title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1148/2011 of 11 November 2011 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 294/12

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1148/2011
   of 11 November 2011
   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:
   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,
   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 hereto.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on 12 November 2011.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 11 November 2011.

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

            Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

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

      (2)  OJ L 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

                  AL

                  61,2

                  AR

                  40,4

                  MA

                  77,7

                  TR

                  78,3

                  ZZ

                  64,4

                  0707 00 05

                  AL

                  64,0

                  EG

                  161,4

                  TR

                  139,7

                  ZZ

                  121,7

                  0709 90 70

                  AR

                  61,1

                  MA

                  74,1

                  TR

                  108,3

                  ZZ

                  81,2

                  0805 20 10

                  MA

                  69,1

                  ZA

                  103,8

                  ZZ

                  86,5

                  0805 20 30, 0805 20 50, 0805 20 70, 0805 20 90

                  HR

                  29,1

                  IL

                  76,9

                  MA

                  79,7

                  TR

                  83,3

                  UY

                  54,6

                  ZZ

                  64,7

                  0805 50 10

                  TR

                  63,2

                  ZA

                  52,3

                  ZZ

                  57,8

                  0806 10 10

                  BR

                  241,7

                  EC

                  65,7

                  LB

                  271,1

                  TR

                  145,0

                  US

                  258,2

                  ZA

                  77,5

                  ZZ

                  176,5

                  0808 10 80

                  CL

                  90,0

                  CN

                  67,2

                  NZ

                  169,0

                  US

                  143,8

                  ZA

                  156,2

                  ZZ

                  125,2

                  0808 20 50

                  CL

                  73,3

                  CN

                  69,6

                  TR

                  133,1

                  ZA

                  73,2

                  ZZ

                  87,3

         (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) No 317/2011 of 31 March 2011 amending for the 147th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban

text:
               1.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 86/63

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 317/2011
   of 31 March 2011
   amending for the 147th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (1), and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(1) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.

               (2)

               On 23 March 2011 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to add one natural person to its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.

               (3)

               Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.

               (4)

               In order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 31 March 2011.

            For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

            Head of the Foreign Policy Instruments Service

      (1)  OJ L 139, 29.5.2002, p. 9.

      ANNEX
      In Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002, under the heading ‘Natural persons’, the following entry shall be added:

         ‘Ibrahim Hassan Tali Al-Asiri (alias (a) Ibrahim Hassan Tali Asiri, (b) Ibrahim Hasan Talea Aseeri, (c) Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri, (d) Ibrahim Hasan Tali Asiri, (e) Ibrahim Hassan Tali Assiri, (f) Ibrahim Hasan Tali’A ’Asiri, (g) Ibrahim Hasan Tali al-’Asiri, (h) Ibrahim al-’Asiri, (i) Ibrahim Hassan Al Asiri, (j) Abu Saleh, (k) Abosslah, (l) Abu-Salaah). Address: Yemen. Date of birth: (a) 19.4.1982, (b) 18.4.1982, (c) 24.6.1402 (Hijri Calendar). Place of birth: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Nationality: Saudi Arabian. Passport No: F654645 (Saudi Arabian passport number, issued on 30.4.2005, expired on 7.3.2010, issue date in Hijri Calendar 24/06/1426, expiry date in Hijri Calendar 21/03/1431). National identification No: 1028745097 (Saudi Arabian civil identification number). Other information: (a) Operative and principal bomb maker of Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula; (b) Believed to be hiding in Yemen as at March 2011; (c) Wanted by Saudi Arabia; (d) INTERPOL Orange Notice (file #2009/52/OS/CCC, #81) has been issued for him; (e) Associated with Nasir ’abd-al-Karim ’Abdullah Al-Wahishi, Said Ali al-Shihri, Qasim Yahya Mahdi al-Rimi and Anwar Nasser Abdulla Al-Aulaqi. Date of designation referred to in Article 2a(4)(b): 24.3.2011.’


title: Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 77/2010 of 19 January 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards originating, inter alia , in the People’s Republic of China

text:
               28.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 24/1

         COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 77/2010
   of 19 January 2010
   amending Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards originating, inter alia, in the People’s Republic of China
   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), repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (2) (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 11(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009,
   Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,
   Whereas:
   A.   MEASURES IN FORCE

               (1)

               The measures currently in force on imports of ironing boards originating, inter alia, in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) are definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 (3). Pursuant to the same Regulation, anti-dumping duties were also imposed on imports of ironing boards originating in Ukraine.

         B.   CURRENT INVESTIGATION

   1.   Request for a review

               (2)

               This ‘new exporter’ review was initiated on the basis of a request lodged, and information provided, by Greenwood Houseware (Zhuhai) Ltd (‘the applicant’ or ‘Greenwood Houseware’), an exporter from the PRC. The applicant claimed that it was not related to any of the exporting producers in the PRC subject to the anti-dumping measures in force with regards to ironing boards. Furthermore, it claimed that it had not exported ironing boards to the Community during the original investigation period (‘the original IP’, i.e. the period from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2005), but had started to export ironing boards to the Union thereafter.

         2.   Initiation of a ‘new exporter’ review

               (3)

               The Commission examined the evidence submitted by the applicant and considered it sufficient to justify the initiation of a review in accordance with Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation. After consulting the Advisory Committee and after the Union industry had been given the opportunity to comment, the Commission initiated, by Regulation (EC) No 356/2009 (4), a review of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 with regard to the applicant and commenced its investigation.

               (4)

               Pursuant to the Commission regulation initiating the review, the anti-dumping duty of 38,1 % imposed by Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 on imports of ironing boards produced by the applicant was repealed. Simultaneously, pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, customs authorities were directed to take the appropriate steps to register such imports.

         3.   Product concerned

               (5)

               The product concerned by the current review is the same as that in the investigation that led to the imposition of the measures in force on imports of ironing boards originating, inter alia, in the PRC, i.e. ironing boards, whether or not free-standing, with or without a steam soaking and/or heating top, including sleeve boards, and essential parts thereof, i.e. the legs, the top and the iron rest, currently falling within CN codes ex 3924 90 00, ex 4421 90 98, ex 7323 93 90, ex 7323 99 91, ex 7323 99 99, ex 8516 79 70 and ex 8516 90 00 and originating in the PRC.

         4.   Parties concerned

               (6)

               The Commission officially advised the applicant, the Union industry via its representatives and the representatives of the exporting country of the initiation of the review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to be heard.

               (7)

               The Commission also sent a market economy treatment/individual treatment (MET/IT) claim form and a questionnaire to the applicant and received replies within the deadlines set for that purpose.

               (8)

               The Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for the purpose of MET/IT and for the determination of dumping. Verification visits were carried out as follows:

                           (a)

                           Exporting producer in the PRC
                           Greenwood Houseware (Zhuhai) Ltd, People’s Republic of China

                           (b)

                           Related to the exporting producer companies
                           Brabantia S&S, Hong Kong
                           Brabantia S&L Belgium NV, Overpelt, Belgium
                           Brabantia Belgium NV, Overpelt, Belgium
                           Brabantia International BV, Valkenswaard, Netherlands
                           Brabantia Branding BV, Valkenswaard, Netherlands
                           Brabantia Export, Valkenswaard, Netherlands
                           Brabantia S&L (UK) Ltd, Bristol United Kingdom
                           Brabantia UK Limited, Bristol, United Kingdom

               (9)

               In the light of the need to establish a normal value for the exporting producer in the PRC in case MET might not be granted, a verification to establish normal value on the basis of data from an Union industry producer took place at the premises of the following company:
               Vale Mill Ltd, Rochdale, United Kingdom

         5.   Investigation period

               (10)

               The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 October 2007 to 31 March 2009 (‘the investigation period’ or ‘IP’). The 18 month long investigation period was selected in order to use the data also in a parallel refund investigation relevant to the applicant.

         C.   RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

   1.   ‘New exporter’ qualification

               (11)

               The investigation confirmed that the applicant had not exported the product concerned during the original IP and that it had begun exporting to the Union after this period. During the original IP the applicant’s related trading company exported ironing boards purchased from one other Chinese producer. However this was only trading activity not in breach of Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation.

               (12)

               Furthermore, the applicant was able to demonstrate that it was not related to any of the exporters or producers in the PRC which are subject to the anti-dumping measures in force on imports of ironing boards originating in the PRC.

               (13)

               Therefore, it is confirmed that the applicant should be considered a ‘new exporter’ in accordance with Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation.

         2.   Market economy treatment

               (14)

               Pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in the PRC, normal value shall be determined in accordance with Article 2(1) to (6) of the basic Regulation for those exporting producers which have shown that they meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, i.e. where it is demonstrated by such exporting producers that market economy conditions prevail in respect of the manufacture and sale of the like product. Briefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out in a summarised form below:

                           1.

                           business decisions and costs are made in response to market conditions, without significant State interference, and costs reflect market values;

                           2.

                           firms have one clear set of accounting records which are independently audited, in line with International Accounting Standards (IAS) and applied for all purposes;

                           3.

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

                           4.

                           legal certainty and stability is provided by bankruptcy and property laws;

                           5.

                           currency exchanges are carried out at the market rate.

               (15)

               The applicant requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation and was invited to complete a MET claim form. It replied to the MET claim form within the given deadline.

               (16)

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

               (17)

               It was considered that MET should not be granted to the applicant on the basis that it did not meet the second and the third criteria as laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.

               (18)

               As far as criterion 2 is concerned it was established on the spot that fundamental International Accounting Standards (IAS) principles and in particular IAS 1 were disregarded (i.e. accrual principle, off-setting, lack of fair representation of transactions, wrong reporting of basic information relating to the tax regime applicable to the company) both in the accounts and in their audit, which put into question the reliability of the company’s accounts. Consequently, it was concluded that the company has not shown that it fulfils criterion 2.

               (19)

               As far as criterion 3 is concerned, it was established on the spot that the company was benefiting from specific tax schemes carried over from the non market economy system. Indeed, the on-the-spot verification established that during the IP the applicant did not pay any income tax as it was still in its first two profitable years of the special tax program applied to foreign enterprises (Two Free, Three Year Half) where companies are exempted from income tax during the first two profitable years and are subject to half the applicable tax rate (set at 25 %) for the following three years which in this particular case entails that the company will enjoy the 50 % reduction of income tax rate until 2012. The company was also exempt from payment of a set of taxes including city maintenance tax, embankment protection fee, customs duty and VAT on equipment purchases. The investigation also revealed the existence of significant distortions with respect to land use rights (LUR) relevant to the applicant pointing to the conclusion that the land use rights does not correspond to market economy conditions. Account taken of all the above, it was consequently concluded that the company has not shown that it fulfils criterion 3.

               (20)

               The applicant and the Union industry were given an opportunity to comment on the above findings. The Union industry agreed with the above findings but also claimed that the Commission should have evaluated the impact of distorted steel prices on the Chinese market. With regard to Criterion 2, the applicant claimed that it complies with the IAS and, with regards to Criterion 3, it submitted comments and explanations concerning its tax regime and the LUR issues raised by the Commission.

               (21)

               With respect to the comments of the Union industry it is noted that the issue of distorted steel prices on the Chinese market was not investigated due to the other clear shortcomings found with respect to MET. No conclusion is therefore reached on this point.

               (22)

               The Commission carefully reviewed and examined the comments submitted by the applicant. With respect to Criterion 2 the explanations provided did not undermine the factual basis on which the accounting discrepancies were established while the explanations of the applicable IAS rules were found to be not relevant. As regards Criterion 3 and in particular the protection fee, customs duty and VAT exemptions, the explanations and information provided by the applicant were accepted. Nevertheless other explanations and information provided by the applicant could not undermine the clear shortcomings linked to Criterion 3, namely that the allocation of land is linked to business undertakings, the construction of public facilities without compensation and the lack of LUR price variation in time. In view of the remaining clear shortcomings linked to Criterion 3, this criterion continues not to be met.

               (23)

               On the basis of the above, it was concluded that the applicant has not shown that it fulfils all the criteria set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and, thus, could not be granted MET.

         3.   Individual treatment

               (24)

               Pursuant to Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation, a country-wide duty, if any, is established for countries falling under Article 2(7)(a), except in those cases where companies are able to demonstrate that they meet all criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation and can thus be granted IT.

               (25)

               Greenwood Houseware claimed IT in the event that it would not be granted MET.

               (26)

               On the basis of the information available, it was established that the company fulfilled the requirements foreseen in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation. It was therefore concluded that the applicant could be granted IT.

         4.   Normal Value

   4.1.   Analogue country

               (27)

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

               (28)

               In the notice of initiation the Commission indicated its intention to use Turkey as an appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value for the PRC and invited the interested parties to comment thereon. Turkey has already been used as an analogue country in the original investigation.

               (29)

               No comments were received on the selection of Turkey as analogue country for the establishment of normal value.

               (30)

               The Commission sought cooperation from producers in Turkey. Letters and relevant questionnaires were sent to three companies in Turkey. None of these companies cooperated with the investigation or submitted any relevant information. The Commission contacted all known producers in Turkey again, however no replies were submitted. The Union industry and the applicant were informed of the aforesaid situation and asked to provide any relevant comments with respect to methods to be used for the selection of market economy third country. No comments were received.

               (31)

               In view of the above, it was considered appropriate, in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation to ask the Union industry whether it intended to cooperate in order to allow the Commission to obtain necessary information to establish normal value.

               (32)

               Letters and relevant questionnaires were sent to the Union industry producers in order to obtain necessary information to establish normal value and Greenwood Houseware was invited to comment thereon.

               (33)

               No comments on using the information obtained from Union industry for establishment of normal value were received from Greenwood Houseware.

               (34)

               One European producer submitted all the necessary information in due time for the determination of normal value and agreed to cooperate in the investigation. It was therefore decided to establish normal value on this basis.

         4.2.   Determination of normal value

               (35)

               Following the choice of using the Union industry’s data, normal value was calculated on the basis of the information verified at the premises of the cooperating Union producer, Vale Mill Ltd.

               (36)

               The domestic sales of the Union producer of the like product were found to be representative compared to the product concerned exported to the Union by the exporting producer in the PRC.

               (37)

               Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for the PRC was established on the basis of verified information received from the sole cooperating Union producer, i.e. on the basis of prices paid or payable on the Union market for comparable product types, where these were found to be made in the ordinary course of trade, or on constructed values, where no domestic sales in the ordinary course of trade for comparable product types were found, i.e. on the basis of the cost of manufacturing of ironing boards manufactured by the Union producer plus a reasonable amount for selling, general and administrative (SGA) expenses and for profit. The profit margin used is in line with the one used in the original investigation.

         5.   Export price

               (38)

               The applicant made all export sales to the Union through related trading and broker companies located both outside the Union (one company registered in Hong Kong) and inside the Union (25 companies registered in various Member States of the Union).

               (39)

               As all export sales to the Union were made through related trading companies, the export price was established on the basis of the prices of the product when sold by the related trading companies to the first independent buyer in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.

               (40)

               Greenwood Houseware used a large number of related companies for sales to the first independent buyer in the Union. The product concerned was first entered into free circulation in the Union by one company related to the applicant company and then sold to different related companies that performed trading and other activities for the applicant in various Member States of the Union The applicant requested to limit the dumping calculations to the transactions referring to its three main related parties, selling in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Belgium, that represented a major proportion of its sales in the Union. In view of the high total number of related sales parties and the time constraints in concluding the investigation it is considered appropriate to base findings on dumping on the aforesaid main markets of the applicant in the Union. The Commission verified the totality of export sales from the PRC via Hong Kong and up to the point where the product concerned entered into free circulation in the Union and resold to its various trading companies. It was only at this point that the Commission limited its assessment of dumping to the three main markets mentioned above.

               (41)

               As a consequence, and in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, export prices were constructed on the basis of the prices at which the imported product was first resold to independent customers in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Belgium. A deduction had to be made for all costs incurred between importation and resale, including selling, general and administrative costs by the importing companies during the IP. These costs were verified on spot at the respective companies.

               (42)

               Profit margins covering the applicant’s operations in respect of the product concerned during the IP also had to be deducted. In this respect, the actual profit of the related traders could not be used since the relationship between the exporting producer and the related traders made these profit levels unreliable. In addition the company explained on spot that they did not normally account for such profitability rates in the manner required by the investigation. The applicant therefore suggested that the Commission used the normal profit level used in the previous investigation. In the absence of other figures as explained above, it was therefore decided to use the rate set in the original investigation.

         6.   Comparison

               (43)

               Pursuant to Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin for Greenwood Houseware was established on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value by product type with a weighted average export price by product type as established above.

               (44)

               The comparison was made on an ex-factory basis and at the same level of trade.

               (45)

               For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Allowances for differences in indirect taxes, transport and insurance costs, handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing costs, credit costs, warranty and guarantee costs and commissions have been granted where applicable and justified.

         7.   Dumping Margin

               (46)

               The comparison showed the existence of dumping. This dumping margin expressed as a percentage of the net, free-at-European Union-frontier price, duty unpaid is 22,7 %.

         D.   RETROACTIVE LEVYING OF THE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY

               (47)

               In light of the above findings, the anti-dumping duty applicable to the applicant should be levied retroactively on imports of the product concerned which have been made subject to registration pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 356/2009.

         E.   DISCLOSURE

               (48)

               Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to impose on imports of ironing boards from the applicant an amended definitive anti-dumping duty and to levy this duty retroactively on imports made subject to registration.

               (49)

               All interested parties were given an opportunity to comment. Their comments were considered and taken into account where appropriate but they were not of a nature as to change the conclusions.

               (50)

               This review does not affect the date on which the measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 will expire pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The table in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 is hereby amended by inserting the following:

                  ‘Country

                  Manufacturer

                  Rate of duty
                  (%)

                  TARIC additional code

                  PRC

                  Greenwood Houseware (Zhuhai) Ltd

                  22,7 (5)

                  A953

   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 Brussels, 19 January 2010.

            For the Council

            The President

         E. SALGADO

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

      (2)  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 109, 26.4.2007, p. 12.

      (4)  OJ L 109, 30.4.2009, p. 6.

      (5)  The duty hereby imposed shall be levied retroactively on imports of the product concerned which have been registered pursuant to Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 356/2009 (). Customs authorities are hereby directed to cease the registration of imports of the product concerned originating in the People’s Republic of China and produced by Greenwood Houseware (Zhuhai) Ltd.

      (6)  OJ L 109, 30.4.2009, p. 6.’


title: Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 577/2014 of 28 May 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

text:
               29.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 160/7

         COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 577/2014
   of 28 May 2014
   implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1), and in particular Article 14(1) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 17 March 2014, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 269/2014.

               (2)

               The information for seventeen persons and two entities included in the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures in Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 should be amended.

               (3)

               Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 should be amended accordingly,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the date 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, 28 May 2014.

            For the Council

            The President

         E. VENIZELOS

      (1)  OJ L 78, 17.3.2014, p. 6.

      ANNEX
      The entries for the following persons and entities set out in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 are replaced by the entries below.
      Persons:

                  Name

                  Identifying information

                  Statement of reasons

                  Date of listing

                  Vladimir Andreevich Konstantinov
                  (Владимир Андреевич Константинов)

                  d.o.b. 19.11.1956
                  Vladimirovca, Slobozia District, Republic of Moldova

                  As speaker of the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea, Konstantinov played a relevant role in the decisions taken by the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea concerning the ‘referendum’ against the territorial integrity of Ukraine and called on voters to cast votes in favour of Crimean Independence.

                  17.3.2014

                  Pyotr Anatolyevich Zima
                  (Пётр Анатольевич Зима)

                  d.o.b. 29.3.1965

                  Zima was appointed as the new head of the Crimean Security Service (SBU) on 3 March 2014 by ‘Prime Minister’ Aksyonov and accepted this appointment. He has given relevant information including a database to the Russian Intelligence Service (SVR). This included information on Euro-Maidan activists and human rights defenders of Crimea. He played a relevant role in preventing Ukraine's authorities from controlling the territory of Crimea.
                  On 11 March 2014 the formation of an independent Security Service of Crimea was proclaimed by former SBU officers of Crimea.

                  17.3.2014

                  Yuriy Gennadyevich Zherebtsov
                  (Юрий Геннадьевич Жеребцов)

                  d.o.b. 19.11.1965

                  Counsellor of the Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea, one of the leading organizers of the 16 March 2014‘referendum’ against Ukraine's territorial integrity.

                  17.3.2014

                  Anatoliy Alekseevich Sidorov
                  (Анатолий Алексеевич Сидоров)

                  d.o.b. 2.7.1958

                  Commander of Russia's Western Military District, units of which are deployed in Crimea. He is responsible for part of the Russian military presence in Crimea which is undermining the sovereignty of Ukraine and assisted the Crimean authorities in preventing public demonstrations against moves towards a ‘referendum’ and incorporation into Russia.

                  17.3.2014

                  Aleksandr Viktorovich Galkin
                  (Александр Викторович Галкин)

                  d.o.b. 22.3.1958

                  Commander of Russia's Southern Military District (‘SMD’). SMD forces are deployed in Crimea. He is responsible for part of the Russian military presence in Crimea which is undermining the sovereignty of Ukraine and assisted the Crimean authorities in preventing public demonstrations against moves towards a ‘referendum’ and incorporation into Russia.
                  The Black Sea Fleet comes under Galkin's command; much of the force movement into Crimea has come through the Southern Military District

                  17.3.2014

                  Mikhail Grigoryevich Malyshev
                  (Михаил Григорьевич Малышев)

                  d.o.b. 10.10.1955

                  Chair of the Crimean Electoral Commission.
                  Responsible for administering the Crimean ‘referendum’. Responsible under the Russian system for signing ‘referendum’ results.

                  21.3.2014

                  Valery Kirillovich Medvedev
                  (Валерий Кириллович Медведев)

                  d.o.b. 21.8.1946
                  Russia

                  Responsible for administering the Crimean ‘referendum’. Responsible under the Russian system for signing ‘referendum’ results.

                  21.3.2014

                  LTL. Gen. Igor Nikolaevich Turchenyuk
                  (Игорь Николаевич Турченюк)

                  d.o.b. 5.12.1959
                  Kirghizia/Osh

                  The de-facto Commander of Russian troops deployed on the ground in Crimea (whom Russia continues to refer to officially as ‘local self-defence militias’).

                  21.3.2014

                  Elena Borisovna Mizulina
                  (Елена Борисовна Мизулина)

                  d.o.b. 9.12.1954
                  Buly, Kostroma Oblast

                  Originator and co-sponsor of recent legislative proposals in Russia that would have allowed regions of other countries to join Russia without their central authorities' prior agreement.

                  21.3.2014

                  Valeriy Dmitrievich Bolotov
                  (Валерий Дмитриевич Болотов)

                  d.o.b. 13.2.1970
                  Stachanov, Lugansk Oblast, Ukrainian SSR

                  One of the leaders of the separatist group ‘Army of the South-East’ which occupied the building of the Security Service in the Lugansk region. Before seizing the building he and other accomplices possessed arms apparently supplied illegally from Russia and from local criminal groups.

                  29.4.2014

                  Andriy Yevgenevich Purgin
                  (Андрей Евгеньевич Пургин)

                  d.o.b. 26.1.1972

                  Head of the ‘Donetsk Republic’, active participant and organiser of separatist actions, coordinator of actions of the ‘Russian tourists’ in Donetsk. Co-founder of a ‘Civic initiative of Donbasfor the Eurasian Union.’

                  29.4.2014

                  Sergey Gennadevich Tsyplakov
                  (Сергей Геннадьевич Цыплаков)

                  d.o.b. 1.5.1983
                  Donetsk, Ukrainian SSR

                  One of the leaders of the ideologically radical organization People's Militia of Donbas. He took active part in the seizure of a number of state buildings in the Donetsk region.

                  29.4.2014

                  Igor Vsevolodovich Girkin a.k.a. Igor Strelkov
                  (Игорь Всеволодович Гиркин)

                  d.o.b. 17.12.1970
                  passport no. 4506460961

                  Identified as staff of main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (GRU). He was involved in incidents in Sloviansk. He is the assistant on security issues to Sergey Aksionov, self-proclaimed prime-minister of Crimea.

                  29.4.2014

                  Viacheslav Ponomariov
                  Vyacheslav Vladimirovich Ponomariov
                  (Вячеслав Владимирович Пономарёв)

                  d.o.b. 2.5.1965
                  Slovinsk

                  Self-declared mayor of Sloviansk. Ponomarev called on Vladimir Putin to send Russian troops to protect the city and later asked him to supply weapons. Ponomarev's men are involved in kidnappings (they captured Ukrainian reporters Irma Krat and Simon Ostrovsky, a reporter for Vice News. Both were later released. They detained military observers deployed under OSCE Vienna Document).

                  12.5.2014

                  Igor Mykolaiovych Bezler
                  Igor Nikolaevich Bezler,
                  (Игорь Николаевич Безлер)

                  d.o.b. 30.12.1965
                  Simferopol

                  One of the leaders of the self-proclaimed militia of Horlivka. He took control of the Security Service of Ukraine's office in the Donetsk region building and afterwards seized the Ministry of Internal Affairs' district station in the town of Horlivka. He has links to Igor Girkin under whose command he was involved in the murder of People's Deputy of the Horlivka's Municipal Council Volodymyr Rybak according to the SBU.

                  12.5.2014

                  Oleg Tsariov
                  Oleg Anatolevich Tsariov
                  (Олег Анатолійович Царьов)
                  (Олег Анатольевич Царёв)

                  d.o.b. 2.6.1970
                  Dnipropetrovsk

                  Member of the Rada. Publicly called for the creation of the Federal Republic of Novorossia, composed of South Eastern Ukrainian regions.

                  12.5.2014

                  Roman Lyagin
                  (Роман Лягин)

                  d.o.b. 30.5.1980
                  Donetsk

                  Head of the ‘Donetsk People's Republic’ Central Electoral Commission. Actively organised the referendum on 11 May on the self-determination of the ‘Donetsk People's Republic’.

                  12.5.2014

            Entities:

                  Name

                  Identifying information

                  Statement of reasons

                  Date of listing

                  PJSC Chernomorneftegaz
                  a.k.a Chornomornaftogaz

                  Prospekt Kirova/per. Sovarkomovskji 52/1 Simferopol, Crimea

                  On 17 March 2014 the ‘Parliament of Crimea’ adopted a resolution declaring the appropriation of assets belonging to Chernomorneftegaz enterprise on behalf of the ‘Republic of Crimea’. The enterprise is thus effectively confiscated by the Crimean ‘authorities’.

                  12.5.2014

                  Feodosia
                  a.k.a Feodossyskoje Predprijatije po obespetscheniju nefteproduktami

                  98107, Crimea, Feodosiya, Geologicheskaya str.2
                  Company providing transhipment services for crude oil and oil products.

                  On 17 March 2014 the ‘Parliament of Crimea’ adopted a resolution declaring the appropriation of assets belonging to Feodosia enterprise on behalf of the ‘Republic of Crimea’. The enterprise is thus effectively confiscated by the Crimean ‘authorities’.

                  12.5.2014


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/32 of 14 January 2016 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/82 on imports of citric acid originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of citric acid consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not

text:
               15.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 10/3

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/32
   of 14 January 2016
   extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/82 on imports of citric acid originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of citric acid consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), (‘the basic Regulation’) and in particular Article 13 thereof,
   Whereas:
   1.   PROCEDURE

   1.1.   Existing measures

               (1)

               The Council, following an anti-dumping investigation (‘the original investigation’), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of citric acid originating in the People's Republic of China (‘PRC’) by Regulation (EC) No 1193/2008 (2). The measures took the form of an ad valorem duty ranging between 6,6 % and 42,7 % (‘the original measures’).

               (2)

               The European Commission (‘the Commission’), by Decision 2008/899/EC (3) accepted the price undertakings offered by seven Chinese exporting producers or group of exporting producers together with the China Chamber of Commerce of Metals, Minerals & Chemicals Importers & Exporters.

               (3)

               The Commission, by Decision 2012/501/EU (4), subsequently withdrew the undertaking offered by one exporting producer, i.e. Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry Co. Ltd (‘Laiwu’).

               (4)

               By Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/82 (5) the Commission, following an expiry review and a partial interim review (‘previous investigations’) pursuant to Article 11(2) and (3) of the basic Regulation respectively, maintained the definitive measures and amended their level. The definitive anti-dumping duties in force on imports of citric acid originating in the PRC range between 15,3 % and 42,7 % (‘the measures in force’).

         1.2.   Product concerned and product under investigation

               (5)

               The product concerned is as defined in the original investigation, citric acid (including trisodium citrate dihydrate), originating in the PRC, currently falling within CN codes 2918 14 00 and ex 2918 15 00 (‘the product concerned’).

               (6)

               The product under investigation is the same as that defined in the previous recital, but consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, currently falling within the same CN codes as the product concerned (‘the product under investigation’). The TARIC codes for the product under investigation are 2918140010 and 2918150011.

               (7)

               The investigation showed that citric acid exported from the PRC to the Union and citric acid consigned from Malaysia to the Union have the same basic physical and technical characteristics and have the same uses, and are therefore to be considered as like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

         1.3.   Grounds for the initiation

               (8)

               The Commission had at its disposal sufficient prima facie evidence that the measures in force are being circumvented by imports of the product under investigation from Malaysia.

               (9)

               The information at the Commission's disposal showed that a significant change in the pattern of trade involving exports from the People's Republic of China and Malaysia to the Union has taken place following the imposition of measures on the product concerned, as outlined in recitals 1 to 4 above, without sufficient due cause or economic justification for such a change other than the imposition of the duty.

               (10)

               Furthermore, the Commission had at its disposal sufficient prima facie evidence that the remedial effects of the measures in force are being undermined both in terms of quantity and price.

               (11)

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

         1.4.
         Ex-officio initiation

               (12)

               Having determined, after having informed the Member States, that sufficient prima facie evidence existed for the initiation of an investigation, on 1 May 2015 the Commission initiated, on its own initiative, an investigation by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/706 (6) (the ‘initiating Regulation’) pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation. The Commission, by the initiating Regulation, also directed the customs authorities to register imports of citric acid consigned from Malaysia.

         1.5.   Investigation

               (13)

               The Commission officially advised the authorities of the PRC, Malaysia, the known exporting producers in those countries, the importers in the Union known to be concerned and the Union industry of the initiation of the investigation. The Mission of the Republic of Malaysia to the European Union provided contact details of exporting producers in Malaysia. Exemption forms were sent to these exporting producers in Malaysia. Questionnaires were also sent to the known exporting producers in the PRC and unrelated importers in the Union.

               (14)

               Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer within the time limit set in the initiating Regulation. All parties were informed that non-cooperation might lead to the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation and to findings being based on the facts available.

               (15)

               One Malaysian company came forward claiming that it was not a producer but merely a user of citric acid and therefore it did not request an exemption. This company was informed that, should it have any related producing companies in Malaysia, they were also invited to reply to the exemption form. The Commission did not receive any reply to the exemption form from any Malaysian exporting producer. Six exporting producers in the PRC and four unrelated importers in the Union submitted replies to the questionnaire.

         1.6.   Reporting period and investigation period

               (16)

               The investigation period covered the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 March 2015. Data were collected for the investigation period to investigate, inter alia, the alleged change in the pattern of trade. More detailed data were collected for the reporting period from 1 January 2014 to 31 March 2015 in order to examine the possible undermining of the remedial effect of the measures in force in terms of prices and/or quantities and existence of dumping.

         2.   RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

   2.1.   General considerations

               (17)

               In accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the assessment of the existence of circumvention was made by analysing successively whether there was a change in the pattern of trade between the PRC, Malaysia and the Union; if this change stemmed from a practice, process or work for which there was insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty; if there was evidence of injury or that the remedial effects of the duty were being undermined in terms of prices and/or quantities of the product under investigation; and whether there was evidence of dumping in relation to the normal values previously established in the original investigation, if necessary in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the basic Regulation.

         2.2.   Degree of cooperation and determination of the trade volumes

      Malaysia

               (18)

               None of the exporters located in Malaysia cooperated in the present investigation. Given the lack of cooperation, findings concerning exports of citric acid from Malaysia to the Union were made on the basis of facts available in accordance with Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation. In this case, Comext data was used to determine overall import volumes from Malaysia to the Union.

      PRC

               (19)

               Six producers/exporters in the PRC, which were also subject to undertakings, submitted a questionnaire reply. The exports of the cooperating companies covered around 54 % of the total Chinese exports to the Union and around 69 % of the Chinese exports to Malaysia during the reporting period.

               (20)

               Due to lack of cooperation from Malaysia and only partial cooperation from the PRC, Comext data was used to determine total export volumes from the PRC to the Union. They were crosschecked with Chinese national statistics. Chinese national statistics were also used for the determination of the total export volumes from the PRC to Malaysia.

               (21)

               The statistical data were counter-checked with the data submitted by the six cooperating exporting producers. The data submitted by the cooperating companies showed similar trends than the trends established in Comext on the one hand and in the Chinese national statistics on the other hand.

         2.3.   Change in the pattern of trade

      Imports of citric acid into the Union

               (22)

               During the investigation period, imports of the product concerned from the PRC to the Union first increased from 2011 to 2012 by 14 %. Subsequently in 2013, they dropped below the level of 2011 and then increased again in 2014 till the end of the reporting period. Overall, there was an increase of 5 % during the investigation period, from 201 345 tonnes in 2011, to 210 516 tonnes during the reporting period.

               (23)

               This has to be seen in relation to the relative increase of imports from Malaysia during the same period, i.e. from 792 tonnes in 2011 to 6 837 tonnes during the reporting period, by more than eight times. The total increase in volume of imports from Malaysia between 2011 and the end of the reporting period corresponded to more than 6 000 tonnes.

               (24)

               Table 1 shows the import quantities of citric acid from the PRC (7) and Malaysia into the Union from 1 January 2011 to the end of the reporting period.

                  Table 1

                  Import volumes from the PRC and Malaysia to the Union

                           2011

                           2012

                           2013

                           2014

                           RP (8)

                           China (tonnes)

                           201 345

                           230 454

                           193 383

                           205 791

                           210 516

                              Index

                              100

                              114

                              96

                              102

                              105

                           Malaysia (tonnes)

                           792

                           1 972

                           4 403

                           6 559

                           6 837

                              Index

                              100

                              249

                              556

                              828

                              863

      Exports from the PRC to Malaysia

               (25)

               Likewise, as shown in table 2 below, there was a substantial relative increase of exports of citric acid from the PRC to Malaysia during the investigation period, i.e. from of 7 990 tonnes in 2011 to 13 763 tonnes in the reporting period, which is an increase of more than 70 %. This increase corresponded to roughly 6 000 tons and thus corresponded almost exactly to the increase of import volumes from Malaysia to the Union as shown in table 1. This increasing trend was also observed with regard to the six cooperating Chinese exporting producers.

                  Table 2

                  Export volumes from the PRC to Malaysia

                           2011

                           2012

                           2013

                           2014

                           RP

                           Total exports to Malaysia in quantity (tonnes)

                           7 990

                           7 333

                           11 693

                           15 172

                           13 763

                           Total exports to Malaysia

                              Index

                              100

                              92

                              146

                              190

                              172

                           Exports to Malaysia by cooperating Chinese exporting producers

                              Index

                              100

                              123

                              209

                              197

                              216

                              Source: Goodwill China Business Information Ltd, questionnaire replies.

      Conclusion on the change in the pattern of trade

               (26)

               The increase in volumes, of both exports from Malaysia to the Union and of exports from the PRC to Malaysia has taken place after imposition of the original measures. This constitutes a change in the pattern of trade between the PRC and Malaysia on the one hand, and Malaysia and the Union, on the other hand.

               (27)

               While it is noted that in absolute terms the volume of imports from Malaysia to the Union was still relatively low during the IP, the trend is sharply increasing.

         2.4.   Nature of the circumvention practise

               (28)

               Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation requires that the change in the pattern of trade stem from a practice, process or work for which there is insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty. The practice, process or work includes, inter alia, the consignment of the product subject to measures via third countries.

      Production volume in Malaysia

               (29)

               As there was no cooperation from any company in Malaysia, no information could be obtained on the possible levels of the genuine production of the product under investigation in Malaysia.

      Transhipment

               (30)

               At the initiation of this investigation the Commission had evidence that some Chinese exporting producers had business contacts with importers in the Union suggesting the possibility for avoidance of duties through transhipment. In addition, as mentioned in recital 29 above, there was no evidence of the existence of any genuine production in Malaysia and none of the companies in Malaysia cooperated. Moreover, as established in recitals 22 to 26 above, there was a clear change in the pattern of trade, manifested by a simultaneous surge in exports from the PRC to Malaysia and imports from Malaysia to the Union, in almost identical quantities.

               (31)

               It is therefore concluded that there is transhipment of Chinese-origin citric acid to the Union via Malaysia.

         2.5.   Insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the anti-dumping duty

               (32)

               The investigation did not bring to light any due cause or economic justification for the transhipment other than the avoidance of the measures in force on the product concerned. No elements were found, other than the duty, which could be considered as a compensation for the costs of transhipment, in particular regarding transport and reloading, of citric acid originating in the PRC via Malaysia.

         2.6.   Undermining the remedial effect of the anti-dumping duty

               (33)

               To assess whether the imported citric acid had, in terms of quantities and prices, undermined the remedial effects of the measures in force, Comext data was used as the best data available concerning quantities and prices of imports from Malaysia. The prices so determined were compared to the injury elimination level established for Union producers in the previous investigations (9).

               (34)

               While it is noted that in absolute terms the volume of imports from Malaysia to the Union was still relatively low during the IP, their trend is sharply increasing. Therefore, the upsurge of imports from Malaysia to the Union from 792 tonnes in 2011 to 6 837 tonnes in the RP was considered to be significant in terms of relative volume.

               (35)

               The comparison was made between the injury elimination level as established in the previous investigations and the average export price determined on the basis of Comext data in this investigation for Malaysia and adjusted for post-importation costs. Given the lack of sufficient cooperation the post-importation costs were also established on the basis of the data in the previous investigations. The comparison showed significant underselling for Malaysia of 30-40 %. It was therefore concluded that the remedial effects of the measures in force are being undermined in terms of both quantities and prices.

         2.7.   Evidence of dumping

               (36)

               Finally, in accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation it was examined whether there was evidence of dumping in relation to the normal value established in the previous investigations.

               (37)

               In the previous investigations, the normal value for the PRC was established on the basis of prices in Canada, which in those investigations was found to be an appropriate market economy analogue country.

               (38)

               The export prices from Malaysia to the Union were based on facts available, i.e. on the average export price of citric acid during the reporting period as reported in Comext and adjusted as described below.

               (39)

               For the purpose of a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance, in the form of adjustments, was made for differences which affect prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Accordingly, adjustments were made for differences in transport and insurance cost. Given that there was no cooperation from the producers in Malaysia, the adjustments had to be established on the basis of facts available, i.e. on price quotation issued by an independent provider of world freight quotations (10) during the reporting period, for transport and insurance between a given port in Malaysia and a given port in the Union with CIF delivery terms estimated to 65-75 EUR/mt.

               (40)

               In accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, a dumping margin was calculated by comparing the weighted average normal value as established in the previous investigations and the corresponding weighted average export prices from Malaysia to the Union as established in recitals 38 and 39 above during the reporting period, expressed as a percentage of the CIF price at the Union frontier duty unpaid. The comparison showed dumping amounting to 50-60 %.

         3.   MEASURES

               (41)

               Given the above, the Commission concluded that the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports into the Union of citric acid originating in the PRC was being circumvented by means of transhipment via Malaysia pursuant to Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation.

               (42)

               In accordance with the first sentence of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the measures in force on imports of the product concerned, should therefore be extended to imports of the product under investigation, i.e. the same product but consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not.

               (43)

               The measures to be extended are the measures established in Article 1(2) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/82 for ‘all other companies’, which is presently a definitive anti-dumping duty of 42,7 % applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty.

               (44)

               In accordance with Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, which provide that any extended measure should apply to imports which entered the Union under registration imposed by the initiating Regulation, duties should be collected on those registered imports of citric acid consigned from Malaysia.

         4.   REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION

               (45)

               As stated in recital 15 none of the producers in the country concerned came forward following initiation. Accordingly, no requests for exemption from the possible extension of the measures in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation were made.

         5.   NEW EXPORTERS

               (46)

               Without prejudice to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, the producers in Malaysia which did not come forward in this proceeding and did not export the product under investigation to the Union in the reporting period and which consider lodging a request for an exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of the basic Regulation will be required to complete an exemption form in order to enable the Commission to determine whether an exemption may be warranted. Such exemption may be granted after the assessment of the market situation, production capacity and capacity utilisation, procurement and sales and the likelihood of continuation of practices for which there is insufficient due cause or economic justification and the evidence of dumping. The Commission would normally also carry out an on-the-spot verification visit. The request should be addressed to the Commission, with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company's activities linked to the production and sales.

               (47)

               Where an exemption is warranted, the Commission will, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, propose the amendment of the extended measures in force accordingly. Subsequently, any exemption granted will be monitored to ensure compliance.

         6.   DISCLOSURE

   All interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations leading to the above conclusions and were invited to comment. No comments were submitted.

               (48)

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

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   1.   The definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to ‘all other companies’ imposed by Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1193/2008 on imports of citric acid originating in the People's Republic of China, is hereby extended to imports of citric acid, consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, currently falling within CN codes 2918 14 00 (TARIC code 2918140010) and ex 2918 15 00 (TARIC code 2918150011).
   2.   The duty extended by paragraph 1 of this Article shall be collected on imports consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, registered in accordance with Article 2 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/706 and Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.
   3.   Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.
   Article 2
   1.   Requests for exemption from the duty extended by Article 1 shall be made in writing in one of the official languages of the European Union and must be signed by a person authorised to represent the entity requesting the exemption. The request must be sent to the following address:

               European Commission

               Directorate-General for Trade

               Directorate H

               Office: CHAR 04/039

               1040 Brussels

               BELGIUM

         2.   In accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, the Commission may authorise, by decision, the exemption of imports from companies which do not circumvent the anti- dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EU) No 791/2011, from the duty extended by Article 1.
   Article 3
   Customs authorities are hereby directed to discontinue the registration of imports, established in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2015/706.
   Article 4
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 14 January 2016.

            For the Commission

            The President

         Jean-Claude JUNCKER

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

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1193/2008 of 1 December 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duties imposed on imports of citric acid originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ L 323, 3.12.2008, p. 1).

      (3)  Commission Decision 2008/899/EC of 2 December 2008 accepting the undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of citric acid originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ L 323, 3.12.2008, p. 62).

      (4)  Commission Decision 2012/501/EU of 7 September 2012 amending Decision 2008/899/EC accepting the undertakings offered in connection with the anti- dumping proceeding concerning imports of citric acid originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ L 244, 8.9.2012, p. 27).

      (5)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/82 of 21 January 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of citric acid originating in the People's Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and of partial interim reviews pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ L 15, 22.1.2015, p. 8).

      (6)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/706 of 30 April 2015 initiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/82 on imports of citric acid originating in the People's Republic of China by imports of citric acid consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, and making such imports subject to registration (OJ L 113, 1.5.2015, p. 38).

      (7)  Periods of this investigation, namely 2011, 2012 and, partially, the reporting period, coincided with the periods published in the expiry review Regulation (EU) 2015/82 referred to in recital 4. Import volumes for this investigation were updated with the latest data available in Comext statistics; therefore figures may not exactly correspond to the ones published in the expiry review Regulation (EU) 2015/82.

      (8)  Data during the reporting period was adjusted to the 12-month period.

      Source: Comext statistics.

      (9)  Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/82, recital 167.

      (10)  www.worldfreightrates.com


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1117/2013 of 6 November 2013 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Arancia Rossa di Sicilia (PGI)]

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 299/18

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1117/2013
   of 6 November 2013
   approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Arancia Rossa di Sicilia (PGI)]
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (2).

               (2)

               Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission examined Italy’s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication ‘Arancia Rossa di Sicilia’, registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (3).

               (3)

               Since the amendments in question are not minor, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union
                   (4), as required by Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. As no statement of objection under Article 7 of that Regulation has been received by the Commission, the amendments to the specification should be approved,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.
   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, 6 November 2013.

            For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
         Dacian CIOLOȘ

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

      (3)  OJ L 148, 21.6.1996, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ C 369, 29.11.2012, p. 16.

      ANNEX
      Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

         Class 1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

      ITALY
      Arancia Rossa di Sicilia (PGI)