title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1191/2013 of 20 November 2013 derogating from Regulations (EC) No 2305/2003, (EC) No 969/2006, (EC) No 1067/2008 and (EC) No 1964/2006, Implementing Regulation (EU) No 480/2012 and Regulations (EC) No 828/2009, (EC) No 1918/2006 and (EC) No 341/2007 as regards the dates for lodging import licence applications and issuing import licences in 2014 under tariff quotas for cereals, rice, sugar, olive oil and garlic, derogating from Regulations (EC) No 951/2006, (EC) No 1518/2003 and (EC) No 382/2008 and Regulations (EU) No 1178/2010 and (EU) No 90/2011 as regards the dates for issuing export licences in 2014 in the out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose sectors and the pigmeat, beef and veal, eggs and poultrymeat sectors and derogating from Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 as regards the period for examination of offers for the buying-in of common wheat at a fixed price under public intervention

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 314/1

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1191/2013
   of 20 November 2013
   derogating from Regulations (EC) No 2305/2003, (EC) No 969/2006, (EC) No 1067/2008 and (EC) No 1964/2006, Implementing Regulation (EU) No 480/2012 and Regulations (EC) No 828/2009, (EC) No 1918/2006 and (EC) No 341/2007 as regards the dates for lodging import licence applications and issuing import licences in 2014 under tariff quotas for cereals, rice, sugar, olive oil and garlic, derogating from Regulations (EC) No 951/2006, (EC) No 1518/2003 and (EC) No 382/2008 and Regulations (EU) No 1178/2010 and (EU) No 90/2011 as regards the dates for issuing export licences in 2014 in the out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose sectors and the pigmeat, beef and veal, eggs and poultrymeat sectors and derogating from Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 as regards the period for examination of offers for the buying-in of common wheat at a fixed price under public intervention
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1095/96 of 18 June 1996 on the implementation of the concessions set out in Schedule CXL drawn up in the wake of the conclusion of the GATT XXIV.6 negotiations (1), and in particular Article 1 thereof,
   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) (2), and in particular Article 43(a)a, Article 61, Article 144(1), Articles 148 and 156 and Article 161(3), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 of 20 December 2007 applying the arrangements for products originating in certain states which are part of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States provided for in agreements establishing, or leading to the establishment of, Economic Partnership Agreements (3), and in particular Article 9(5) thereof,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 of 22 July 2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences from 1 January 2009 and amending Regulations (EC) No 552/97, (EC) No 1933/2006 and Commission Regulations (EC) No 1100/2006 and (EC) No 964/2007 (4), and in particular Article 11(7) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Commission Regulations (EC) No 2305/2003 (5), (EC) No 969/2006 (6) and (EC) No 1067/2008 (7) lay down specific provisions on the lodging of import licence applications and the issuing of import licences for barley under quota 09.4126, maize under quota 09.4131 and common wheat of a quality other than high quality under quotas 09.4123, 09.4124, 09.4125 and 09.4133.

               (2)

               Commission Regulation (EC) No 1964/2006 (8) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 480/2012 (9) lay down specific provisions on the lodging of import licence applications and the issuing of import licences for rice originating in Bangladesh under quota 09.4517 and broken rice under quota 09.4079.

               (3)

               Commission Regulation (EC) No 828/2009 (10) lays down specific provisions on the lodging of import licence applications and the issuing of import licences under quotas 09.4221, 09.4231, and 09.4241 to 09.4247.

               (4)

               Commission Regulation (EC) No 1918/2006 (11) lays down specific provisions on the lodging of import licence applications and the issuing of import licences for olive oil under quota 09.4032.

               (5)

               Commission Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 (12) lays down specific provisions on the lodging of ‘A’ import licence applications and the issuing of ‘A’ import licences for garlic under quotas 09.4099, 09.4100, 09.4102, 09.4104, 09.4105 and 09.4106.

               (6)

               In view of the public holidays in 2014, derogations should be made, at certain times, from Regulations (EC) No 2305/2003, (EC) No 969/2006, (EC) No 1067/2008 and (EC) No 1964/2006, Implementing Regulation (EU) No 480/2012 and Regulations (EC) No 828/2009, (EC) No 1918/2006 and (EC) No 341/2007 as regards the dates for lodging import licence applications and issuing import licences in order to ensure compliance with the quota volumes in question.

               (7)

               Under Article 7d(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 (13), export licences for out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose are issued from the Friday following the week during which the licence applications were lodged, provided that no particular measures have since been taken by the Commission.

               (8)

               Article 3(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1518/2003 (14), the second subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 382/2008 (15), Article 3(3) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2010 (16) and Article 3(3) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 90/2011 (17) stipulate that export licences are issued on the Wednesday following the week during which the licence applications were lodged, provided that no particular measures have since been taken by the Commission.

               (9)

               In view of the public holidays in 2014 and the resulting impact on the publication of the Official Journal of the European Union, the period between the lodging of applications and the day on which the licences are to be issued will be too short to ensure proper management of the market. That period should therefore be extended.

               (10)

               The second subparagraph of Article 14(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 (18) stipulates that the Commission must decide within two working days following the notification referred to in Article 13(1) of that Regulation and within five working days following the notification referred to in Article 13(3) of that Regulation.

               (11)

               In view of the public holidays in 2014 and the resulting impact on the publication of the Official Journal of the European Union, the period for examination of offers will be too short to monitor the quantities offered effectively. That period should therefore be extended.

               (12)

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

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   Cereals
   1.   By way of derogation from the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2305/2003, for 2014, import licence applications for barley under quota 09.4126 may not be lodged after 13.00 (Brussels time) on Friday 12 December 2014.
   2.   By way of derogation from the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 969/2006, for 2014, import licence applications for maize under quota 09.4131 may not be lodged after 13.00 (Brussels time) on Friday 12 December 2014.
   3.   By way of derogation from the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008, for 2014, import licence applications for common wheat of a quality other than high quality under quotas 09.4123, 09.4124, 09.4125 and 09.4133 may not be lodged after 13.00 (Brussels time) on Friday 12 December 2014.
   Article 2
   Rice
   1.   By way of derogation from the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1964/2006, for 2014, import licence applications for rice originating in Bangladesh under quota 09.4517 may not be lodged after 13.00 (Brussels time) on Friday 5 December 2014.
   2.   By way of derogation from the third subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 480/2012, for 2014, import licence applications for broken rice under quota 09.4079 may not be lodged after 13.00 (Brussels time) on Friday 5 December 2014.
   Article 3
   Sugar
   By way of derogation from Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 828/2009, import licence applications for sugar sector products under quotas 09.4221, 09.4231, and 09.4241 to 09.4247 may not be lodged from 13.00 (Brussels time) on Friday 12 December 2014 until 13.00 (Brussels time) on Friday 26 December 2014.
   Article 4
   Olive oil
   By way of derogation from Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1918/2006, import licences for olive oil applied for during the periods referred to in Annex I to this Regulation shall be issued on the corresponding dates specified therein, subject to measures adopted pursuant to Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 (19).
   Article 5
   Garlic
   By way of derogation from Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007, ‘A’ import licences for garlic for which applications are lodged during the first seven calendar days of April 2014 may be issued by the competent authorities from 29 April until 7 May 2014 at the latest, subject to measures adopted pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006.
   Article 6
   Out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose
   By way of derogation from Article 7d(1) of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, export licences for out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose for which applications are lodged during the periods referred to in Annex II to this Regulation shall be issued on the corresponding dates specified therein, taking account where applicable of the specific measures referred to in Article 9(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, taken before those issue dates.
   Article 7
   Licences for exports of pigmeat, beef and veal, eggs and poultrymeat attracting refunds
   By way of derogation from Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1518/2003, the second subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 382/2008, Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1178/2010 and Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) No 90/2011, export licences applied for during the periods referred to in Annex III to this Regulation shall be issued on the corresponding dates specified therein, taking account where applicable of the specific measures referred to in Article 3(4) and (4a) of Regulation (EC) No 1518/2003, Article 12(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 382/2008, Article 3(4) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 1178/2010 and Article 3(4) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 90/2011, taken before those issue dates.
   Article 8
   Offers for the buying-in of common wheat at a fixed price under public intervention
   By way of derogation from the second subparagraph of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009, for offers of common wheat notified during the periods referred to in Annex IV to this Regulation, the period within which the Commission takes a decision following the notification referred to in Article 13(2)(b) and Article 13(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 shall end on the date shown in that Annex.
   Article 9
   Entry into force
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
   It shall expire on 9 January 2015.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 20 November 2013.

            For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
         Jerzy PLEWA

            Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

      (1)  OJ L 146, 20.6.1996, p. 1.

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

      (3)  OJ L 348, 31.12.2007, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ L 211, 6.8.2008, p. 1.

      (5)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2305/2003 of 29 December 2003 opening and providing for the administration of a Community tariff quota for imports of barley from third countries (OJ L 342, 30.12.2003, p. 7).

      (6)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 969/2006 of 29 June 2006 opening and providing for the administration of a Community tariff quota for imports of maize from third countries (OJ L 176, 30.6.2006, p. 44).

      (7)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1067/2008 of 30 October 2008 opening and providing for the administration of Community tariff quotas for common wheat of a quality other than high quality from third countries and derogating from Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ L 290, 31.10.2008, p. 3).

      (8)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1964/2006 of 22 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the opening and administration of an import quota for rice originating in Bangladesh, pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3491/90 (OJ L 408, 30.12.2006, p. 19).

      (9)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 480/2012 of 7 June 2012 opening and providing for the management of a tariff quota for broken rice falling within CN code 1006 40 00 for the production of food preparations falling within CN code 1901 10 00 (OJ L 148, 8.6.2012, p. 1).

      (10)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 828/2009 of 10 September 2009 laying down detailed rules of application for the marketing years 2009/2010 to 2014/2015 for the import and refining of sugar products of tariff heading 1701 under preferential agreements (OJ L 240, 11.9.2009, p. 14).

      (11)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1918/2006 of 20 December 2006 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas for olive oil originating in Tunisia (OJ L 365, 21.12.2006, p. 84).

      (12)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 of 29 March 2007 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas and introducing a system of import licences and certificates of origin for garlic and certain other agricultural products imported from third countries (OJ L 90, 30.3.2007, p. 12).

      (13)  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 (OJ L 178, 1.7.2006, p. 24).

      (14)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1518/2003 of 28 August 2003 laying down detailed rules for implementing the system of export licences in the pigmeat sector (OJ L 217, 29.8.2003, p. 35).

      (15)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 382/2008 of 21 April 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing the system of import and export licences in the beef and veal sector (OJ L 115, 29.4.2008, p. 10).

      (16)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2010 of 13 December 2010 laying down detailed rules for implementing the system of export licences in the egg sector (OJ L 328, 14.12.2010, p. 1).

      (17)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 90/2011 of 3 February 2011 laying down detailed rules for implementing the system of export licences in the poultrymeat sector (OJ L 30, 4.2.2011, p. 1).

      (18)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (OJ L 349, 29.12.2009, p. 1.).

      (19)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (OJ L 238, 1.9.2006, p. 13).

      ANNEX I

                  Periods for lodging olive oil import licence applications

                  Dates of issue

                  Monday 14 or Tuesday 15 April 2014

                  Friday 25 April 2014

                  Monday 28 or Tuesday 29 April 2014

                  Wednesday 7 May 2014

                  Monday 5 or Tuesday 6 May 2014

                  Wednesday 14 May 2014

                  Monday 26 or Tuesday 27 May 2014

                  Thursday 5 June 2014

                  Monday 2 or Tuesday 3 June 2014

                  Wednesday 11 June 2014

                  Monday 14 or Tuesday 15 July 2014

                  Wednesday 23 July 2014

                  Monday 11 or Tuesday 12 August 2014

                  Wednesday 20 August 2014

      ANNEX II

                  Periods for lodging export licence applications for out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose

                  Dates of issue

                  Monday 15 to Friday 26 December 2014

                  Thursday 8 January 2015

      ANNEX III

                  Periods for lodging export licence applications for pigmeat, beef and veal, eggs and poultrymeat

                  Dates of issue

                  Monday 14 to Friday 18 April 2014

                  Thursday 24 April 2014

                  Monday 2 to Friday 6 June 2014

                  Thursday 12 June 2014

                  Monday 14 to Friday 18 July 2014

                  Thursday 24 July 2014

                  Monday 22 to Friday 26 December 2014

                  Wednesday 7 January 2015

      ANNEX IV

                  Date of notification of offers of common wheat under Article 13(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009

                  Period of notification of offers of common wheat under Article 13(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009

                  End of the period in which the Commission decides on offers of common wheat following those notifications

                  Wednesday 16 April 2014

                  Monday 14 to Monday 21 April 2014

                  Thursday 24 April 2014

                  Wednesday 28 May 2014

                  Monday 26 to Friday 30 May 2014

                  Wednesday 4 June 2014

                  Wednesday 24 December 2014
                  Wednesday 31 December 2014

                  Wednesday 17 December 2014 to Friday 2 January 2015

                  Wednesday 7 January 2015


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 581/2012 of 29 June 2012 fixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 July 2012

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 171/10

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 581/2012
   of 29 June 2012
   fixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 July 2012
   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 (EU) No 642/2010 of 20 July 2010 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation and increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.

               (2)

               Article 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, in order to calculate the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.

               (3)

               Under Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.

               (4)

               Import duties should be fixed for the period from 1 July 2012 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force.

               (5)

               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
   From 1 July 2012, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.
   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, 29 June 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 187, 21.7.2010, p. 5.

      ANNEX I

         Import duties on the products referred to in Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 applicable from 1 July 2012

                  CN code

                  Description

                  Import duties (1)

                  (EUR/t)

                  1001 19 00
                  1001 11 00

                  Durum wheat, high quality

                  0,00

                  medium quality

                  0,00

                  low quality

                  0,00

                  ex 1001 91 20

                  Common wheat seed

                  0,00

                  ex 1001 99 00

                  High quality common wheat other than for sowing

                  0,00

                  1002 10 00
                  1002 90 00

                  Rye

                  0,00

                  1005 10 90

                  Maize seed other than hybrid

                  0,00

                  1005 90 00

                  Maize other than seed (2)

                  0,00

                  1007 10 90
                  1007 90 00

                  Grain sorghum other than hybrids for sowing

                  0,00

         (1)  The importer may benefit, under Article 2(4) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, from a reduction in the duty of:

                  —

                  EUR 3/t, where the port of unloading is located on the Mediterranean Sea (beyond the Strait of Gibraltar) or on the Black Sea, for goods arriving in the Union via the Atlantic Ocean or the Suez Canal,

                  —

                  EUR 2/t, where the port of unloading is located in Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland, Sweden, the United Kingdom or on the Atlantic coast of the Iberian Peninsula, for goods arriving in the Union via the Atlantic Ocean.

         (2)  The importer may benefit from a flat-rate reduction of EUR 24/t where the conditions laid down in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 are met.

      ANNEX II

         Factors for calculating the duties laid down in Annex I

      15.6.2012-28.6.2012

                  1.

                  Averages over the reference period referred to in Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010:

                              (EUR/tonne)

                              Common wheat (1)

                              Maize

                              Durum wheat, high quality

                              Durum wheat, medium quality (2)

                              Durum wheat, low quality (3)

                              Exchange

                              Minnéapolis

                              Chicago

                              —

                              —

                              —

                              Quotation

                              258,64

                              192,65

                              —

                              —

                              —

                              Fob price USA

                              —

                              —

                              235,23

                              225,23

                              205,23

                              Gulf of Mexico premium

                              —

                              23,48

                              —

                              —

                              —

                              Great Lakes premium

                              43,36

                              —

                              —

                              —

                              —

                  2.

                  Averages over the reference period referred to in Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010:

                              Freight costs: Gulf of Mexico-Rotterdam:

                              17,04 EUR/t

                              Freight costs: Great Lakes-Rotterdam:

                              52,19 EUR/t

         (1)  Premium of EUR 14/t incorporated (Article 5(3) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010).

         (2)  Discount of EUR 10/t (Article 5(3) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010).

         (3)  Discount of EUR 30/t (Article 5(3) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010).


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/304 of 2 March 2016 entering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (Heumilch/Haymilk/Latte fieno/Lait de foin/Leche de heno (TSG))

text:
               4.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 58/28

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/304
   of 2 March 2016
   entering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (Heumilch/Haymilk/Latte fieno/Lait de foin/Leche de heno (TSG))
   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 15(1) and Article 52(3)(a) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Pursuant to Article 50(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the application from Austria to register the names ‘Heumilch’/‘Haymilk’/‘Latte fieno’/‘Lait de foin’/‘Leche de heno’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union
                   (2).

               (2)

               On 17 December 2014, the Commission received three notices of opposition from Germany (lodged by Naturland — Verband für ökologischen Landbau e.V., Gläeserne Molkerei GmbH and Bauernverband Mecklenburg-Vorpommern e.V.) which contained also the respective reasoned statements of opposition. On 30 December 2014, a notice of opposition was lodged directly to the Commission by the German association VHM (Verband für handwerkliche Milchverarbeitung im ökologischen Landbau e.V.). On 5 January 2015 Germany sent to the Commission another notice of opposition (lodged by Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH).

               (3)

               The opposition procedure based on the notice sent directly to the Commission by VHM was not initiated. According to Article 51(1), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, natural or legal persons having a legitimate interest, established or resident in a Member State other than that from which the application was submitted, may lodge a notice of opposition with the Member State in which it is established. Therefore, VHM was not allowed to lodge a notice or a statement of opposition directly to the Commission.

               (4)

               The opposition procedure based on the notice sent by Germany on 5 January 2015 was not initiated. According to Article 51(1), first subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the lodging of a notice of opposition should be made within three months from the date of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The notice of opposition received on 5 January 2015 exceeded this deadline.

               (5)

               The Commission examined the three oppositions sent by Germany on 17 December 2014 and found them admissible. By letter of 19 February 2015 it therefore invited the interested parties to engage in appropriate consultations to seek agreement among themselves in accordance with their internal procedures.

               (6)

               The opposition based on the notice sent by Germany on 17 December 2014 with reference to the opposition lodged by Naturland — Verband für ökologischen Landbau e.V. was withdrawn.

               (7)

               The deadline for consultation was extended for three additional months.

               (8)

               Austria and Germany reached an agreement, which was notified to the Commission on 10 August 2015.

               (9)

               As it complies with the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 and Union legislation, the content of the agreement concluded between Austria and Germany should be taken into account.

               (10)

               Some details in the product specification have been modified. They concern the possibility to separate producer holdings into separate units, the inclusion of auxiliary forms of feed in the 75 % compulsory roughage to be calculated as an annual average, the permission to use green compost for fertilisation and a mitigation of the conditions for the production of moist hay, fermented hay and for the production and storage of silage.

               (11)

               These elements do not constitute substantial amendments under Article 51(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. Therefore, the modified product specification should not be published for opposition. It should be, however, annexed to this Regulation for due information.

               (12)

               The agreement reached by the concerned parties also concludes that a two-year transitional period should be granted to the current producers of products bearing the names ‘Heumilch’/‘Haymilk’/‘Latte fieno’/‘Lait de foin’/‘Leche de heno’ in order to let them progressively conform to the product specification. In addition, the products not yet marketed at that date should be allowed to be put on the market until the stocks are exhausted.

               (13)

               The Commission considers that the protection of traditional specialities guaranteed should be modulated taking into account the interest of producers and operators who have been lawfully using such names so far. Therefore, taking into account the abovementioned conclusions agreed by the parties and the objectives of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, on the basis of Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, applicable by analogy also to traditional specialities guaranteed, a transitional period of two years for the producers to use the names ‘Heumilch’/‘Haymilk’/‘Latte fieno’/‘Lait de foin’/‘Leche de heno’ without complying with the product specification, combined with the authorisation to continue, after the two-year period has expired, to put on the market products not complying with the product specification until the stocks are exhausted, should be granted with the view to allowing progressive adaptation to the product specification. Such products should however not be marketed accompanied by the indication ‘traditional speciality guaranteed’, the abbreviation ‘TSG’ nor the associated Union symbol.

               (14)

               In the light of the above, the names ‘Heumilch’/‘Haymilk’/‘Latte fieno’/‘Lait de foin’/‘Leche de heno’ should be entered in the ‘register of traditional specialities guaranteed’.

               (15)

               The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Agricultural Product Quality Policy Committee,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The names ‘Heumilch’/‘Haymilk’/‘Latte fieno’/‘Lait de foin’/‘Leche de heno’ (TSG) are registered.
   The names in the first paragraph identify a product from Class 1.4 Other products of animal origin (eggs, honey, various dairy products except butter, etc.) set out in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).
   Article 2
   The consolidated product specification is set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
   Article 3
   The names ‘Heumilch’/‘Haymilk’/‘Latte fieno’/‘Lait de foin’/‘Leche de heno’ may be used to designate products not complying with the product specification for ‘Heumilch’/‘Haymilk’/‘Latte fieno’/‘Lait de foin’/‘Leche de heno’ for a period of two years from the date of entry into force of this Regulation. When used with reference to products not complying with the product specification such names may not be accompanied by the indication ‘traditional speciality guaranteed’, the abbreviation ‘TSG’ or by the associated Union symbol.
   After the expiration of the two years period, the producers of ‘Heumilch’/‘Haymilk’/‘Latte fieno’/‘Lait de foin’/‘Leche de heno’ shall be authorised to continue to put on the market products bearing these names, made prior to the end of such period and not complying with the product specification referred to in Article 2, until the stocks are exhausted.
   Article 4
   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, 2 March 2016.

            For the Commission

            The President

         Jean-Claude JUNCKER

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

      (2)  OJ C 340, 30.9.2014, p. 6.

      (3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

      ANNEX

         APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF A TSG

      Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 of 20 March 2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed (1)

         ‘HEUMILCH’/‘HAYMILK’/‘LATTE FIENO’/‘LAIT DE FOIN’/‘LECHE DE HENO’

      EC No: AT-TSG-0007-01035 — 27.8.2012
      1.   Name and address of the applicant group

                  Name

                  :

                  ARGE Heumilch Österreich

                  Address

                  :

                  Grabenweg 68, 6020 Innsbruck, AUSTRIA

                  Telephone

                  :

                  +43 512345245

                  E-mail

                  :

                  office@heumilch.at

            2.   Member state or third country

      Austria
      3.   Product specification

      3.1.   Names to be registered

      ‘Heumilch’ (de); ‘Haymilk’ (en); ‘Latte fieno’ (it); ‘Lait de foin’ (fr); ‘Leche de heno’ (es)
      3.2.   Whether the name

                  ☐

                  is specific in itself

                  ☒

                  expresses the specific character of the agricultural product or foodstuff

            Haymilk production is the most natural form of milk production. The milk comes from animals on traditional, sustainable dairy farms. The key difference between standard milk and haymilk, and haymilk's traditional character, stems from the fact that as in the earliest form of milk production, animals are not fed fermented fodder. Since the 1960s, and due to mechanisation, the industrialisation of farming has increasingly relied upon the production of silage (fermented fodder), thus reducing fresh-fodder farming. Moreover, regulations forbid the use of animals and feed which are to be identified as ‘genetically modified’ under prevailing legislation.
      The feeding procedure is adapted to match seasonal changes: in the ‘green-feeding period’, animals are fed fresh grass and foliage and some hay and forms of feed permitted under point 3.6; in the winter period, animals are fed hay, or other forms of feed permitted under point 3.6.
      3.3.   Whether reservation of the name is sought under Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006

                  ☒

                  Registration, with reservation of the name

                  ☐

                  Registration without reservation of the name

            3.4.   Type of product

      Class 1.4 Other products of animal origin
      3.5.   Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff to which the name under point 3.1 applies

      Cow's milk in accordance with the applicable legislation.
      3.6.   Description of the production method of the agricultural product or foodstuff to which the name under point 3.1 applies

      Haymilk is produced according to traditional production conditions that comply with the ‘Heumilchregulativ’ (regulations on haymilk production). This form of milk is distinguished by rules forbidding the use of fermented fodder, such as silage, and rules forbidding the use of animals and feed which are to be identified as ‘genetically modified’ under prevailing legislation.

         ‘Heumilchregulativ’

      ‘Haymilk’ is a form of cow's milk extracted from lactating cows, produced by dairy farmers who have undertaken to comply with the following criteria. In order to preserve the traditional production of haymilk, no animals or feed which are to be identified as ‘genetically modified’ under prevailing legislation may be used.
      The entire agricultural holding must be managed according to the rules of haymilk production.

                  (a)

                  A holding can however be divided into clearly defined production units, which do not all have to be managed according to these rules. They must be divided according to distinct production sectors.

                  (b)

                  If, pursuant to point (a), not all units of the holding are managed according to the rules of haymilk production, the operator must keep the animals used in haymilk production units separate from the animals used in the other units, and keep appropriate records to show the separation.

         Permitted types of feed

                  —

                  The animals are mainly fed fresh grass, leguminous plants and foliage during the ‘green-feeding period’, and hay in the winter period.

                  —

                  The following are included and permitted as further roughage: green rapeseed, green maize, green rye and fodder beets, as well as hay, lucerne and maize pellets and similar types of feed.

                  —

                  Roughage must make up at least 75 % of the yearly ration of dry feed.

                  —

                  The following cereal crops are also permitted, in their conventional marketed form and in composites with bran, pellets, etc.: wheat, barley, oats, triticale, rye and maize.

                  —

                  The following may also be used as feed: beans, field peas, lupins, oleaginous fruits, and extraction meal or cakes.

         Forbidden types of feed

                  —

                  The following types of feed are prohibited: silage (fermented fodder), moist hay and fermented hay.

                  —

                  Animals may not be fed by-products from breweries, distilleries, fruit pressing, or other by-products from the food industry, such as wet brewer's grains or wet cuttings. Exception: dry cuttings and molasses as a by-product of sugar manufacturing, and dry protein feed produced during grain processing.

                  —

                  Lactating animals may not be fed any form of wet fodder.

                  —

                  Animals may not be fed products of animal origin (milk, whey, meat-and-bone meal, etc.), except for young cows, which may be fed milk and whey.

                  —

                  Animals may not be fed garden waste, fallen fruit, potatoes or urea.

         Fertilisation conditions

                  —

                  The use of sewage sludge, sewage sludge products, or compost from municipal treatment plants, with the exception of green compost, is prohibited on all areas agriculturally exploited by the milk supplier.

                  —

                  Milk suppliers must wait at least three weeks after manure spreading before use of land to graze livestock.

         Use of chemical auxiliary substances

                  —

                  Only the selective use of synthetic chemical pesticides under the expert supervision of agronomic specialists, and the targeting of specific sites in any of the green fodder areas of the dairy farm is permitted.

                  —

                  Permitted fly sprays may be used in dairy stalls only when the lactating cows are absent.

         Delivery prohibitions

                  —

                  Milk may not be delivered as ‘haymilk’ within ten days after calving.

                  —

                  When cows that have been fed silage (fermented fodder) are used, there must be a waiting period of least 14 days.

                  —

                  As regards alpine animals on their farms which have been fed silage (fermented fodder), either they must be fed silage-free food for 14 days before they are driven up to alpine pastures, or their milk can be classed as ‘haymilk’ only once they have spent 14 days on alpine pastures (owned by the haymilk supplier). No silage may be produced or used as feed on the alpine pasture.

         Prohibition of genetically modified food and feed

                  —

                  In order to preserve the traditional production of haymilk, no animals or feed which are to be identified as ‘genetically modified’ under prevailing legislation may be used.

         Other regulations

                  —

                  No silage (fermented fodder) may be produced or stored.

                  —

                  No film-wrapped round bales of any type may be produced or stored.

                  —

                  No moist hay or fermented hay may be produced.

            3.7.   Specific character of the agricultural product or foodstuff

      Haymilk is different from standard cow's milk on account of its special production conditions pursuant to point 3.6 of the ‘Heumilchregulativ’.
      Studies by Dr Ginzinger et al. of the Bundesanstalt für alpenländische Milchwirtschaft (Federal Agency for alpine dairy farming) in Rotholz, in 1995 and 2001, showed that 65 % of the silage-milk samples analysed had over 1 000 clostridia spores per litre. Analysis of milk delivered to a large cheese manufacturer showed that 52 % of the samples had over 10 000 clostridia spores per litre. Studies showed that 85 % of the silage-free haymilk samples analysed had less than 200 spores per litre, and 15 % of the samples contained between 200 and 300 spores per litre. Haymilk has a particularly low level of clostridia spores on account of special feeding methods. When hard cheese is manufactured from raw haymilk, there are fewer major problems regarding holes and flavour.
      As part of the research project on ‘the influence of silage on milk quality’, the taste of milk from animals that had and had not been fed on silage was analysed (Ginzinger and Tschager, Bundesanstalt für alpenländische Milchwirtschaft, Rotholz, 1993). 77 % of the examined milk samples from hay-fed animals did not have taste problems. As regards milk samples from silage-fed animals (standard milk), only 29 % of the sampled milk was free from taste problems. There was also a significant difference between tests on milk from delivery lorry tanks. 94 % of the tests on silage-free haymilk had no taste problems. However, the proportion of silage-milk samples free from taste problems was only 45 %.
      A thesis study at the University of Vienna (by Schreiner, Seiz and Ginzinger, 2011) proved that haymilk has approximately double the content of omega-3 fatty acids and conjugated linoleic acids when compared to standard milk, on account of the feeding based on roughage and pasture associated with that form of milk.
      3.8.   Traditional character of the agricultural product or foodstuff

      Haymilk production and processing is as old as the tradition of dairy farming (dating back to around the 5th century BCE). In the Middle Ages, in the foothills of the Alps and the Tyrolean mountains, cheese was already being produced from haymilk on ‘Schwaighöfen’ (small-scale Alpine dairy farms). The word ‘Schwaig’ comes from Middle High German and denotes a special form of settlement and, in particular, farming in the Alpine region. ‘Schwaighof’ farms were often established as permanent settlements by land-owners and their cattle stock was primarily used for dairy farming (particularly for cheese production). They have existed in the Tyrol and Salzburg since the twelfth century. In the mountainous areas, haymilk was originally linked to the production of hard cheese from raw milk. As early as around 1900, laws (milk regulations) were already passed regarding silage-free milk suitable for the production of hard cheese. In Austria, such laws formed the basis of the ‘Milchregulative’ (milk regulations) of the provinces of Vorarlberg, the Tyrol and Salzburg around 1950. In 1975 these ‘Milchregulative’ were streamlined and defined as the prerequisites for milk suitable for the production of hard cheese by the Austrian dairy farming body (see: ‘Bestimmungen über die Übernahme von hartkäsetauglicher Milch’ (rules on milk suitable for producing hard cheese), Österreichische Milchwirtschaft Heft 14, Beilage 6 Nr. 23c, 21.7.1975). The former dairy farming authority in Austria regulated certain production areas known as ‘silage-free zones’ up until 1993, in order to preserve the raw material ‘haymilk’ (also known as ‘silage-free milk’ and ‘milk suitable for the production of hard cheese’) for cheese manufacturers reliant on raw milk. In 1995, the silage-free zone for haymilk was further protected by the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Water and Environment Management in its ‘non-use of silage measure’, contained in the ‘special guidelines to promote an environmentally friendly, extensive form of agriculture that protects natural living space’ (the Austrian programme for environmentally friendly agriculture, known as ‘ÖPUL’).
      In alpine regions animals have always traditionally been fed according to the haymilk criteria. There are documents and certificates dating from 1544 charting alpine cheese production for the Wildschönauer Holzalm alpine pasture in the Tyrol.
      Since the start of the 1980s, some haymilk farmers have also been farming according to organic/ecological criteria.
      3.9.   Minimum requirements and procedures to check the specific character

      —
      4.   Authorities or bodies verifying compliance with the product specification

      4.1.   Name and address

      —
      4.2.   Specific tasks of the authority or body

      —

         (1)  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 1. Replaced by Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 967/2014 of 12 September 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 37/2010, as regards the substance ‘lufenuron’  Text with EEA relevance

text:
               13.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 272/3

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 967/2014
   of 12 September 2014
   amending Regulation (EU) No 37/2010, as regards the substance ‘lufenuron’
   (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 470/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 and amending Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council (1), and in particular Article 14 in conjunction with Article 17 thereof,
   Having regard to the opinion of the European Medicines Agency formulated by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The maximum residue limit (hereinafter ‘MRL’) for pharmacologically active substances intended for use in the Union in veterinary medicinal products for food-producing animals or in biocidal products used in animal husbandry is to be established in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 470/2009.

               (2)

               Pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding MRLs in foodstuffs of animal origin are set out in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 (2).

               (3)

               An application for the establishment of maximum residue limits for lufenuron in salmonidae has been submitted to the European Medicines Agency.

               (4)

               The Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use recommended the establishment of a MRL for lufenuron for salmonidae, applicable to muscle and skin in natural proportions.

               (5)

               In accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 the European Medicines Agency is to consider using MRLs established for a pharmacologically active substance in a particular foodstuff for another foodstuff derived from the same species, or MRLs established for a pharmacologically active substance in one or more species for other species.

               (6)

               The Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use recommended the extrapolation of the MRLs for lufenuron from salmonidae to other fin fish species.

               (7)

               Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 should therefore be amended to include the substance lufenuron for fin fish species.

               (8)

               It is appropriate to provide for a reasonable period of time for the stakeholders concerned to take measures that may be required to comply with the newly set MRL.

               (9)

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

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
   It shall apply from 12 November 2014.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 12 September 2014.

            For the Commission

            The President

         José Manuel BARROSO

      (1)  OJ L 152, 16.6.2009, p. 11.

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 of 22 December 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin (OJ L 15, 20.1.2010, p. 1).

      ANNEX
      In Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010, an entry for the following substance is inserted in alphabetical order:

                     Pharmacologically active Substance

                     Marker residue

                     Animal Species

                     MRL

                     Target Tissues

                     Other Provisions (according to Article 14(7) of Regulation (EC) No 470/2009)

                     Therapeutic Classification

                     ‘Lufenuron
                     (RS-isomers)

                     Lufenuron
                     (RS-isomers)

                     Fin fish

                     1 350 μg/kg

                     Muscle and skin in natural proportions

                     NO ENTRY

                     Antiparasitic agents/Agents (acting) against ectoparasites’


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 758/2012 of 20 August 2012 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

text:
               21.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 223/51

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 758/2012
   of 20 August 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, 20 August 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

                  MK

                  57,4

                  ZZ

                  57,4

                  0707 00 05

                  MK

                  66,1

                  TR

                  104,5

                  ZZ

                  85,3

                  0709 93 10

                  TR

                  104,4

                  ZZ

                  104,4

                  0805 50 10

                  AR

                  90,5

                  CL

                  88,4

                  TR

                  95,0

                  UY

                  87,9

                  ZA

                  92,5

                  ZZ

                  90,9

                  0806 10 10

                  BA

                  61,1

                  EG

                  202,2

                  TR

                  139,4

                  ZZ

                  134,2

                  0808 10 80

                  AR

                  168,7

                  BR

                  105,8

                  CL

                  126,2

                  NZ

                  123,8

                  ZA

                  99,8

                  ZZ

                  124,9

                  0808 30 90

                  AR

                  111,1

                  TR

                  140,9

                  ZA

                  104,4

                  ZZ

                  118,8

                  0809 30

                  TR

                  152,4

                  ZZ

                  152,4

                  0809 40 05

                  BA

                  65,9

                  IL

                  91,1

                  ZZ

                  78,5

         (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: Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 205/2013 of 7 March 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2/2012 on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain stainless steel fasteners consigned from the Philippines, whether declared as originating in the Philippines or not and terminating the investigation concerning possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by that regulation by imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof consigned from Malaysia and Thailand, whether declared as originating in Malaysia and Thailand or not

text:
               12.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 68/1

         COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 205/2013
   of 7 March 2013
   extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2/2012 on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain stainless steel fasteners consigned from the Philippines, whether declared as originating in the Philippines or not and terminating the investigation concerning possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by that regulation by imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof consigned from Malaysia and Thailand, whether declared as originating in Malaysia and Thailand or not
   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 13 thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Whereas:
   1.   PROCEDURE

   1.1.   Existing measures

               (1)

               By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2/2012 (2) the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty of 24,7 % on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the PRC’) for all other companies than the ones mentioned in Article 1(2) of that Regulation, following the expiry review of the measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1890/2005 (3) (‘the original Regulation’). These measures will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the measures in force’ or ‘original measures’ and the investigation that led to the measures imposed by the original Regulation will be hereinafter referred to as ‘the original investigation’.

         1.2.   Initiation

               (2)

               Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient prima facie evidence existed for the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) has decided, to investigate on its own initiative the possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the PRC and to make imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof consigned from Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines or not, subject to registration.

               (3)

               The investigation was initiated on 15 June 2012 by Commission Regulation (EU) No 502/2012 (4) (‘the initiating Regulation’).

               (4)

               The prima facie evidence at the Commission’s disposal was that following the imposition of the measures established in the original investigation a significant change in the pattern of trade involving exports from the PRC, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines to the Union occurred, for which there was no sufficient due cause or justification other than the imposition of the measures established in the original investigation. This change stemmed allegedly from the transhipment of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the PRC via Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines to the Union.

               (5)

               Furthermore, the evidence pointed to the fact that the remedial effects of the measures in force were being undermined both in terms of quantity and price. The evidence showed that these increased imports from Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines were made at prices below the non-injurious price established in the original investigation, adjusted for the increase in the costs of the raw material.

               (6)

               Finally, there was evidence that the prices of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof consigned from Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines were dumped in relation to the normal value previously established during the original investigation, adjusted for the increase in the costs of the raw material.

         1.3.   Investigation

               (7)

               The Commission officially advised the authorities of the PRC, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines, the exporting producers in those countries, the importers in the Union known to be concerned and the Union industry of the initiation of the investigation.

               (8)

               Exemption forms were sent to the producers/exporters in Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines known to the Commission or through the Missions of the countries concerned to the European Union. Questionnaires were sent to the producers/exporters in the PRC known to the Commission or through the Mission of the PRC to the European Union. Questionnaires were also sent to the known importers in the Union.

               (9)

               Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing 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.

               (10)

               Seven Malaysian, six Thai and three Filipino producers/exporters and their related companies in the PRC, where applicable, have submitted replies to the exemption forms. Submissions of two Malaysian, one Thai and one Filipino companies were rejected due to formal reasons as the companies in question were either found not to be producers of the product under investigation or they failed to cooperate after the submission of the exemption form or the exemption form was submitted in a very late stage of the investigation.

               (11)

               The questionnaire replies were submitted by two Chinese exporters and four Union importers/groups of importers.

               (12)

               The Commission carried out the verification visits at the premises of the following companies:

                           —

                           MCP Precision Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia)

                           —

                           Sofasco Industries (M) Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia)

                           —

                           Tigges Fastener Technology Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia) and its related trading company Tigges Fastener Trading Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia)

                           —

                           Tong Heer Fasteners Co. Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia)

                           —

                           Well Union Metal Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia) and its related companies in Taiwan: Linkwell Industry and Linkfast Industry

                           —

                           A.B.P. Stainless Steel Fastener Co., Ltd (Thailand)

                           —

                           Dura Fasteners Co., Ltd (Thailand)

                           —

                           Taiyo Fasteners Co., Ltd (Thailand)

                           —

                           Tong Heer Fasteners Co., Ltd (Thailand)

                           —

                           TPC Stainless & Steel Fasteners Co., Ltd (Thailand) and its related companies TPC Fasteners Co. Ltd, Thai Phaisarn Fastening Co. Ltd and Phaisarn Fastening Ltd Part. (Thailand)

                           —

                           Multi-Tek Fasteners Inc. (the Philippines) and its related company in Taiwan Multi-Tek Fasteners & Parts Manufacturer Inc.

                           —

                           Phil Shin Works Corporation (the Philippines)

                           —

                           Rosario Fasteners Corporation (the Philippines) and its related company in Taiwan Lu Chu Shin Yee Works Co., Ltd

         1.4.   Reporting period and investigation period

               (13)

               The reporting period (‘RP’), i.e. the period for which value added tests and dumping/underselling calculations were done, covered 12 months from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012. The investigation period (‘IP’), i.e. the period for which analysis of changes in trade patterns were done and possible circumvention practices were examined, covered the period from the imposition of the original measures until the end of the RP.

         2.   RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

   2.1.   General considerations

               (14)

               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, the three countries concerned 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 the 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.   Product concerned and product under investigation

               (15)

               The product concerned by the possible circumvention is certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof, originating in the PRC, currently falling within CN codes 7318 12 10, 7318 14 10, 7318 15 30, 7318 15 51, 7318 15 61 and 7318 15 70 (‘the product concerned’).

               (16)

               The product under investigation is the same as the product concerned, but consigned from Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines or not, currently falling within the same CN codes as the product concerned (‘the product under investigation’).

               (17)

               The investigation showed that stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof, as defined above, exported from the PRC to the Union and those consigned from Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines 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.

         2.3.   Findings with regard to the Philippines

   2.3.1.   Level of cooperation

               (18)

               As stated in recital 10 above, only three Filipino companies (one of them later found not to be a producer or exporter of the product under investigation) submitted an exemption form reply. Thus, the cooperating companies were representing 10 % of the Filipino exports of the product under investigation to the Union in the RP.

               (19)

               A questionnaire reply was also submitted by two Chinese producers/exporters; however, none of them was involved in export to the Philippines in the IP.

               (20)

               Taking into account the relatively low level of cooperation of the Filipino and Chinese companies the findings in respect of imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof from the Philippines into the Union and exports of the product concerned from the PRC to the Philippines had to be made on the basis of facts available in accordance with Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation. In this case Eurostat data was used to determine overall import volumes from the Philippines to the Union and Chinese export statistics were used for the determination of the overall exports from the PRC to the Philippines.

               (21)

               With regard to the Chinese export statistics it should be noted that statistics of trade flows between the PRC and the Philippines cover whole HS codes that is a larger product group then the product concerned and the product under investigation. However, taking into account the very clear trend that existed, these data can be used to establish a change in pattern of trade.

               (22)

               Finally, as an additional source of information the data provided by the Filipino authorities were used. Although these data were not complete and detailed enough to be a sole basis for the analysis they were suitable to cross-check findings with regard to the pattern of trade.

         2.3.2.   Change in the pattern of trade

               (23)

               After the imposition of the original measures on the imports from the PRC, imports into the Union of the product under investigation from the Philippines increased suddenly and markedly. From the minimal level of below 100 MT yearly in 2004-05 it rose to more than 12 000 MT in the RP.

                           2004

                           2005

                           2006

                           2007

                           2008

                           2009

                           2010

                           2011

                           RP

                           Volume
                           (MT)

                           69

                           23

                           1 369

                           6 048

                           7 046

                           5 406

                           15 580

                           14 528

                           12 075

                              Source: Eurostat

               (24)

               At the same time exports from the PRC to the Philippines were increasing sharply in the years 2004-RP from 1 100 MT to more than 15 000 MT.

                           2004

                           2005

                           2006

                           2007

                           2008

                           2009

                           2010

                           2011

                           RP

                           Volume
                           (MT)

                           1 104

                           2 022

                           2 107

                           3 727

                           3 856

                           7 513

                           11 262

                           15 553

                           15 632

                              Source: Chinese export statistics (Global Trade Atlas Database)

               (25)

               The data clearly show that imports from the Philippines into the Union were negligible in 2004 and 2005. However, in 2006, following the imposition of the measures on the PRC, the imports surged suddenly and partly replaced the exports from the PRC to the Union market in terms of volume. Moreover, since the imposition of the measures in force, the decrease of the exports from the PRC to the Union has been significant (70 %). Furthermore, it is noted that the data received from the Filipino authorities confirm that only a small percentage of imports from the PRC was released for trade in the Filipino custom territory. Most of the import was directed to the special economic zones.

         2.3.3.   Nature of the circumvention practice

               (26)

               Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation requires that the change in the pattern of trade stems 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.

               (27)

               It is noted that Filipino exports of the cooperating companies amounted to some 10 % of the total Filipino exports to the Union in the RP. The remaining exports can be attributed to the producers that have not cooperated with the investigation or by pure transhipment practises. The latter conclusion is supported by the information and data provided by the Filipino authorities, in particular the facts that: (i) most of the imports from the PRC of the product concerned was directed to special economic zones and did not enter the Filipino custom territories; (ii) the number of genuine producers of the product under investigation in the Philippines is very limited.

               (28)

               The existence of transhipment of Chinese-origin products via the Philippines was therefore confirmed.

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

               (29)

               The investigation did not bring to light any other due cause or economic justification for the transhipment 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 certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the PRC via the Philippines.

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

               (30)

               To assess whether the imported product under investigation had, in terms of quantities and prices, undermined the remedial effects of the measures in force on imports of the product concerned, Eurostat data was used as the best data available concerning quantities and prices of exports by the non-cooperating companies in the Philippines. The prices so determined were compared to the injury elimination level established for Union producers in the original investigation. Given the substantial time difference between the original IP and the RP in the present investigation, the significant developments in the basic elements of costs of production had to be taken into account. This was reflected in the adjustment of the non-injurious price on the basis of the increase in the price of the basic raw materials and, for the remaining elements of costs of manufacturing and sales, on the basis of the variation in the consumer price index in the Union.

               (31)

               The increase of imports from the Philippines into the Union from below 100 MT in 2004 to over 12 000 MT in the RP was considered to be significant in terms of quantities.

               (32)

               The comparison of the adjusted injury elimination level and the weighted average export price showed underselling.

               (33)

               It was therefore concluded that the remedial effects of the measures in force are being undermined in terms of both quantities and prices.

         2.3.6.   Evidence of dumping

               (34)

               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 original investigation.

               (35)

               In the original Regulation the normal value was established on the basis of prices in Taiwan, which in that investigation was found to be an appropriate market economy analogue country for the PRC. However, given the substantial time difference between the original IP and the RP in the present investigation, the significant developments in the basic elements of costs of production had to be taken into account. This was reflected in the adjustment of the normal value on the basis of the increase in the price of the basic raw materials and, for the remaining elements of costs of manufacturing and sales, on the basis of the variation in the consumer price index in Taiwan.

               (36)

               The export price from the Philippines was based on facts available, i.e. on the average export price of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof during the RP as reported by Eurostat. The use of facts available was due to the minimal level of cooperation by producers of the product under investigation in the Philippines. The average export price used for the calculation was cross-checked with the level of export prices of the two cooperating Filipino exporters and it appeared to be compatible with them.

               (37)

               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, insurance and for non-refundable VAT on export sales in the PRC. Given that there was limited cooperation from the producers in the Philippines and the PRC, the adjustments had to be established on the basis of the best facts available. Thus, the adjustments for transport and insurance were based on per tonne transport and insurance cost established in the original investigation.

               (38)

               In accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, dumping was calculated by comparing adjusted weighted average normal value as established in the original Regulation and the corresponding weighted average export prices of the Filipino import during this investigation’s RP, expressed as a percentage of the CIF price at the Union frontier duty unpaid.

               (39)

               The comparison of the weighted average normal value and the weighted average export price as established showed dumping.

         2.4.   Findings with regard to Malaysia

   2.4.1.   Level of cooperation

               (40)

               As stated in recital 10 above, seven Malaysian companies submitted exemption form replies. One of these companies appeared not to be the producer of the product under investigation, while the other submitted its incomplete reply in the late stage of the investigation which made it impossible to supplement deficiencies and verify the submitted information and data. Therefore, these two exemption form replies had to be disregarded. Nevertheless, the remaining five cooperating Malaysian companies represented 93 % of the Malaysian exports of the product under investigation to the Union in the RP.

         2.4.2.   Change in pattern of trade

               (41)

               After the imposition of the original measures on the imports from the PRC, imports into the Union of the product under investigation from Malaysia was increasing steadily. From the level of below 2 000 MT yearly in 2004-05 it rose to more than 13 000 MT in the RP.

                           2004

                           2005

                           2006

                           2007

                           2008

                           2009

                           2010

                           2011

                           RP

                           Volume
                           (MT)

                           1 701

                           1 849

                           7 930

                           13 548

                           13 712

                           9 809

                           9 615

                           13 498

                           13 363

                              Source: Eurostat

               (42)

               However, it should be stressed that following the verification visits it was confirmed that this increase in Malaysian exports to the Union can be explained by the increase of genuine production in Malaysia over the same period. Cooperating companies, which were found to be Malaysian producers not involved in the circumvention practices, represent 93 % of the export to the Union. The investigation revealed that only one of these companies was transhipping the product concerned but this practice concerned a small part of its sales and ended in 2009. None of the cooperating companies was also found to be involved in the assembling operations where the Chinese-origin parts or semi-products would be used.

               (43)

               Taking into account the above it is concluded that increased imports from Malaysia are justified by increase in the domestic production. Therefore, the change in the pattern of trade between Malaysia and the Union does not result from circumvention practices.

         2.5.   Findings with regard to Thailand

   2.5.1.   Level of cooperation

               (44)

               As stated in recital 10 above, six Thai companies submitted exemption form replies. One of these companies failed to cooperate in the further procedure which made it impossible to supplement deficiencies and held on-spot verification of the submitted information and data. Therefore, this exemption form reply was disregarded. Nevertheless, the remaining five cooperating Thai companies represented 67 % of the Thai exports of the product under investigation to the Union in the RP.

         2.5.2.   Change in the pattern of trade

               (45)

               After the imposition of the original measures on the imports from the PRC, imports into the Union of the product under investigation from Thailand showed the following trend:

                           2004

                           2005

                           2006

                           2007

                           2008

                           2009

                           2010

                           2011

                           RP

                           Volume
                           (MT)

                           5 373

                           3 308

                           1 290

                           850

                           453

                           128

                           367

                           5 546

                           6 715

                              Source: Eurostat

               (46)

               Analyses of the exports from Thailand to the Union have to be made against the background of the fact that from November 2005 on Thailand, like the PRC, was subject to the Union anti-dumping measures (5). These measures lapsed in November 2010. Following that there was a sharp increase in Thai exports to the Union — from 367 MT in 2010 to more than 5 500 MT in 2011 and more than 6 700 MT in the RP.

               (47)

               However, it should be noted that the Thai exports of the product under investigation to the Union in the RP are in absolute terms not much higher than in 2004 before the anti-dumping measures were imposed on the PRC and Thailand. In relative terms (as a share in total Union imports) imports from Thailand even dropped from almost 12 % to 7 %.

               (48)

               The investigation did not reveal any transhipping or assembling operations where the Chinese-origin parts or semi-products would be used. Taking into account the fact that before the imposition of anti-dumping measures the exports from Thailand were definitely of genuine Thai production, it is difficult to conclude that the current level of export which is similar in volume would have different origin. It should be also stressed that the two biggest Thai producers cooperating in this investigation were also present in the original investigation against Thailand.

               (49)

               Taking into account the above it is concluded that increased imports from Thailand are to a large extent justified by domestic production. Therefore, the change in the pattern of trade between Thailand and the Union does not result from circumvention practices.

         3.   MEASURES

               (50)

               Given the above, it was concluded that the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and the parts thereof originating in the PRC was circumvented by transhipment via the Philippines within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation.

               (51)

               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 be extended to imports of the product under investigation, i.e. the same product but consigned from the Philippines, whether declared as originating in the Philippines or not.

               (52)

               In light of the low level of the cooperation in this investigation, the measures to be extended should be the measures established in Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2/2012 for ‘all other companies’ from the PRC, which is presently a definitive anti-dumping duty of 27,4 % applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty.

               (53)

               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 certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof consigned from the Philippines.

         4.   TERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION IN RESPECT OF IMPORTS FROM MALAYSIA AND THAILAND

               (54)

               In view of the findings regarding Malaysia and Thailand, the investigation concerning possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures by imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof consigned from Malaysia and Thailand should be terminated and the registration of imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof consigned from Malaysia and Thailand, introduced by the initiating Regulation, should be discontinued.

         5.   REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION

               (55)

               As explained in the recital 10, 16 companies located in Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines submitted exemption form responses requesting an exemption from the possible extended measures in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation.

               (56)

               The exemption requests of the Malaysian and Thai companies were not assessed as the measures are not extended to these two countries.

               (57)

               One of the three Filipino companies requesting exemption was found not to produce and export the product under investigation during the IP and no conclusions could be drawn as to the nature of its operations. Therefore, an exemption to this company can not be granted at this stage. However, should it appear, after extension of the anti-dumping measures in force, that the conditions in Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of the basic Regulation are fulfilled, the company may request a review of its situation.

               (58)

               Following the verification visits it was confirmed that the remaining two Filipino exporting producers were genuine. It is therefore concluded that they were not engaged in circumvention practices and therefore exemptions to these companies can be granted.

               (59)

               It is considered that special measures are needed in this case in order to ensure the proper application of such exemptions. These special measures are the requirement of the presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex to this Regulation. Imports not accompanied by such an invoice shall be made subject to the extended anti-dumping duty.

               (60)

               Other Filipino producers which did not come forward in this proceeding and did not export the product under investigation during the IP, which intend to lodge 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 assess such a request. The Commission would normally also carry out an on-spot verification visit. Provided that the conditions set out in Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of the basic Regulation are met, an exemption may be warranted. Where an exemption is warranted, the Commission may, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, authorise, by decision, the exemption of imports from companies which do not circumvent the anti-dumping measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2/2012 from the duty extended by this Regulation.

         6.   DISCLOSURE

               (61)

               All interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations leading to the above conclusions and were invited to comment. Following disclosure, no comments were received,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   1.   The definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to ‘all other companies’ from the PRC imposed by Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2/2012 on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the PRC, is hereby extended to imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof consigned from the Philippines, whether declared as originating in the Philippines or not, currently falling under CN codes ex 7318 12 10, ex 7318 14 10, ex 7318 15 30, ex 7318 15 51, ex 7318 15 61 and ex 7318 15 70 (TARIC codes 7318121011, 7318121091, 7318141011, 7318141091, 7318153011, 7318153061, 7318153081, 7318155111, 7318155161, 7318155181, 7318156111, 7318156161, 7318156181, 7318157011, 7318157061 and 7318157081), with the exception of those produced by the companies listed below:

               Company

               Additional Taric Code

               Multi-Tek Fasteners Inc., Clark Freeport Zone, Pampanga, Philippines

               B355

               Rosario Fasteners Corporation, Cavite Economic Area, Philippines

               B356

         2.   The application of exemptions granted to the companies specifically mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Article or authorised by the Commission in accordance with Article 3(2) shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex. If no such invoice is presented, the anti-dumping duty as imposed by paragraph 1 of this Article shall apply.
   3.   The duty extended by paragraph 1 of this Article shall be collected on imports consigned from the Philippines, whether declared as originating in the Philippines or not, registered in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 502/2012 and Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 with the exception of those produced by the companies listed in paragraph 1.
   4.   Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.
   Article 2
   The investigation concerning possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2/2012 on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the PRC, by imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof consigned from Malaysia and Thailand, whether declared as originating in Malaysia and Thailand or not, is hereby terminated.
   Article 3
   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: N-105 08/20

               1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

               BELGIQUE/BELGIË

               Fax +32 22956505

         2.   In accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 the Commission, after consulting the Advisory Committee, may authorise, by decision, the exemption of imports from companies which do not circumvent the anti-dumping measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2/2012 from the duty extended by Article 1.
   Article 4
   Customs authorities are hereby directed to discontinue the registration of imports, established in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 502/2012.
   Article 5
   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, 7 March 2013.

            For the Council

            The President

         A. SHATTER

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

      (2)  OJ L 5, 7.1.2012, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 302, 19.11.2005, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ L 153, 14.6.2012, p. 8.

      (5)  OJ L 302, 19.11.2005, p. 1.

      ANNEX
      A declaration signed by an official of the entity issuing the commercial invoice, in the following format, must appear on the valid commercial invoice referred to in Article 1(2):

                  (1)

                  the name and function of the official of the entity issuing the commercial invoice;

                  (2)

                  the following declaration: ‘I, the undersigned, certify that the (volume) of (product concerned) sold for export to the European Union covered by this invoice was manufactured by (company name and address) (TARIC additional code) in (country concerned). I declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct.’;

                  (3)

                  date and signature.