causes the atomiser in the e-cigarette to convert the liquid into a gentle stream of mist which is then released through the mouthpiece into the user's mouth.
                     See images (*1)

                     8543 90 00

                     Classification is determined by general rules 1 and 6 for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature, note 2(s) to Chapter 39, note 2(b) to Section XVI, and by the wording of CN codes 8543 , and 8543 90 00 .
                     The user would not put an e-cigarette into the mouth without the presence of the mouthpiece and the stream of mist would not be released without activating the atomiser via the mouthpiece. Therefore, the cartridge with the specially shaped upper part is an essential part to the operation of the e-cigarette and not a simple container made of plastics. Classification under heading 3926  as an article of plastics is therefore excluded.
                     According to the Harmonized System Classification Opinion 8543 70/5, a complete e-cigarette is to be classified as another electrical machine or apparatus under subheading 8543 70 .
                     Consequently, the cartridge is to be classified under CN code 8543 90 00  as parts of electrical machines and apparatus, having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in that chapter.

            (*1)  The images are purely for information.


title: Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2013 of 22 April 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the People’s Republic of China following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009

text:
               24.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 112/1

         COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 372/2013
   of 22 April 2013
   amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the People’s Republic of China following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009
   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(4) and Article 11(3), (5) and (6) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,
   Whereas:
   A.   PROCEDURE

   1.   Previous investigations and existing anti-dumping measures

               (1)

               In July 2005, by Regulation (EC) No 1174/2005 (2), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the PRC’). The measures consisted of an ad valorem anti-dumping duty ranging between 7,6 % and 46,7 %.

               (2)

               In July 2008, by Regulation (EC) No 684/2008 (3), the Council, following a product scope interim review, clarified the product scope of the original investigation.

               (3)

               In June 2009, by Regulation (EC) No 499/2009 (4), the Council, following an anti-circumvention investigation, extended the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to ‘all other companies’ imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1174/2005 to hand pallet trucks and their essential parts consigned from Thailand whether declared as originating in Thailand or not.

               (4)

               In October 2011, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011 (5), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the PRC following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. The extended duty as mentioned in recital 3 above was also maintained by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011.

         2.   Initiation of a partial interim review

               (5)

               During the expiry review the European Commission (‘Commission’) noticed a change in the competition landscape on the Union market as of the imposition of the measures. Indeed, the Chinese exporting producer with the lowest duty rate — who was granted market economy treatment (‘MET’) in the original investigation — was able to virtually take over a very big part of the Union market and increased significantly its share of imports in the Union. The Commission also had doubts with regard to the original MET determination in view of prima facie evidence of distortions on the steel market in the PRC. In this context, the circumstances on the basis of which the existing measures were established were considered to have changed and those changes seemed to be of a lasting nature.

               (6)

               Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed to justify the initiation of a partial interim review, the Commission announced by a notice published on 14 February 2012 in the Official Journal of the European Union
                   (6) (‘the Notice of initiation’), the ex-officio 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 Chinese exporting producers.

         3.   Review investigation period

               (7)

               The investigation of the level of dumping covered the period from 1 January to 31 December 2011 (‘the review investigation period’ or ‘the RIP’).

         4.   Parties concerned

               (8)

               The Commission officially advised exporting producers, unrelated importers known to be concerned, the authorities of the PRC and the Union industry of the initiation of the partial interim review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the Notice of initiation.

               (9)

               All interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.

               (10)

               In view of the potentially large number of exporting producers and unrelated importers, it was considered appropriate, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, to examine whether sampling should be used. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the above parties were requested, pursuant to Article 17 of the basic Regulation, to make themselves known within 15 days of the initiation of the review and to provide the Commission with information requested in the Notice of initiation. Two exporting producers and eight unrelated importers came forward to cooperate. Sampling was therefore not necessary for both exporting producers and unrelated importers.

               (11)

               The Commission sent questionnaires and MET claim forms to all parties known to be concerned and to those who made themselves known within the deadlines set in the Notice of initiation. Replies were received from one Chinese exporting producer, Zhejiang Noblelift Equipment Joint Stock Co. Ltd (‘Noblelift’), and from three unrelated importers.

               (12)

               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 Noblelift in Changxing, PRC.

               (13)

               In light of the need to establish a normal value for the exporting producer in the PRC to which MET was not granted, a verification at the premises of the following producer in Brazil, which was used as an analogue country, took place:

                           —

                           Paletrans Equipamentos Ltda, Cravinhos, São Paulo (‘Paletrans’).

         B.   PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

   1.   Product concerned

               (14)

               The product concerned by this review is the same as the one in the original investigation and clarified by the product scope interim review, namely hand pallet trucks and their essential parts, i.e. chassis and hydraulics, originating in the PRC, currently falling within CN codes ex 8427 90 00 and ex 8431 20 00. For the purpose of this Regulation, hand pallet trucks are trucks with wheels supporting lifting fork arms for handling pallets, designed to be manually pushed, pulled and steered, on smooth, level, hard surfaces, by a pedestrian operator using an articulated tiller. The hand pallet trucks are only designed to raise a load, by pumping the tiller, to a height sufficient for transporting and do not have any other additional functions or uses such as for example: (i) to move and to lift the loads in order to place them higher or assist in storage of loads (highlifters); (ii) to stack one pallet above the other (stackers); (iii) to lift the load to a working level (scissorlifts); or (iv) to lift and to weigh the loads (weighing trucks).

         2.   Like product

               (15)

               The investigation confirmed that the product concerned and the product manufactured and sold on the domestic market in the PRC, the product manufactured and sold in the analogue country, Brazil, and the product manufactured and sold in the Union by the Union producers have the same basic physical and technical characteristics as well as the same uses.

               (16)

               Those products are therefore considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

         C.   DUMPING

   (a)   Market economy treatment (‘MET’)

               (17)

               Pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in the PRC normal value is determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of that Article for those producers which were found to meet the criteria laid down in point (c) of Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, i.e. where it is shown that market economy conditions prevail in respect of the manufacture and sale of the like product. For ease of reference only, these criteria are set out in a summarised form as follows:

                           —

                           business decisions and costs are made in response to market signals and without significant State interference; and costs of major inputs substantially reflect market values,

                           —

                           firms have one clear set of basic accounting records which are independently audited in line with international accounting standards and are applied for all purposes,

                           —

                           there are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system,

                           —

                           bankruptcy and property laws guarantee legal certainty and stability,

                           —

                           exchange rate conversions are carried out at market rates.

               (18)

               Noblelift, requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation and replied to the MET claim form within the deadlines given.

               (19)

               The Commission sought all information deemed necessary and verified all information submitted in the MET application at the premises of the company in question.

               (20)

               The investigation established that the prices paid by Noblelift in the RIP for Chinese hot-rolled carbon steel, a main raw material accounting for about 25 % of the cost of a finished product, were significantly distorted as they stood approximately between 24 % and 31 % below international prices over the same period. The international prices were based on statistics for the Union and North American markets from the Steel Business Briefing
                   (7) as well as from Comext import prices. On that basis it was found that Chinese steel prices clearly did not reflect market values. Moreover, there is an established practice of State interference in the market of raw materials. The China 12th five-year plan (2011-15) for the Iron and Steel sector contains a series of measures which demonstrate that steel companies have no possibility other than to act in line with the Chinese Government instructions due to the firm control the Chinese State has. It is thus concluded that Noblelift does not fulfil the requirements of the first criterion of MET.

               (21)

               Furthermore, in the financial year 2010, a related company gave Noblelift a bank guarantee for two loans representing a significant proportion of that related company’s and Noblelift’s total assets. The guarantees were disclosed neither in Noblelift’s financial statements nor in the related company’s accounts. This is not in line with IAS 24 (Related Party Disclosures) and the auditor had no reservation on this practice. The disclosure of related party transactions in the financial statements is important because it draws attention to possible effects on the financial position of a company. In this case, the non-disclosure of significant commitments such as the guarantees in question does not allow a proper assessment of the company’s operations and in particular the risks and opportunities the company is facing. Therefore, it is considered that the company’s accounting records have not been properly audited in line with international accounting standards and, thus, it does not fulfil the requirements of the second criterion.

               (22)

               Finally, Noblelift received State benefits in the form of preferential income tax as well as grants which distort its financial situation and, thus, it does not fulfil the requirements of the third criterion.

               (23)

               The exporting producer concerned and the Union industry were given an opportunity to comment on the above findings.

               (24)

               Following the disclosure of the MET findings, Noblelift requested more details with regard to the calculation of the international market price for steel. The company argued that distortions in raw material prices should be dealt with by adjusting the normal value in the dumping calculation rather than by denying MET. However, Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation is very clear and requires that ‘costs of major inputs substantially reflect market values’. Hence, any adjustment in the dumping calculations in order to address the distorted input costs would render Article 2(7)(c) largely meaningless. The comments could therefore not alter the above findings.

               (25)

               Following the disclosure of the final findings, Noblelift reiterated its arguments. It stated firstly that the Commission failed to disclose the details, i.e. all the data used for the calculation of differences in raw material prices.

               (26)

               In this respect, it is noted first and foremost that the sources of data for the comparisons of steel prices have been indicated by the Commission on several occasions. The Commission repeated the explanations provided earlier in the proceeding that the prices based on the Steel Business Briefing were copyright protected as the service is available on subscription. Consequently, the Commission is legally prevented from publicly disclosing those data directly but the database is otherwise available and can be accessed with payment of the appropriate fee. Nevertheless, in order to ensure a balance between the protection of intellectual property rights and the protection of the rights of defence, the data used was verified by the Hearing Officer of the Directorate-General for External Trade, who confirmed the calculation of the price difference and communicated the result of his verification to Noblelift.

               (27)

               It is further noted that the Steel Business Briefing describes exactly the methodology used (dimensions, thickness, width, point in transport). Those parameters are general and are a guide which is also indicative of the level of detail in price comparisons of raw materials which aim at establishing whether costs of major inputs substantially reflect market values. The Commission has used European and North American prices as reference.

               (28)

               Noblelift further claimed that in the original investigation, differences between domestic steel prices in the PRC and international steel prices were not considered as a factor preventing the company from meeting the first MET criterion. As stated in recital 22 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 128/2005 (8) of 27 January 2005 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty in the framework of the original investigation, ‘For all four companies, it was established (…) that costs and prices reflected market values’. Indeed, the original investigation did not establish a substantial price difference between raw materials procured locally in the PRC and those purchased at international prices. However, this conclusion cannot prevent the institutions from finding a price difference in a later investigation should the circumstances be different and there is a price difference. As indicated in recital 76 below the circumstances have significantly changed since 2004 (time of the original investigation) and 2011 (the IP of the review at hand), i.e. in a period of seven years. In this regard, and in particular during the expiry review investigation in 2010, prima facie evidence of price distortions in the steel market in the PRC, due to State interference, were collected. This also constituted one of the reasons which led to the ex-officio initiation of the current review and indeed was confirmed in the current investigation (see recital 20 above).

               (29)

               Next, Noblelift reiterated its comments concerning the non-material impact of loan guarantees or the negligible impact of state benefits. In this respect, it is noted that Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation is clear and does not refer to material impact on financial results (‘firms have one set of basic accounting records which are independently audited in line with international accounting standards and are applied for all purposes’). In any case, as stated above in recital 21, the non-disclosure of significant commitments such as the loan guarantees in question does not allow a proper assessment of the company’s operations and in particular the risks and opportunities the company is facing. As far as state benefits are concerned, the Commission has already replied to the party in the course of the investigation that those benefits represented amounts exceeding 10 million RMB. The claims could thus not be accepted.

               (30)

               Finally, Noblelift argued that the investigation should have been terminated due to violation of the three-month deadline for the MET determination as specified in Article 2(7)(c) the basic Regulation. In this respect, reference is made to an amendment introduced by Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (9) and the retroactive effects thereof. Further, it is noted that the MET determination was made more than three months after the beginning of the investigation due to the procedural aspects and time constraints of the investigation. Indeed, the increased complexity of issues raised in the context of MET assessments has shown that the three-month deadline was virtually impossible to adhere to. It is noted however that the timing of the determination did not have an impact on the outcome.

               (31)

               Consequently, it is concluded that the comments suggesting that MET should be granted are not justified.

               (32)

               In view of the above and pursuant to Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, it is determined not to grant MET to Noblelift.

         (b)   Normal value

               (33)

               According to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, for non-market economy countries and, to the extent that MET could not be granted, for countries in transition, normal value has to be established on the basis of the price or constructed value in an analogue country.

               (34)

               In the original investigation, Canada served as an analogue country for the purposes of establishing a normal value. Given that production in Canada had ceased, Brazil was envisaged as an analogue country in the Notice of initiation of the present review.

               (35)

               Two exporting producers and an importer objected to the proposal to use Brazil as an analogue country. The arguments against the choice of Brazil were that there was a low degree of competition on the Brazilian market for hand pallet trucks due to the very small number of domestic producers and, thus, sales prices, profits as well as production costs in Brazil are inflated. The exporting producers in question suggested India, Malaysia or Taiwan as appropriate analogue countries.

               (36)

               Following those comments, the Commission contacted 38 Indian, 3 Taiwanese, 2 Malaysian and 2 Brazilian known producers of hand pallet trucks by sending them the relevant questionnaire. Cooperation could be obtained from only one producer in Brazil: Paletrans.

               (37)

               Following the disclosure of the final findings and the Commission’s proposal, parties reiterated their comments that Brazil was not an appropriate choice of analogue country due to the lack of competition on the Brazilian market. Parties alleged that the cooperating analogue country producer enjoyed a monopolistic position on the Brazilian market reinforced by high import duties. Other comments related to deficiencies in the non-confidential questionnaire reply of the analogue country producer. Finally, it was claimed that adjustments should be made to account for differences between the analogue country producer and the exporting producer in the country concerned.

               (38)

               As concerns the suitability of Brazil as an analogue country, it has to be pointed out that while the analogue country producer is the main producer on the Brazilian market, it does not monopolise that market. There is competition with at least two local producers and a significant level of imports, and the profit margin of the analogue country producer has been found to be consistent with an open market.

               (39)

               As stated in recital 36 above, following comments at the early stage of the proceeding against the use of Brazil as an analogue country, the Commission contacted 45 producers in four different countries, including the companies suggested by Noblelift. Despite repeated contacts by telephone and e-mail with these companies, only one producer from Brazil submitted the requested information and cooperated with the investigation.

               (40)

               With regard to the alleged deficiencies it has to be noted that only one producer in the analogue country cooperated with the investigation. Such a situation is not uncommon, but poses difficulties with regard to the disclosure of data. Given frequent difficulties in obtaining cooperation from analogue country producers, the Commission has to guarantee a high level of protection of confidential information. In the current case, the presentation of non-confidential data created some misunderstandings concerning alleged deficiencies but they were clarified with the parties. In particular, one party claimed that deficiencies in the reply of the analogue country producer should disqualify Brazil as an analogue country and the investigation should be terminated since the Commission cannot establish the normal value. In this respect it is noted that in the current investigation the Commission did have all the necessary information to perform a dumping calculation.

               (41)

               Consequently, the claims concerning the suitability of Brazil as an analogue country could not be accepted.

               (42)

               With regard to the claims for adjustments, it is noted that the level of trade differences between the Brazilian producer and the Chinese exporting producer has been accounted for by means of a level of trade adjustment (see recital 59 below).

               (43)

               Finally, one party claimed that an adjustment should be made to account for an allegedly distorting effect of the 14 % import duty in the analogue country. This claim cannot be accepted as no link can be established between an import duty as such and the price level on the domestic market.

               (44)

               Consequently, Brazil is considered an appropriate analogue country since there is sufficient competition with at least two producers and a significant level of imports.

               (45)

               In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission first examined whether Paletrans’ domestic sales of the like product to independent customers were representative. In this respect, it was found that the total volume of such sales was equal to at least 5 % of the total volume of Noblelift’s export sales to the Union.

               (46)

               The Commission subsequently examined whether there are types of the like product sold domestically by Paletrans that were sufficiently comparable in terms of functions and materials used to the types sold by Noblelift for export to the Union. The investigation established that a number of types sold domestically by Paletrans were sufficiently comparable with the types exported by Noblelift to the Union.

               (47)

               The Commission subsequently examined for the analogue country producer whether each comparable type of the like product sold domestically could be considered as being sold in the ordinary course of trade. This was done by establishing for each product type the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers on the domestic market during the RIP.

               (48)

               Where the sales volume of a 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 that type, and where the weighted average sales price of that type was equal to or higher than the cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price. This was the case for all comparable types and the normal value was calculated as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of each comparable type made during the RIP.

               (49)

               For non-comparable types the normal value could be constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation by adding to the manufacturing cost, adjusted where necessary, a reasonable percentage for domestic selling, general and administrative expenses and a reasonable margin for domestic profit. The selling, general and administrative expenses and the profit were based on actual data pertaining to production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like product, by the producer in the analogue country. It should be noted that the price constructed on that basis was subject to the adjustments described in recital 59, in particular to take account of the difference in level of trade between export sales by Noblelift and the domestic sales of the analogue country producer.

               (50)

               The sole cooperating exporting producer claimed that the Commission performed dumping calculations on the basis of ‘truncated PCNs’ and that no explanations were provided concerning the parameters used for conducting the comparison.

               (51)

               According to Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation the dumping margin is normally established on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value with a weighted average of prices of all export transactions subject to the relevant provisions governing fair comparison.

               (52)

               With regard to the fair comparison, it has to be noted that the product control number is a tool used in the investigation in order to structure and organise the substantial amounts of very detailed data submitted by the companies. It is an aid to conduct a more detailed analysis of different product characteristics within the category of the product concerned and the like product.

               (53)

               The Commission has collected information in relation to a number of parameters (chassis material, chassis painted, lift capacity, type of hydraulic system, working length, fork, width over forks, steering wheel material, load wheel material, load wheel type, brake type) but in order to take into consideration all export transactions it was considered reasonable and it was found possible to base the comparison in this case on certain of those parameters that constitute the most pertinent characteristics (chassis material, chassis painted, steering wheel material, load wheel material, load wheel type).

               (54)

               Therefore, the comparison was based on the most pertinent characteristics in order to increase the matching and to ensure a fair comparison. It has to be stressed that the Commission did not disregard any information. However, it is not uncommon that certain parameters used in the product control number have a lesser weight and that specific parameters more than others form a better basis for fair comparison. No products have been disregarded from the comparison on the basis of physical differences or for any other reasons, nor have any new product types been created. On the contrary, all sales were included in the comparison. While it was acknowledged that other parameters had some impact on prices, it was found more appropriate that the calculations should be based on the five most relevant parameters as this led to the highest level of matching.

               (55)

               As far as procedural aspects of the comparison are concerned, it has to be noted that the exporting producer was provided with full opportunity to comment on the calculations performed in this case. Full details of the calculations have been disclosed and redisclosed.

               (56)

               Consequently, the foregoing claims had to be rejected.

         (c)   Export price

               (57)

               All export sales to the Union of the Chinese exporting producer were made directly to independent customers in the Union. Therefore, the export price was established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

               (58)

               One party claimed that the export sales of chassis and hydraulics should have been included in the calculation. That claim has been accepted.

         (d)   Comparison

               (59)

               The comparison between the weighted average normal value and the weighted average export price was made on an ex-works basis and at the same level of trade. In order to ensure a fair comparison between normal value and the export price, account was taken, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, of differences in factors which affected prices and price comparability. For this purpose, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made, where applicable and justified, for differences in level of trade (estimated price difference for sales to different type of customers in the domestic market of the analogue country), transport (comprising inland freight cost in the exporting country and ocean freight for transportation to the Union), insurance (ocean insurance cost), handling, loading and ancillary costs, commissions (paid for export sales), bank charges (paid for export sales), credit costs (based on the agreed payment terms and the prevailing interest rate) and packing costs (cost of packing materials used).

               (60)

               Following a claim from the sole cooperating exporting producer, an adjustment for the differences in thickness of steel used by the producer in the analogue country and the exporting producer in the country concerned was made to the normal value, as it was found reasonable. The adjustment was based on the difference in thickness in proportion to the contribution of steel to the price of the like product sold in Brazil by the analogue country producer. This led to a change in the dumping margin (see recital 73 below). Following an additional disclosure (inviting comments on the steel thickness adjustment), one party contested that adjustment as lacking factual basis. It also pointed out that the exporting producer’s non-confidential submissions seeking the adjustment were deficient thereby violating other parties’ rights of defence. The Commission verified the data on file on which the steel thickness adjustment was based and confirmed that it was warranted.

               (61)

               The sole cooperating exporter presented claims for several other adjustments due to differences in efficiency and productivity, claiming, inter alia, that the producer in the analogue country was less productive (has a lower output per worker) and had higher consumption of raw materials per unit.

               (62)

               It has to be noted at the outset that while differences in efficiency or productivity might exist between companies, the guiding principle is to ensure comparability between export prices and normal value, which does not require that the circumstances of an analogue country producer and an exporting producer in a non-market economy country are completely aligned. Indeed, only differences for factors affecting prices and price comparability between an analogue country producer and an exporting producer in a non-market economy country warrant an adjustment.

               (63)

               Nevertheless, it has to be pointed out that the investigation did not reveal any circumstances which would suggest that the producer in the analogue country did not have a reasonably efficient production process.

               (64)

               As far as cost factors are concerned (e.g. productivity), those should not be picked and assessed individually. Rather, a comprehensive analysis would be needed to assess whether advantages in relation to one cost factor (e.g. productivity) are possibly compensated by disadvantages in others. Indeed, a lower use of labour is often the result of a higher level of automation, which in turn leads to higher costs in other areas (depreciation, capital, financing, manufacturing overheads). Only a comprehensive analysis could reveal all differences in cost factors and demonstrate whether prices and price comparability are affected, thereby justifying an adjustment. The claims cannot therefore be accepted.

               (65)

               In addition to the foregoing, the claims for adjustment for a per-unit energy difference and for a per-unit depreciation and manufacturing overheads difference were unsubstantiated. In particular, in relation to energy efficiency it was not explained what elements in the production process make the Brazilian producer inefficient as compared to the sole cooperating exporting producer. The amount of the adjustment was based on a ratio of labour cost difference per unit (based on productivity difference) related to the share of labour cost in total cost. The link between such ratio and energy efficiency and depreciation and manufacturing overheads difference had not been explained and was not understandable. The claims are thus rejected.

               (66)

               One party also claimed that adjustments should be made for parameters, inter alia, such as lift capacity and fork. In this respect, reference is made to comments concerning the parameters of comparison (see recital 50 above) where it is noted that a comparison is based on the most relevant parameters to ensure the highest level of matching. In any case the claims were not substantiated.

               (67)

               Another claim was that adjustment should be made due to the fact that the exporting producer uses patented technology. This claim has not been further substantiated. Notably, the exporting producer failed to quantify the adjustment. The only piece of information provided was a document which was stated to be the patent. In a later submission the adjustment was partially quantified but without any supporting evidence. Therefore, the claim could not be accepted.

               (68)

               Furthermore, the claim for adjustment for difference in efficiency in use of raw materials has been covered by the adjustment for thickness of steel (see recital 60 above), as the use of different steel thickness might lead to a lower overall consumption of steel.

               (69)

               Finally, the exporting producer stated that it sold via a sales channel, in particular non-branded products on an OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) basis, different from that of the producer in the analogue country. Accordingly, a claim for an adjustment reflecting this difference was put forward. As specified above (recital 59), a level of trade adjustment was made. It was based on an estimated price difference for sales to different types of customers, including OEM sales, in the domestic market of the analogue country. For confidentiality reasons the extent of this adjustment could not be disclosed as it would reveal the normal value based on data of the sole analogue country producer. It was therefore concluded that the differences for which the adjustment was claimed have already been accounted for.

               (70)

               Nevertheless, it has to be pointed out that the exporting producer failed to quantify the adjustment claimed. It stated merely that a 40 % adjustment had been granted in another proceeding. An adjustment granted in another proceeding (hence specific to the particular circumstances of another proceeding) cannot serve as such as a benchmark for quantifying an adjustment in the current case.

               (71)

               Following the additional disclosure (inviting comments on the steel thickness adjustment), the exporting producer presented additional claims for adjustments (unrelated to the steel thickness adjustment): adjustment for coating, handle, and steel prices in Brazil.

               (72)

               It is noted first and foremost that the claims were submitted after the deadline for comments and were thus formally inadmissible. In any case the claims were either not quantified or not substantiated. The company neither provided evidence for its claims nor did it explain how the extent of different adjustments had been or should be calculated.

         (e)   Dumping margin

               (73)

               As provided for under Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the weighted average normal value by type was compared with the weighted average export price of the product concerned. The dumping margin, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, is 70,8 %.

               (74)

               As regards the dumping margins for all exporting producers in the original investigation other than Noblelift, they ranged from 28,5 % to 46,7 %. Given that in the current review only Noblelift cooperated and that the cooperation could be considered high since the vast majority of Chinese exports were those of Noblelift, the Commission revised the country-wide dumping margin for all other exporters as well. Consequently, the residual dumping margin should be set at the same level as that of Noblelift, i.e. 70,8 %.

               (75)

               One party claimed that the country-wide duty should not be set at the level of the sole cooperating exporting producer’s dumping margin as there is no evidence that the vast majority of imports were those of that sole cooperating exporter. In this respect, it has been confirmed that according to statistical data the vast majority of imports from the PRC were those of the sole cooperating exporting producer. The claim has been therefore rejected.

         D.   LASTING NATURE OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES

               (76)

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

               (77)

               In this regard the original investigation did not establish a substantial price difference between prices of raw materials procured locally in the PRC by the Chinese exporting producers (including Noblelift) and those at international markets. The circumstances have significantly changed between 2004 (time of the original investigation) and 2011 (the RIP) where the price of hot-rolled steel, the main raw material, stood between 24 % and 31 % below international prices. They did not reflect market values as a result of price distortions in the steel market in the PRC (see recital 20 above). Indeed, the Chinese steel market changed significantly within these seven years and the PRC has shifted in the meantime from a net steel importing country to a sizeable steel producer and exporter worldwide, which fact could reasonably be considered to be of a lasting nature.

               (78)

               In addition, Chinese high-tech enterprises including Noblelift are receiving State benefits in the form of preferential income tax (15 %) since 2008. In the investigation period of the original investigation, the companies were subject to the standard rate of 25 %. This changed circumstance could also reasonably be considered to be of a lasting nature.

               (79)

               It was therefore considered that the circumstances that led to the initiation of this interim review are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future in a manner that would affect the findings of the interim review. Therefore it was concluded that the changed circumstances are of a lasting nature and that the application of the measure at its current level is no longer justified.

         E.   ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

               (80)

               In light of the results of this review investigation and since the new dumping margin of 70,8 % is lower than the injury elimination level established in the original investigation (see recitals 120 to 123 of Regulation (EC) No 128/2005), it is considered appropriate to amend the anti-dumping duty applicable to imports of the product concerned both from Noblelift and from all other exporting producers to 70,8 %.

               (81)

               One party claimed that the newly established dumping margin should not have been compared with the injury elimination level established in the original investigation. Rather, an injury elimination level should be established in every investigation, even in a partial review limited to dumping. According to that party, the current practice whereby injury is not assessed, constitutes a breach of the lesser duty rule. The party also claimed that a full interim review should have been opened.

               (82)

               In this respect it is noted that since the Commission initiated a partial interim review limited to dumping, injury could not be reassessed in this framework. According to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation the continued imposition of measures may be reviewed, where warranted, on the initiative of the Commission. Hence, there is no obligation for the Commission to initiate an ex-officio interim review covering both dumping and injury, and in any event it should be warranted. In this case, the information and evidence at the Commission’s disposal was sufficient for the initiation of an interim review limited to dumping. Moreover, if injury is always to be assessed in interim reviews the possibility of having a partial interim review limited to dumping as provided for in Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation would be devoid of meaning. The claim has therefore to be rejected. Nevertheless it is recalled that the interested party in question has the possibility to request a partial review of injury pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.

               (83)

               The lesser duty rule has been fully respected and the newly established dumping margin was indeed compared with the injury elimination level established in the original investigation (the latest injury finding).

               (84)

               One party claimed that a minimum import price would be better suited in the current case. Alternatively, a fixed duty should be imposed.

               (85)

               In this respect it is noted that neither the minimum import price nor the fixed duty are suitable for products which exist in a multitude of individual types with varying prices, which are also subject to continuous changes and upgrades. A multitude of duty levels would be very difficult to administer. An additional limitation of the current case is that the minimum import price would have to be based on the normal value (since the duty is based on dumping), which is based on confidential data of one company in an analogue country market. The claims are thus rejected.

               (86)

               The exporting producer expressed interest in an undertaking within the statutory deadlines. However, no formal offer was submitted and thus the Commission was not in a position to consider it further.

               (87)

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

               (88)

               The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were considered.

               (89)

               It is noted that pursuant to Article 1(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011, the 70,8 % anti-dumping duty imposed to ‘all other companies’ by this Regulation applies to hand pallet trucks and their essential parts, as defined in Article 1(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011, consigned from Thailand whether declared as originating in Thailand or not,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011, is replaced by the following:

      ‘2.   The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, for the products described in paragraph 1 and produced by the companies listed bellow shall be as follows:

                  Company

                  Rate of duty
                  (%)

                  TARIC additional code

                  Zhejiang Noblelift Equipment Joint Stock Co. Ltd, 58, Jing Yi Road, Economy Development Zone, Changxing, Zhejiang Province, 313100, PRC

                  70,8

                  A603

                  All other companies

                  70,8

                  A999’

   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following 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 April 2013.

            For the Council

            The President

         S. COVENEY

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

      (2)  OJ L 189, 21.7.2005, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 192, 19.7.2008, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ L 151, 16.6.2009, p. 1.

      (5)  OJ L 268, 13.10.2011, p. 1.

      (6)  OJ C 41, 14.2.2012, p. 14.

      (7)  http://www.steelbb.com/steelprices/

      (8)  OJ L 25, 28.1.2005, p. 16.

      (9)  OJ L 344, 14.12.2012, p. 1.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 900/2011 of 7 September 2011 concerning the authorisation of lasalocid A sodium as a feed additive for pheasants, guinea fowl, quails and partridges other than laying birds (holder of authorisation Alpharma (Belgium) BVBA)  Text with EEA relevance

text:
               8.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 231/15

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 900/2011
   of 7 September 2011
   concerning the authorisation of lasalocid A sodium as a feed additive for pheasants, guinea fowl, quails and partridges other than laying birds (holder of authorisation Alpharma (Belgium) BVBA)
   (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 9(2) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.

               (2)

               In accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of lasalocid A sodium, CAS number 25999-20-6. The application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required pursuant to Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

               (3)

               The application concerns the authorisation of lasalocid A sodium, CAS number 25999-20-6, as a feed additive for pheasants, guinea fowl, quails and partridges other than laying birds, to be classified in the additive category ‘coccidiostats and histomonostats’.

               (4)

               The use of that preparation was authorised for 10 years for chickens for fattening and for chickens reared for laying up to 16 weeks by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1455/2004 (2), and for turkeys up to 16 weeks by Commission Regulation (EU) No 874/2010 (3).

               (5)

               New data were submitted in support of the application for authorisation of lasalocid A sodium, CAS number 25999-20-6, for pheasants, guinea fowl, quails and partridges other than laying birds. The European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) concluded in its opinion of 16 March 2011 (4) that, under the proposed conditions of use, lasalocid A sodium, CAS number 25999-20-6, does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment and that it is efficacious to control coccidiosis in the target species. It considers that there is a need for specific requirements of a post-market monitoring program on the resistance to bacteria and Eimeria spp. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

               (6)

               The assessment of lasalocid A sodium, CAS number 25999-20-6, shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.

               (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
   The preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category ‘coccdiostats and histomonostats’ is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following 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, 7 September 2011.

            For the Commission

            The President

         José Manuel BARROSO

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

      (2)  OJ L 269, 17.8.2004, p. 14.

      (3)  OJ L 263, 6.10.2010, p. 1.

      (4)  The EFSA Journal 2011; 9(4):2116.

      ANNEX

                  Identification number of the additive

                  Name of the holder of authorisation

                  Additive

                  Composition, chemical formula, description, analytical method

                  Species or category of animal

                  Maximum age

                  Minimum content

                  Maximum content

                  Other provisions

                  End of period of authorisation

                  Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) in the relevant foodstuffs of animal origin

                  mg/kg of complete feedingstuff with a moisture content of 12 %

                     Category of coccidiostats and histomonostats

                  5 1 763

                  Alpharma (Belgium) BVBA

                  Lasalocid A sodium
                  15 g/100 g
                  (Avatec 150 G)

                                 Additive composition:

                                          Lasalocid A sodium: 15 g/100 g

                                          Calcium sulphate dihydrate: 80,9 g/100 g

                                          Calcium lignosulphonate: 4 g/100 g

                                          Ferric oxide: 0,1 g/100 g

                                 Active substance:

                              Lasalocid A sodium,
                              C34H53NaO8,
                              CAS number: 25999-20-6,
                              sodium salt of 6-[(3R, 4S, 5S, 7R)-7-[(2S, 3S, 5S)-5-ethyl-5-[(2R, 5R, 6S)-5-ethyl—5-hydroxy-6-methyltetrahydro-2H-pyran2-yl]-tetrahydro-3-methyl-2-furyl]-4-hydroxy-3,5-dimethyl-6-oxononyl]-2 hydroxy-3-methyl benzoate, produced by Streptomyces lasaliensis subsp. Lasaliensis (ATCC 31180)
                              Related impurities:
                              Lasalocid sodium B-E: ≤ 10 %

                                 Analytical methods
                                  (1):
                              Reversed-phase high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with spectrofluorometric detector (Commission Regulation (EC) No 152/2009) (2)

                  Pheasants, guinea fowl, quails and partridges except laying birds thereof.

                  —

                  75

                  125

                              1.

                              Use prohibited at least 5 days before slaughter.

                              2.

                              Indicate in the instructions for use:
                              ‘Dangerous for equine species’
                              ‘This feedingstuff contains an ionophore: simultaneous use with certain medicinal substances can be contra-indicated’.

                              3.

                              A post-market monitoring program on the resistance to bacteria and Eimeria spp. shall be planned and executed by the holder of authorisation.

                              4.

                              The additive shall be incorporated in compound feed in the form of a premixture.

                              5.

                              Lasalocid A sodium shall not be mixed with other coccidiostats.

                  28 September 2021

                  Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 (3)

         (1)  Details of the analytical methods are available at the following address of the Community Reference Laboratory: http://irmm.jrc.ec.europa.eu/EURLs/EURL_feed_additives/Pages/index.aspx

         (2)  OJ L 54, 26.2.2009, p. 1.

         (3)  OJ L 15, 20.1.2010, p. 1.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1062/2011 of 20 October 2011 fixing the rates of the refunds applicable to eggs and egg yolks exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty

text:
               21.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 276/44

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1062/2011
   of 20 October 2011
   fixing the rates of the refunds applicable to eggs and egg yolks exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty
   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 market and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Article 162(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices in international trade for the products referred to in Article 1(1)(s) and listed in Part XIX of Annex I to that Regulation and prices within the Union may be covered by an export refund where these goods are exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to that Regulation.

               (2)

               Commission Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 of 29 June 2010 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 as regards the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (2), specifies the products for which a rate of refund is to be fixed, to be applied where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.

               (3)

               In accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) No 578/2010, the rate of the refund per 100 kilograms for each of the basic products in question is to be fixed for a period of the same duration as that for which refunds are fixed for the same products exported unprocessed.

               (4)

               Article 162(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that the export refund for a product contained in a good may not exceed the refund applicable to that product when exported without further processing.

               (5)

               The currently applicable refunds have been fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 714/2011 (3). Since new refunds should be fixed, that Regulation should therefore be repealed.

               (6)

               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
   The rates of the refunds applicable to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 and in Part XIX of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, and exported in the form of goods listed in Part V of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, shall be fixed as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
   Article 2
   Implementing Regulation (EU) No 714/2011 is hereby repealed.
   Article 3
   This Regulation shall enter into force on 21 October 2011.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 20 October 2011.

            For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

         Heinz ZOUREK

            Director-General for Enterprise and Industry

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

      (2)  OJ L 171, 6.7.2010, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 190, 21.7.2011, p. 70.

      ANNEX

         Rates of the refunds applicable from 21 October 2011 to eggs and egg yolks exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty

                  (EUR/100 kg)

                  CN code

                  Description

                  Destination (1)

                  Rate of refund

                  0407 00

                  Birds' eggs, in shell, fresh, preserved or cooked:

                  – Of poultry:

                  0407 00 30

                  – – Other:

                              (a)

                              On exportation of ovalbumin of CN codes 3502 11 90 and 3502 19 90

                  02

                  0,00

                  03

                  19,00

                  04

                  0,00

                              (b)

                              On exportation of other goods

                  01

                  0,00

                  0408

                  Birds' eggs, not in shell and egg yolks, fresh, dried, cooked by steaming or by boiling in water, moulded, frozen or otherwise preserved, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter:

                  – Egg yolks:

                  0408 11

                  – – Dried:

                  ex 0408 11 80

                  – – – Suitable for human consumption:

                  not sweetened

                  01

                  63,00

                  0408 19

                  – – Other:

                  – – – Suitable for human consumption:

                  ex 0408 19 81

                  – – – – Liquid:

                  not sweetened

                  01

                  20,00

                  ex 0408 19 89

                  – – – – Frozen:

                  not sweetened

                  01

                  20,00

                  – Other:

                  0408 91

                  – – Dried:

                  ex 0408 91 80

                  – – – Suitable for human consumption:

                  not sweetened

                  01

                  23,50

                  0408 99

                  – – Other:

                  ex 0408 99 80

                  – – – Suitable for human consumption:

                  not sweetened

                  01

                  5,90

         (1)  The destinations are as follows:

                  01

                  Third countries. For Switzerland and Liechtenstein these rates are not applicable to the goods listed in Tables I and II to Protocol No 2 to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation of 22 July 1972,

                  02

                  Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Turkey, Hong Kong SAR and Russia,

                  03

                  South Korea, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand, Taiwan and the Philippines,

                  04

                  all destinations except Switzerland and those of 02 and 03.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1746 of 30 September 2015 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 750/2014 by extending the period of application of the protection measures in relation to porcine epidemic diarrhoea (Text with EEA relevance)

text:
               1.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 256/5

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/1746
   of 30 September 2015
   amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 750/2014 by extending the period of application of the protection measures in relation to porcine epidemic diarrhoea
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the organization of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC (1), and in particular Article 18(1) and (7) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 750/2014 (2) was adopted following reports of a novel swine enteric coronavirus disease caused by emerging porcine alphacoronaviruses, including porcine epidemic diarrhoea virus and a new porcine deltacoronavirus in North America. That Implementing Regulation lays down protection measures in relation to the introduction into the Union of consignments of live pigs for breeding and production from the areas in which the disease caused by those viruses is present in order to provide for the fulfilment of the necessary guarantees at the holding of origin and to prevent the introduction of porcine epidemic diarrhoea caused by those viruses into the Union. Those protection measures are to apply until 12 January 2015.

               (2)

               Implementing Regulation (EU) No 750/2014 was amended by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2014 (3) in order to extend its date of application until 31 October 2015 as the epidemiological situation in the third countries affected by novel swine enteric coronavirus disease caused by emerging porcine alphacoronaviruses, including the porcine epidemic diarrhoea virus and the porcine deltacoronavirus, had not changed in terms of the risk of the spread of those porcine entero-coronaviruses since the date of adoption of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 750/2014.

               (3)

               In light of the evolution in the disease situation in the third countries concerned and in the absence of new scientific information, the protection measures established by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 750/2014 should be prolonged until the end of October 2016. The period of application of that Implementing Regulation should therefore be amended accordingly.

               (4)

               The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   In the second paragraph of Article 2 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 750/2014, the date ‘31 October 2015’ is replaced by ‘31 October 2016’.
   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, 30 September 2015.

            For the Commission

            The President

         Jean-Claude JUNCKER

      (1)  OJ L 268, 24.9.1991, p. 56.

      (2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 750/2014 of 10 July 2014 on protection measures in relation to porcine epidemic diarrhoea as regards the animal health requirements for the introduction into the Union of porcine animals (OJ L 203, 11.7.2014, p. 91).

      (3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2014 of 8 December 2014 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 750/2014 by extending the period of application of the protection measures in relation to porcine epidemic diarrhoea (OJ L 351, 9.12.2014, p. 1).


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1405 of 31 July 2017 amending Regulation (EC) No 847/2006 as regards the Union's tariff quotas for certain prepared or preserved fish originating in Thailand

text:
                  1.8.2017

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  L 200/1

            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/1405
      of 31 July 2017
      amending Regulation (EC) No 847/2006 as regards the Union's tariff quotas for certain prepared or preserved fish originating in Thailand
      THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
      Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
      Having regard to Council Decision 2006/324/EC of 27 February 2006 on the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Kingdom of Thailand pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic in the course of their accession to the European Union (1), and in particular Article 2 thereof,
      Whereas:

                  (1)

                  Commission Regulation (EC) No 847/2006 (2) introduced from 2 June 2006 two annual tariff quotas for duty-free imports of certain prepared or preserved fish.

                  (2)

                  In accordance with the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Kingdom of Thailand, attached to Decision 2006/324/EC, a certain volume of each of those tariff quotas was allocated to the Kingdom of Thailand and the remainder was opened to imports from all countries.

                  (3)

                  A country-specific tariff quota is allocated on the basis of the non-preferential origin of the goods. The indication of this non-preferential origin is to be included in the declaration for release for free circulation in the Union. In some cases that declaration must be supported by a proof of origin issued by the competent authorities in the country of origin.

                  (4)

                  In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 847/2006, the benefit of the share of the tariff quotas allocated to Thailand is subject to the presentation of a certificate of origin meeting the conditions laid down in Article 47 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (3).

                  (5)

                  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/481 (4) repealed Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 with effect from 1 May 2016.

                  (6)

                  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 (5), in force since 1 May 2016, no longer contains a procedure for issuing and presenting a certificate of origin comparable to the procedure applied until 30 April 2016 in accordance with Article 47 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.

                  (7)

                  Imports into the Union of prepared and preserved fish originating in Thailand that benefit from the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 847/2006 are subject to the presentation of a Common Veterinary Entry Document (CVED) in accordance with the conditions laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 (6). The procedure for issuing the CVED provides sufficient guarantees as to the origin of the prepared or preserved fish.

                  (8)

                  In addition, customs authorities may require the declarant to prove the origin of the goods in accordance with Article 61 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7). This allows for other means of proof than a formal certificate and ensures that the relevant rules are applied properly.

                  (9)

                  Therefore, the requirement to present a specific certificate of origin in order to benefit from the tariff quotas for the goods concerned originating in Thailand should be deleted from Regulation (EC) No 847/2006.

                  (10)

                  Rules on the management of tariff quotas are laid down in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 replacing from 1 May 2016 the rules in Articles 308a to 308d of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93. Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/2006 should be amended to take account of the new rules.

                  (11)

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

            HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
      Article 1
      Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/2006 are replaced by the following:

         ‘Article 3
         The origin shall be determined in accordance with the provisions in force in the Union.
         Article 4
         The tariff quotas set out in this Regulation shall be managed in accordance with Articles 49 to 54 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 (*1).

      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, 31 July 2017.

               For the Commission

               The President

            Jean-Claude JUNCKER

         (1)  OJ L 120, 5.5.2006, p. 17.

         (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 847/2006 of 8 June 2006 opening and providing for the administration of Community tariff quotas for certain prepared or preserved fish (OJ L 156, 9.6.2006, p. 8).

         (3)  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).

         (4)  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 (OJ L 87, 2.4.2016, p. 24).

         (5)  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).

         (6)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 of 22 January 2004 laying down procedures for veterinary checks at Community border inspection posts on products imported from third countries (OJ L 21, 28.1.2004, p. 11).

         (7)  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).


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/448 of 17 March 2015 establishing specific animal health rules for the introduction into the Union of certain products of animal origin from Japan destined for EXPO Milano 2015  Text with EEA relevance

text:
               18.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 74/24

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/448
   of 17 March 2015
   establishing specific animal health rules for the introduction into the Union of certain products of animal origin from Japan destined for EXPO Milano 2015
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (1), and in particular the third indent of Article 8(5), Article 9(2)(b) and Article 9(4) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Italy will host the universal exhibition named ‘EXPO Milano 2015’ which will take place in Milan from 1 May to 31 October 2015. The central theme of this exhibition is ‘Feeding the planet — Energy for life’.

               (2)

               The authorisation to export products of animal origin to the Union is granted to third countries based on a number of requirements laid down in the Union legislation, which take into account animal and public health concerns. However, not all the products of animal origin from countries taking part in EXPO Milano 2015 are authorised to be introduced into the Union.

               (3)

               Certain derogations to the Union import health requirements were therefore established by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/329 (2) in order to authorise the introduction of certain products of animal origin exclusively for the purpose of their use in EXPO Milano 2015.

               (4)

               Japan is not listed in Annex II to Commission Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 (3) as a third country from which the introduction into the Union of fresh meat of domestic porcine animals is authorised.
               Japan is listed in Part 2 of Annex II to Commission Decision 2007/777/EC (4) as a third country from which the introduction into the Union of certain meat products and treated stomachs, bladders and intestines obtained from domestic porcine animals is authorised, provided that they have undergone the specific treatment ‘B’, as defined in Part 4 of that Annex.

               (5)

               Japan has requested to be authorised to introduce into the Union, exclusively for the purpose of their use in EXPO Milano 2015, fresh meat of domestic porcine animals and certain meat products and treated stomachs, bladders and intestines obtained from domestic porcine animals which have undergone the non-specific treatment ‘A’, as defined in Part 4 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC.

               (6)

               It is considered that those products of animal origin offer sufficient animal health guarantees in relation to their introduction in the Exhibition site of EXPO Milano 2015 as defined by Regulation (EU) 2015/329 for the following reasons. Japan duly reports outbreaks of diseases in animals to the World Organisation for Animal Health. African swine fever has never been reported in Japan, rinderpest has not been reported in Japan since 1922, swine vesicular disease not since 1975, classical swine fever not since 1992 and foot and mouth disease not since 2010. In addition, those products comply with the public health requirements of Japan and are fit for human consumption in Japan. Furthermore, EXPO Milano 2015 is a temporary event and Regulation (EU) 2015/329 provides for strict control measures for the products of animal origin which do not completely fulfil the health import requirements of the Union. That Regulation also ensures that those products are traceable in all stages of transport, storage, delivery and disposal of their remainder or waste and are to be used only for the purposes of the exhibition.

               (7)

               It is therefore appropriate to derogate from Regulation (EU) 2015/329 with respect to the transit and storage requirements provided therein. In this context, a specific animal health import certificate model should be established for the introduction of such products. However, the other requirements set out in that Regulation should apply.

               (8)

               The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   1.   Save where otherwise provided for in this Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2015/329 and emergency measures adopted in accordance with Articles 53 or 54 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) and in force during the period of application of this Regulation shall apply.
   2.   By way of derogation from Article 2(c)(i) and (ii) of Regulation (EU) 2015/329, the following products from Japan shall be accompanied by the veterinary certificate set out in the Annex to this Regulation:

               (a)

               fresh meat of domestic porcine animals;

               (b)

               meat products, treated stomachs, bladders and intestines obtained from domestic porcine animals which have undergone the non-specific treatment A as defined in Part 4 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC;

               (c)

               food containing the products referred to in points (a) and (b).

         Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
   It shall apply from 1 April 2015 to 31 October 2015.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 17 March 2015.

            For the Commission

            The President

         Jean-Claude JUNCKER

      (1)  OJ L 18, 23.1.2003, p. 11.

      (2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/329 of 2 March 2015 derogating from Union provisions on animal and public health as regards the introduction into the European Union of food of animal origin destined to EXPO Milano 2015 in Milan (Italy) (OJ L 58, 3.3.2015, p. 52).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 of 12 March 2010 laying down lists of third countries, territories or parts thereof authorised for the introduction into the European Union of certain animals and fresh meat and the veterinary certification requirements (OJ L 73, 20.3.2010, p. 1).

      (4)  Commission Decision 2007/777/EC of 29 November 2007 laying down the animal and public health conditions and model certificates for imports of certain meat products and treated stomachs, bladders and intestines for human consumption from third countries and repealing Decision 2005/432/EC (OJ L 312, 30.11.2007, p. 49).

      (5)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1).

      ANNEX

         Model Jap POR EXPO Milano 2015