title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1278/2014 of 1 December 2014 amending Regulations (EC) No 967/2006, (EC) No 828/2009, (EC) No 891/2009 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 75/2013

text:
               2.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 346/26

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1278/2014
   of 1 December 2014
   amending Regulations (EC) No 967/2006, (EC) No 828/2009, (EC) No 891/2009 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 75/2013
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), and in particular Articles 144(c), 144(j), 178(b), 178(f), 178(h), Article 180 and Articles 182(4) and 192(5) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 provides for the extension of the sugar quota regime until 30 September 2017 and introduces changes in that regime. It is therefore necessary to adapt certain Regulations in the sugar sector.

               (2)

               For reasons of clarity, it is necessary to amend Article 4(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 (2) so as to exactly correspond to Article 140(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 which establishes that industrial sugar, industrial isoglucose or industrial inulin must have been delivered to the user on 30 November of the following marketing year at the latest.

               (3)

               Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 sets the deadlines for communications from the Member States to the Commission of quantities carried forward by the undertakings in application of Article 141 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. In view of the new dates for communications by undertakings to the Member States set out in that Article, the deadlines set out in Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 need to be adapted accordingly.

               (4)

               Commission Regulation (EC) No 828/2009 (3) lays down rules for imports of sugar products of tariff heading 1701 under preferential agreements until the 2014/2015 marketing year. Article 4(4) of that Regulation establishes the list of documents that shall accompany the import licence applications and lays down that export licences may be replaced by certified copies. In view of technical developments and to simplify procedures, electronic transmission of export licences should be allowed under certain conditions.

               (5)

               Considering that imports under certain preferential regimes are not subject to a limited quota quantity, it is opportune to facilitate customs procedures by allowing a customary level of tolerance of maximum 5 % in licences for preferential sugar imports.

               (6)

               Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 (4) amended Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (5) by changing some of the CN codes applicable to sugar. The new CN codes have already been given to the products covered by Regulation (EC) No 828/2009 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 (6) and are already being used in practice by Member States' customs authorities. Therefore, a technical adjustment of the CN codes referred to in those Regulations is opportune.

               (7)

               The Commission has developed an information system that allows managing documents and procedures electronically in its own internal working procedures and in its relations with the authorities involved in the common agricultural policy. It is considered that the notification obligations provided for in Regulation (EC) No 828/2009 can be fulfilled via that system in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 (7).

               (8)

               In view of the market conditions and forecast prevailing at the time, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 75/2013 (8) provided for the non-application of additional import duties for some sugar products until the end of the marketing year 2014/2015. In view of the extension of the sugar quota regime and considering that the market forecast does not substantially change until the end of the quota regime, the non-application of additional import duties for those sugar products should be extended until 30 September 2017.

               (9)

               Regulations (EC) No 967/2006, (EC) No 828/2009, (EC) No 891/2009 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 75/2013 should therefore be amended accordingly.

               (10)

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

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   Amendments to Regulation (EC) No 967/2006
   Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 is amended as follows:

               (1)

               in Article 4(1), point (a) is replaced by the following:

                           ‘(a)

                           delivered to a processor on 30 November of the following marketing year at the latest to be used in the manufacture of the products referred to in the Annex;’

                     ;

               (2)

               in Article 17, points (a) and (b) are replaced by the following:

                           ‘(a)

                           not later than 15 September, the quantities of beet sugar, inulin syrup and cane sugar from the current marketing year to be carried forward to the next marketing year;’

                     .

         Article 2
   Amendments to Regulation (EC) No 828/2009
   Regulation (EC) No 828/2009 is amended as follows:

               (1)

               Article 4 is amended as follows:

                           (a)

                           in paragraph 4, the following subparagraph is added:
                           ‘Electronic or facsimile copies of the export licences referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph, or of the certified copies referred to in the second subparagraph, may be submitted in place of the originals in support of import licence applications provided that the originals are submitted by the applicant to the competent authorities of the Member States at the point of customs clearance of the import licence prior to customs clearance of the goods covered by the import licence issued on the strength of the electronic or facsimile copies.’;

                           (b)

                           in paragraph 6, ‘a document’ shall be replaced by ‘an original, electronic, or facsimile document’;

                           (c)

                           the following paragraph 7 is added:
                           ‘7.   Article 48(1) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 shall not apply where the quantity of sugar imported under this Regulation is greater by not more than 5 % of the quantity indicated in the import licence. The additional quantity shall be considered to have been imported under that licence’;

               (2)

               Article 8 is amended as follows:

                           (a)

                           in the first paragraph, CN code ‘1701 11 10’ is replaced by ‘1701 13 10, 1701 14 10’,

                           (b)

                           in the second paragraph, CN code ‘1701 11 90’ is replaced by ‘1701 13 90, 1701 14 90’;

               (3)

               in Article 9, paragraph 6 is replaced by the following:
               ‘6.   The notifications referred to in this Regulation shall be made in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 (9)..
         Article 3
   Amendments to Regulation (EC) No 891/2009
   Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 is amended as follows:

               (1)

               in Article 13(1), CN code ‘1701 11 90’ is replaced by ‘1701 13 90, 1701 14 90’;

               (2)

               in Annex I, Part I, CN code ‘1701 11 10’ is replaced by ‘1701 13 10 and 1701 14 10’.

         Article 4
   Amendment to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 75/2013
   In Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 75/2013, ‘30 September 2015’ is replaced by ‘30 September 2017’.
   Article 5
   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.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 1 December 2014.

            For the Commission

            The President

         Jean-Claude JUNCKER

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

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 of 29 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards sugar production in excess of the quota (OJ L 176, 30.6.2006, p. 22).

      (3)  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).

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 282, 28.10.2011, p. 1).

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

      (6)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (OJ L 254, 26.9.2009, p. 82).

      (7)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 of 31 August 2009 laying down detailed rules for the Member States' notification to the Commission of information and documents in implementation of the common organisation of the markets, the direct payments' regime, the promotion of agricultural products and the regimes applicable to the outermost regions and the smaller Aegean islands (OJ L 228, 1.9.2009, p. 3).

      (8)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 75/2013 of 25 January 2013 derogating from Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 as regards the application of representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 892/2012 fixing the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector for the 2012/2013 marketing year (OJ L 26, 26.1.2013, p. 19).

      (9)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 of 31 August 2009 laying down detailed rules for the Member States' notification to the Commission of information and documents in implementation of the common organisation of the markets, the direct payments' regime, the promotion of agricultural products and the regimes applicable to the outermost regions and the smaller Aegean islands (OJ L 228, 1.9.2009, p. 3).’


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1010/2011 of 12 October 2011 fixing an acceptance percentage for the issuing of export licences, rejecting export licence applications and suspending the lodging of export licence applications for out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose

text:
               13.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 268/14

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1010/2011
   of 12 October 2011
   fixing an acceptance percentage for the issuing of export licences, rejecting export licence applications and suspending the lodging of export licence applications for out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),
   Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 7e in conjunction with Article 9(1) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               According to Article 61, first subparagraph, point (d) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 the sugar produced during the marketing year in excess of the quota referred to in Article 56 of that Regulation may be exported only within the quantitative limit fixed by the Commission.

               (2)

               Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2011 of 15 April 2011 fixing the quantitative limit for the exports of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose until the end of the 2011/2012 marketing year (3) sets the above mentioned limits. This Regulation will apply only from 1 January 2012 and therefore the quantitative limit for the exports of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose until the end of the 2011/2012 marketing year will only be available from this date.

               (3)

               For the 2011/2012 marketing year an acceptance percentage should therefore be set at zero for quantities applied from 3 October 2011 to 7 October 2011 and the lodging of export licence applications for sugar and isoglucose should be suspended. For the 2011/2012 marketing year all export licence applications for sugar and isoglucose submitted on 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 October 2011 should accordingly be rejected,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   1.   For 2011/2012 marketing year export licences for out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose for which applications were lodged from 3 October 2011 to 7 October 2011, shall be issued for the quantities applied for, multiplied by an acceptance percentage of 0 %.
   2.   For 2011/2012 marketing year applications for out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose export licences submitted on 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 October 2011 are hereby rejected.
   3.   For 2011/2012 marketing year the lodging of applications for out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose export licences shall be suspended for the period 17 October 2011 to 31 December 2011.
   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, 12 October 2011.

            For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

         José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

            Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

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

      (2)  OJ L 178, 1.7.2006, p. 24

      (3)  OJ L 102, 16.4.2011, p. 8.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 695/2011 of 19 July 2011 on the issue of import licences and the allocation of import rights for applications lodged during the first seven days of July 2011 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for poultrymeat

text:
               20.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 189/7

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 695/2011
   of 19 July 2011
   on the issue of import licences and the allocation of import rights for applications lodged during the first seven days of July 2011 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for poultrymeat
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),
   Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 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 (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Commission Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 (3) opened tariff quotas for imports of poultrymeat products originating in Brazil, Thailand and other third countries.

               (2)

               The applications for import licences lodged in respect of Groups Nos 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 during the first seven days of July 2011 for the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2011 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested.

               (3)

               The applications for import rights lodged during the first seven days of July 2011 for the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2011 in respect of Group No 5 relate to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import rights may be allocated should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   1.   The quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2011 in respect of Groups Nos 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.
   2.   The quantities for which import rights applications have been lodged pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2011 in respect of Group No 5 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficient set out in the Annex hereto.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 July 2011.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 19 July 2011.

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

            Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

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

      (2)  OJ L 238, 1.9.2006, p. 13.

      (3)  OJ L 142, 5.6.2007, p. 3.

      ANNEX

                  Group No

                  Order No

                  Allocation coefficient for import licence applications lodged for the subperiod from 1.10.2011 to 31.12.2011
                  (%)

                  1

                  09.4211

                  0,555327

                  6

                  09.4216

                  0,671918

                  Group No

                  Order No

                  Allocation coefficient for import rights applications lodged for the subperiod from 1.10.2011 to 31.12.2011
                  (%)

                  5

                  09.4215

                  1,377411


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 977/2012 of 23 October 2012 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

text:
               24.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 294/5

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 977/2012
   of 23 October 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, 23 October 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

                  AL

                  32,3

                  MA

                  58,6

                  MK

                  36,4

                  ZZ

                  42,4

                  0707 00 05

                  MK

                  30,8

                  TR

                  122,6

                  ZZ

                  76,7

                  0709 93 10

                  TR

                  116,3

                  ZZ

                  116,3

                  0805 50 10

                  AR

                  87,6

                  CL

                  85,7

                  TR

                  86,6

                  ZA

                  88,2

                  ZZ

                  87,0

                  0806 10 10

                  BR

                  282,8

                  MK

                  80,9

                  TR

                  142,2

                  ZZ

                  168,6

                  0808 10 80

                  AR

                  216,2

                  CL

                  133,2

                  MK

                  29,8

                  NZ

                  141,2

                  ZA

                  142,9

                  ZZ

                  132,7

                  0808 30 90

                  CN

                  58,8

                  TR

                  112,5

                  ZZ

                  85,7

         (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 871/2013 of 2 September 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 511/2010 on imports of molybdenum wire, containing by weight at least 99,95 % of molybdenum, of which the maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm, originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of molybdenum wire, containing by weight at least 97 % of molybdenum, of which the maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm, originating in the People’s Republic of China

text:
               12.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 243/2

         COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 871/2013
   of 2 September 2013
   extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 511/2010 on imports of molybdenum wire, containing by weight at least 99,95 % of molybdenum, of which the maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm, originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of molybdenum wire, containing by weight at least 97 % of molybdenum, of which the maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm, originating in the People’s Republic of China
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 13 thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission after having consulted the Advisory Committee,
   Whereas:
   1.   PROCEDURE

   1.1.   Existing measures

               (1)

               In December 2009, the European Commission (‘the Commission’), by Regulation (EU) No 1247/2009 (2) (‘the provisional anti-dumping Regulation’), imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of molybdenum wire, containing by weight at least 99,95 % of molybdenum, of which the maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm, originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’).

               (2)

               In June 2010, the Council, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 511/2010 (3), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty of 64,3 % on the same imports. These measures will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the measures in force’ and the investigation that led to the measures in force will be hereinafter referred to as ‘the original investigation’.

               (3)

               In January 2012, following an anti-circumvention investigation pursuant to Article 13 of the basic Regulation, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 14/2012 (4) the Council extended the measures in force to imports of the product concerned consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not.

         1.2.   Request

               (4)

               In November 2012, the Commission received a request pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation to investigate the possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on certain molybdenum wires originating in the PRC by imports of certain slightly modified molybdenum wires, containing by weight 97 % or more but less than 99,95 % of molybdenum, originating in the PRC, and to make such imports subject to registration.

               (5)

               The request was lodged by Plansee SE (‘Plansee’), a Union producer of certain molybdenum wires that participated in the original investigation.

               (6)

               The request contained sufficient prima facie evidence that the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain molybdenum wires originating in the PRC are being circumvented by means of imports of a certain slightly modified molybdenum wires, containing by weight 97 % or more but less than 99,95 % of molybdenum, originating in the PRC.

         1.3.   Initiation

               (7)

               Having determined, after the 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 Commission initiated an investigation by Regulation (EU) No 1236/2012 (5) (‘the initiating Regulation’) of the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of certain molybdenum wires originating in the PRC and also directed the customs authorities to register imports into the Union of molybdenum wire, containing by weight 97 % or more but less than 99,95 % of molybdenum, of which the maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm and currently falling within CN code ex 8102 96 00 (TARIC code 8102960030), originating in the PRC, as from 21 December 2012.

         1.4.   Product concerned and product under investigation

               (8)

               The product concerned is the same as defined in the original investigation, namely molybdenum wire, containing by weight at least 99,95 % of molybdenum, of which the maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm (‘pure molybdenum’) originating in the PRC currently falling within CN code ex 8102 96 00.

               (9)

               The product under investigation, namely the product allegedly circumventing, is the same as that defined in recital 7 containing by weight 97 % or more but less than 99,95 % of molybdenum, of which the maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm originating in the PRC.

         1.5.   Investigation and parties concerned by the investigation

               (10)

               The Commission officially advised the authorities of the PRC of the initiation of the investigation and sent questionnaires to the exporting producers in the PRC and importers in the Union known to be concerned. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make themselves and 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 facts available.

               (11)

               Two exporting producers submitted a questionnaire reply to the Commission. One of these companies, who also cooperated during the original investigation, is a genuine exporting producer of the product under investigation. As regards the second one, this company did not report any sales of the product under investigation. Therefore, its submission was disregarded.

               (12)

               Four importers submitted a questionnaire reply to the Commission. One of them did not report any imports of the product under investigation and turned out to be a user of molybdenum wire.

               (13)

               The Commission carried out on-spot investigations at the two premises of the cooperating Chinese exporting producer:

                           —

                           Jinduicheng Molybdenum Co., Ltd, No 88, Jinye 1st Road, Hi-Tech Industry Developing Zone, Xi’an, Shaanxi Province, P.R. China (‘JDC’),

                           —

                           Jinduicheng GuangMing Co., Ltd, No 104 Mihe Road, Zhoucun District, Zibo City, P.R. China,

                     and at the premises of the following Union importer:

                           —

                           GTV Verschleißschutz GmbH, Vor der Neuwiese 7, D-57629 Luckenbach, Germany (‘GTV’).

               (14)

               The three other importers were not visited, but their submissions were duly examined in the course of the investigation.

         1.6.   Investigation and reporting periods

               (15)

               The investigation period was set from 1 January 2008 to 30 September 2012 (‘IP’) in order to investigate the alleged change in the pattern of trade. The reporting period (‘RP’) covered the period from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012 in order to investigate if the imports are made at prices below the non-injurious price established in the investigation that led to the existing measures and the existence of dumping.

         2.   RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

   2.1.   General considerations

               (16)

               In accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the assessment of the existence of possible circumvention practices was made by analysing successively:

                           (1)

                           whether there was a change in pattern of trade between the PRC and the Union;

                           (2)

                           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;

                           (3)

                           if there was evidence of injury or that remedial effects of the duty were being undermined in terms of the prices and/or quantities of the product under investigation; and

                           (4)

                           whether there was evidence of dumping in relation to the normal values previously established for the like product, if necessary in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the basic Regulation.

         2.2.   Slight modification and essential characteristics

               (17)

               The investigation has shown that the product under investigation is a wire made of molybdenum (between 99,6 % and 99,7 %) and usually lanthanum (La) (between 0,25 % and 0,35 %). This alloy contains also other chemicals elements and is known as a ‘doped molybdenum’ or ‘MoLa’ or ‘ML’. The product concerned and the product under investigation both currently fall under CN code 8102 96 00. As explained below, the investigation did not find any difference in the production process of the product under investigation and the product concerned, other than the addition of a low percentage of lanthanum to pure molybdenum at the blending step. In addition, the cooperating exporting producer confirmed that the cost of production of the product under investigation is similar to the cost of the product concerned. This implies that there is no economic benefit for the exporting producer to produce the product under investigation other than avoidance of the measures in force. Furthermore, it was found that the users of the product concerned switched to the product under investigation after the imposition of the provisional measures, which implies that there is no difference between the product concerned and the product under consideration for the users.

               (18)

               As mentioned in recital 15 of the provisional anti-dumping Regulation, the product concerned is mainly used as coating in the manufacturing of automotive parts (i.e. gear boxes), aircraft parts or as electrical contacts. The most traded diameters of the product concerned are 2,31 mm and 3,17 mm, used for flame or arc spraying.

               (19)

               Three parties argued that the product under investigation and the product concerned have different essential characteristics. At the request of two of them, a confrontational hearing with GTV, JDC and Plansee, chaired by the Hearing Officer, took place in April 2013. As explained in detail below, during the hearing the main focus was on the alleged technical differences between the product concerned and the product under investigation, and the economic justification for importation of the latter into the Union market.

               (20)

               GTV and JDC argued during the hearing and in writing that the product under investigation has different essential physical characteristics which differ significantly from the product concerned. More specifically, they claimed that the ductility, namely the ability of the material to be drawn out longitudinally to a reduced section without fracture under the action of a tensile force, the elongation parameters and the coating properties of the product under investigation are especially improved compared to the product concerned.

               (21)

               In support of this claim, the two parties submitted a number of articles and studies which aimed to show that alloying molybdenum and lanthanum leads to a product with better resistance to brittle failure and better elongation than the product concerned. These parties also claimed that information published on the Plansee’s web site provides evidence that the product under investigation has improved properties compared to the product concerned.

               (22)

               Regarding the product’s characteristics, in order to evaluate whether the product under investigation and the product concerned have different essential characteristics, Plansee proposed to mandate an independent institute to compare the product concerned and the product under investigation.

               (23)

               After the hearing, the above request was assessed on the basis of the evidence collected during the investigation, in particular the purchase orders sent by importers to the exporting producer, the explanations provided by the exporting producer about its production process, the chemical content and elongation and tensility characteristics mentioned on certificates of qualities, the commercial invoices issued by the exporting producer and the absence of any commercial information related to the improved characteristic of the product under investigation compared to the product concerned sent to any customer. All the information confirmed that better properties were not requested by the customers nor provided by the producer of the product under investigation. Therefore, it was concluded that an expert’s opinion is not necessary. In consequence, this request was rejected.

               (24)

               In this aspect, the investigation has confirmed that the improved qualities mentioned above in recital 20 depend on the content of lanthanum and on whether an optimised production processes is being used. However, the cooperating exporting producer did not demonstrate that it put in place the optimised production processes for the product under investigation exported to the Union during the IP. The claim was therefore rejected as unfounded.

               (25)

               One party claimed that the product under investigation has improved coating properties. However, the party did not submit sufficient evidence to support this statement. The claim was therefore rejected as unfounded.

               (26)

               Two parties claimed that fracture toughness is improved for the product under investigation. This means that the wire never breaks when unrolled inside a spraying machine. However, these parties were asked to provide supporting documentation but failed in doing this. In the absence of any supporting evidence, this claim was disregarded.

               (27)

               In the light of the above, it has been concluded that the product under investigation has no different properties compared to the product concerned.

               (28)

               Furthermore, the evidence collected during the verification visits shows that users/importers did not specifically request the product with the claimed better physical characteristics as described above in recital 20 when placing their orders. None of them requested a specific content of lanthanum but did request at least 99 % of pure molybdenum. Only one customer requested specific physical characteristics for the parameters of elongation and tensility. In this case, the exporting producer tested these parameters and provided this customer with certificates of quality. As these certificates were also delivered for the product concerned, it was possible to compare the two products for these parameters. The comparison showed that the requirements for elongation and tensility were identical for both products.

               (29)

               In addition, the investigation showed that the exporting producer did not inform the market or their customers on the alleged advantages of the product under investigation over the product concerned and did not market the slightly modified MoLa wires as a new or different product.

               (30)

               Based on a patent registered by Plansee in January 1996, one party claimed that the product concerned and the product under investigation are different products. Analysis of this claim showed that the patent does not concern the product under investigation but the use of a molybdenum alloy as a lead-in conductor for lamps, electron tubes and similar components. Furthermore, the diameters of this product type are lower than the diameters defined for the product under investigation. In addition, as mentioned above in recital 24, the alleged improved qualities of MoLa over the product concerned depend on the use of an optimised production process. The claim is therefore rejected.

               (31)

               Therefore, it has to be concluded that from a customer’s point of view, the product concerned and the product under investigation are very similar.

               (32)

               One party claimed that the commercial offers published on Plansee’s web site show that they offered the product under investigation not only in the field of thermal spraying but also in various other domains (i.e. lamp components and wire cutting industries). However, Plansee commented that the commercial information published on its web site indicates the diameters for which they are able to supply. In addition, the investigation showed that Plansee’s sales for other domains are very limited (i.e. less than 2 % in quantity compared with the sales of the product concerned) and that an optimised production processes was used. Therefore, this claim was rejected.

               (33)

               One party claimed that Plansee was already producing the product under investigation when it lodged the complaint which led to the initiation of the original investigation and since Plansee considers that the product under investigation and the product concerned share the same essential characteristics, they should have included it in the scope of the original investigation. However, as explained above in recital 32, the investigation confirmed that this particular MoLa wire is different from the product under investigation. The product diameters are generally below 1 mm and it is mainly used in the lighting industry. Moreover, as mentioned below in Table 1, the imports of the product under investigation started only after provisional measures were imposed on the product concerned. Therefore, in the absence of any imports of the product under investigation during the IP of the original investigation, there were no reasons to include this product in the product scope. The claim is therefore rejected as unfounded.

               (34)

               One party claimed that the expansion of the range from 99,95 % down to 97 % will cover all kinds of molybdenum alloys, and in consequence these products would not be available on the Union market (i.e. for example for the redrawing market). Firstly, this party did not present any evidence supporting this statement. Secondly, the investigation has shown that only one exporting producer was exporting MoLa to the Union during the IP and no other alloys which would be covered by the definition of the product under investigation. Thirdly, the investigation showed that the market in the Union for redrawing and sales of molybdenum alloys is very limited. Finally, the extension of the measures will not make it impossible to import the product under investigation. The claim was therefore rejected.

               (35)

               As far as the questions of whether or not the modification mentioned in recital 19 altered the essential characteristics of the product concerned, the information provided by the cooperating parties, analysed in recitals 24 to 34, revealed that the product under investigation has the same basic physical characteristics and uses as the product concerned.

               (36)

               In consequence, it was found that there are no relevant physical characteristics differences between the product under investigation and the product concerned. Therefore, it was concluded that the product under investigation is considered as a like product within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

               (37)

               Therefore, it has to be concluded that the product under investigation is only slightly modified compared to the product concerned, imported for no other economic justification but to circumvent the anti-dumping duties in place.

         2.3.   Change in the pattern of trade

   2.3.1.   Imports of molybdenum wires into the Union

               (38)

               Information about the Union imports could not be directly obtained from Eurostat data, as the CN code under which the product under investigation is declared includes also other products than the product under investigation. Therefore, in the absence of specific import statistics for the product under investigation, Eurostat data was adjusted in accordance with the method suggested in the request. Accordingly, the volume of imports of the product under investigation into the Union was established on the basis of an estimation of Union consumption of molybdenum wires adjusted by the total Union production of the product concerned. This method was found to be reliable to obtain data relating to the product under investigation.

               (39)

               As mentioned in recital 11, only one exporting producer in the PRC cooperated with the investigation. However, on the basis of the comparison of the information given by this exporting producer with the adjusted Eurostat data mentioned in the previous recital, it was established that this company represented most of the total Union imports of the product under investigation during the IP and was thus considered to be representative for the total Union imports of molybdenum wires.

               (40)

               As shown in the table below, the imports into the Union of the product concerned stopped entirely after the imposition of the definitive measures in June 2010 and were immediately replaced by imports of the product under investigation.

                  Table 1

                  Evolution of the imports of the product concerned and product under investigation originating in the PRC

                           Imports to the EU

                           2008

                           2009

                           1.1.2010 (7) -16.6.2010

                           17.6.2010 (8)-31.12.2010

                           2010

                           2011

                           RP (9)

                           Total Imports (tonnes indexed) (6)

                           100

                           31

                           10

                           17

                           27

                           128

                           99

                           Total Imports (%)

                           100

                           100

                           100

                           100

                           100

                           100

                           100

                           Product Concerned (%)

                           100

                           100

                           20

                           0

                           7

                           0

                           0

                           Product Under Investigation (%)

                           0

                           0

                           80

                           100

                           93

                           100

                           100

                                          Source:

                                       JDC submission.

               (41)

               The investigation confirmed that parties which purchased the product under investigation after the imposition of the provisional duty were purchasing the product concerned before the imposition of the measures. These parties purchased 99,8 % of the total quantity of the product under investigation during the RP.

               (42)

               Two interested parties claimed that as early as in 2007, they started a project to develop the product under investigation in the PRC and thus the exports of the product under investigation was not linked to the imposition of the measures on the product concerned. However, the investigation did not confirm the materiality of such a project. Altogether, one e-mail, the minutes of one phone conference and the export of a sample of the product under investigation for further analysis were provided. Furthermore, this project did not result in any sales of the product under investigation to the Union before the imposition of the provisional measures on the product concerned, namely in October 2010. Nevertheless, the fact that a project was allegedly initiated in 2007 does not change the finding that the product concerned and the product under investigation are similar. The conclusion reached in the investigation that there was no economic justification for the export of the product under investigation than the imposition of the measures on the product concerned also remain valid.

               (43)

               The investigation also showed that no sales of the product under investigation were made to other countries than the Union and that only limited quantities were sold in the Chinese market during the IP as shown in Table 2 below.

                  Table 2

                  Product under investigation market

                           2008

                           2009

                           1.1.2010-16.6.2010

                           17.6.2010-31.12.2010

                           2010

                           2011

                           1.10.2011-30.9.2012

                           Total Turnover (indexed) (10)

                           100

                           96

                           863

                           1 529

                           2 392

                           11 168

                           8 123

                           Total Turnover (%)

                           100

                           100

                           100

                           100

                           100

                           100

                           100

                           Domestic sales (PRC) (%)

                           100

                           100

                           5

                           4

                           4,2

                           0,4

                           2

                           EU sales (%)

                           0

                           0

                           95

                           96

                           95,8

                           99,6

                           98

                           Other countries sales (%)

                           0

                           0

                           0

                           0

                           0

                           0

                           0

                                          Source:

                                       JDC submission.

               (44)

               Based on the above, the claim is rejected.

         2.3.2.   Conclusion on the change in pattern of trade

               (45)

               The overall increase of exports of the product under investigation to the Union from the PRC after the imposition of the provisional and the definitive measures and the parallel decrease of the imports of the product concerned constituted a change in pattern of trade between the PRC and the Union.

         2.4.   Nature of the circumvention practice and insufficient due cause or economic justification

               (46)

               Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation requires that the change in 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 duty.

               (47)

               As mentioned in recital 45, it was concluded that there is a change in pattern of trade.

               (48)

               As mentioned in recitals 28 and 29, it was concluded that neither the exporting producer nor the importers informed the market or their customers on the alleged advantages of the product under investigation over the product concerned and did not market the product under investigation as a new or different product.

               (49)

               Furthermore, both the product concerned and the product under investigation are mainly used as spray wires in the automotive industry, and the end-users of both products are the same.

               (50)

               One party claimed that the product under investigation provides significant improvements when used as spray wire. These improvements have an impact on the productivity of coating gear components, by minimising production interruption due to brittle wire failure. However, the investigation has confirmed that this party did not market the product under investigation nor informed its customers about the alleged different technical characteristics or about the improvements brought by the product under investigation. In addition, the customers did not specifically ask for the improvements. The claim was therefore rejected as unfounded.

               (51)

               One party claimed that one user switched to the product under investigation because of the technical failures of the product concerned. However, this party was asked to provide supporting documentation but failed in doing this. In the absence of any supporting evidence, this claim was disregarded.

               (52)

               GTV claimed that MoLa used for spray coating provides better results when considering the coating micro hardness. This allows avoiding wear by material transfer from the surface of a component rubbing on a counterpart. This party submitted test results from an independent laboratory showing that micro hardness can be improved with the use of MoLa. However, the methodology used by the independent laboratory did not guarantee the outcome as the test was realised on only one batch of wire while this party claimed that a further test analysis should cover a multitude of batches. In addition, the chemical composition of the sample tested was not analysed which means that there is no guarantee that the batch analysed was actually the product under investigation. The claim was therefore rejected as unfounded.

               (53)

               The investigation did not bring to light any other due cause or economic justification for the imports of the product under investigation other than the avoidance of the payment of the duty in force.

               (54)

               It is therefore concluded that, in the absence of any other sufficient due cause or economic justification within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the change in the pattern of trade between the PRC and the Union was due to the imposition of the measures in force.

         2.5.   Undermining of the remedial effects of the duty in terms of the prices and/or the quantities of the like product

               (55)

               To assess whether the imports of the product under investigation, in terms of quantities and prices, undermined the remedial effects to the measures in force, data provided by one cooperating exporting producer as described in recital 39 were used.

               (56)

               The increase in imports of the product under investigation from the PRC as from the imposition of the provisional measures was significant in terms of quantities. The level of imports into the Union from the PRC in the RP corresponds to the level of imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC to the Union in 2008, before the imposition of measures.

               (57)

               The comparison of the injury elimination level as established in the original Regulation and the weighted average of exports price showed significant underselling. It was therefore concluded that the remedial effects of the measures in force are being undermined both in terms of quantities and prices.

         2.6.   Evidence of dumping in relation to the normal value previously established for the like product

               (58)

               Export prices of the product under investigation have been established on the basis of the verified information provided by the cooperating exporting producer.

               (59)

               These export prices were found to be slightly lower compared to the export prices of the product concerned previously established in the original investigation. Two interested parties confirmed that there is almost no price difference between the product concerned and the product under investigation.

               (60)

               Therefore, in accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, it was considered appropriate to compare the normal value previously established in the original investigation with the export price of the product under investigation.

               (61)

               As mentioned in recitals 24 and 25 of the provisional regulation, the USA was considered to be an appropriate market economy analogue country. It is recalled that since the analogue country producer made only marginal sales on the domestic US market, it was found unreasonable to use US domestic sales data for the purposes of determining or constructing normal value. Consequently, the normal value for the PRC was established on the basis of export prices from the USA to other third countries, including the Union.

               (62)

               One party claimed that the normal value established in the original investigation should be adjusted because the price of molybdenum oxide, which is a decisive factor for the price setting of both the product concerned and the product under investigation, fell sharply in the RP of this investigation. As mentioned above in recital 61, normal value in the original investigation was established on the basis of the prices charged for export by a producer located in the USA and not on the basis of its costs. Therefore, any adjustment based on costs does not seem to be appropriate in this case. Because the price of the main raw material decreased significantly it appears even more clearly that prices elements should be used to establish the relevant normal value in this case.

               (63)

               The adjustment to the normal value was thus established on the basis of the evolution of prices of the product concerned. Given that the US producer stopped its activity and that no information was available from the analogue country, the adjustment was calculated on the basis of the prices reported by Plansee in the original investigation and during the RP. This led to a downwards adjustment of about 20 % to the normal value established in the original investigation.

               (64)

               In accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, dumping was calculated by comparing the adjusted weighted average normal value as established in the original investigation and the weighted average export prices of the product under investigation established during this investigation’s RP, expressed as a percentage of the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before customs duty.

               (65)

               The comparison of the adjusted weighted average normal value and the weighted average export prices showed the existence of dumping.

         3.   REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION

               (66)

               One exporting producer in the PRC requested an exemption from the possible extended measures in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation and submitted a questionnaire reply.

               (67)

               The investigation has however confirmed that this producer circumvented the measures in place. It was therefore concluded to reject the request.

         4.   MEASURES

               (68)

               In view of the findings above, it was concluded that the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of molybdenum wires originating in the PRC was circumvented by imports of certain slightly modified molybdenum wires originating in the PRC.

               (69)

               In accordance with the first sentence of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the existing anti-dumping measures on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC should be extended to imports of the product under investigation.

               (70)

               Pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, which provide that any extended measures shall be applied against registered imports from the date of registration, the anti-dumping duty should be collected on all imports into the Union of molybdenum wire, containing by weight 97 % or more but less than 99,95 % of molybdenum, of which the maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm and currently falling within CN code ex 8102 96 00 (TARIC code 8102960030) which entered the Union under registration imposed by the initiating Regulation.

         5.   DISCLOSURE

               (71)

               All interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations leading to the above conclusions and were invited to comment. The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were considered. None of the arguments presented gave rise to a modification of the findings,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 511/2010 on imports of molybdenum wire, containing by weight at least 99,95 % of molybdenum, of which the maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm, originating in the People’s Republic of China, is hereby extended to imports into the Union of molybdenum wire, containing by weight at least 97 % of molybdenum, of which the maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm, originating in the People’s Republic of China, currently falling within CN code ex 8102 96 00 (TARIC code 8102960030).
   Article 2
   The duty shall be collected on imports into the Union of molybdenum wire, registered in accordance with Article 2 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1236/2012 and Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, containing by weight 97 % or more but less than 99,95 % of molybdenum, of which the maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm and currently falling within CN code ex 8102 96 00 (TARIC code 8102960030), originating in the People’s Republic of China.
   Article 3
   Customs authorities are hereby directed to discontinue the registration of imports established in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2012.
   Article 4
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 2 September 2013.

            For the Council

            The President

         L. LINKEVIČIUS

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

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1247/2009 of 17 December 2009 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain molybdenum wires originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 336, 18.12.2009, p. 16).

      (3)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 511/2010 of 14 June 2010 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain molybdenum wires originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 150, 16.6.2010, p. 17).

      (4)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 14/2012 of 9 January 2012 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 511/2010 on imports of certain molybdenum wires originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain molybdenum wires consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not and terminating the investigation in respect of imports consigned from Switzerland (OJ L 8, 12.1.2012, p. 22).

      (5)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1236/2012 of 19 December 2012 initiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 511/2010 on imports of certain molybdenum wires originating in the People’s Republic of China by imports of certain slightly modified molybdenum wires, containing by weight 97 % or more but less than 99,95 % of molybdenum, originating in the People’s Republic of China, and making such imports subject to registration (OJ L 350, 20.12.2012, p. 51).

      (6)  Indexed on the basis of volume in kg reported by the cooperating exporting producer (i.e. 2008 = 100). Refer to recital 39. Imports = Product concerned + Product under investigation.

      (7)  Period corresponding to the imposition of the provisional measures.

      (8)  Period corresponding to the imposition of the definitive measures.

      (9)  RP = reporting period from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012.

                  Source:

               JDC submission.

      (10)  Methodology as described for Table 1.

                  Source:

               JDC submission.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 872/2013 of 9 September 2013 approving a minor amendment to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Salame Brianza (PDO)]

text:
               12.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 243/10

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 872/2013
   of 9 September 2013
   approving a minor amendment to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Salame Brianza (PDO)]
   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 53(2)(2) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined Italy’s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Salame Brianza’ registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2),

               (2)

               The purpose of the application is to amend the specification by specifying the production method, labelling, and adjustments to the rules in force, in particular with regard to monitoring,

               (3)

               The Commission has examined the amendment in question and decided that it is justified. Since the amendment is minor within the meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission may approve it without following the procedure set out in Articles 50 to 52 of the Regulation,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Salame Brianza’ is hereby amended in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation.
   Article 2
   Annex II to this Regulation contains the consolidated Single Document setting out the main points of the specification.
   Article 3
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 9 September 2013.

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

            Member of the Commission

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

      (2)  OJ L 148, 21.6.1996, p. 1.

      ANNEX I
      The specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Salame Brianza’ is amended as follows:

                  —

                     Method of production

                  In Article 4 on the ‘method of production’ for the PDO ‘Salame Brianza’, the second paragraph on grinding has been amended. The current specification states that salami weighing up to 300g must be ground with a meat grinder fitted with plates with 4-4.5 mm holes (fine mincing), and that salami weighing over 300 g must be ground with a meat grinder fitted with plates with 7-8 mm holes (coarse mincing), thus linking the coarseness of ‘Salame Brianza’ to its weight.
                  There is actually no correlation between the weight and coarseness of the salami. This link has therefore been removed from the amended version of the specification, leaving only the criteria for the dimensions of the holes in the meat grinder.
                  In Article 5 on ‘ageing’, the table showing the minimum ageing periods for the PDO ‘Salame Brianza’ has been updated on the basis of the three factors below.
                  First, the unit of time for ageing has been changed from weeks in the current specification to days in the new version, giving a clearer and more precise indication of the time required.
                  Secondly, given the marketing methods set out in Article 8 of the current specification, clearly-defined minimum ageing periods have also been added to the new version for salami that is vacuum-packed, or packaged in a modified atmosphere or in microporous plastic film, as these ageing periods are different from those for unpackaged salami. In the new table, the ageing periods for small salami (in this case, up to 55 mm in diameter) are slightly longer for packaged salami than for salami sold loose, since once the salami is packaged it can no longer dry naturally.
                  Thirdly, the range of sizes in which ‘Salame Brianza’ can be marketed has been increased, with the addition of wider diameters not previously available due to the limits imposed by the size of the existing casings on the market. Given that the ageing period for ‘Salame Brianza’, which also includes drying, varies according to the diameter of the salami, it goes without saying that the increased range of diameters set out in this specification entails more varied and longer ageing periods.

                  —

                     Labelling

                  The logo for the PDO ‘Salame Brianza’ has been added to the specification itself in Article 8, whereas it was previously included as an annex and was never described nor used. The current PDO logo has therefore been added to Article 8 along with its colour specifications.

                  —

                     Monitoring — Adjustments to the rules

                  Article 7 on ‘monitoring’ has been updated, since it assigned powers to the PDO protection body that were illegal under Articles 10 and 11 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of the Council (1), which state that monitoring must be the responsibility of an impartial third party.
                  Finally, the acronym ‘DOC’, used in Italy before Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of the Council (2) was adopted, has been replaced in paragraphs 1 and 3 of Articles 1 and 8 with ‘DOP’ [PDO] in accordance with Community legislation.

         (1)  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

         (2)  OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

      ANNEX II

         CONSOLIDATED SINGLE DOCUMENT

      Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1)

      ‘SALAME BRIANZA’
      EC No: IT-PDO-0217-0326-21.02.2008

         PGI ( ) PDO ( X )

      1.   Name

      ‘Salame Brianza’
      2.   Member State or Third Country

      Italy
      3.   Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff

      3.1.   Type of product

                  Class 1.2.

                  Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.)

            3.2.   Description of product to which the name in (1) applies

      At its release for consumption, the PDO product ‘Salame Brianza’ has a cylindrical shape and solid consistency, with no springiness.
      When cut, it is firm and homogenous, with fat globules free from rancidness; the slices have no visible gristle and are a uniform ruby-red colour. The aroma is subtle and distinctive, and the flavour is very mild and subtle and never sour.
      In addition, when it is released for consumption ‘Salame Brianza’ PDO has the following chemical and physico-chemical characteristics:

                  —

                  total protein content: min. 23 %

                  —

                  collagen/protein ratio: max. 0,1

                  —

                  water/protein ratio: max. 2

                  —

                  fat/protein ratio: max. 1,5

                  —

                  pH: at least 5,3.

            In microbiological terms, the product has a mesophilic microbe content of > 1 × 107 colony-forming units per gram, with lactobacillus and coccus bacteria most prevalent.
      3.3.   Raw materials (for processed products only)

      ‘Salame Brianza’ PDO is made from pork meat: shoulder of pork boned and trimmed using a suitable technique; scrap cuttings; and ground ham, pancetta and/or throats without soft fat, to which salt and crushed and/or ground pepper is added.
      The following products may also be used: wine, sugar and/or dextrose and/or fructose and/or lactose, starter cultures, sodium and/or potassium nitrate (maximum quantity: 195 parts per million), sodium and/or potassium nitrite (maximum quantity: 95 parts per million), ascorbic acid and its sodium salt, and a very small amount of garlic.
      3.4.   Feed (for products of animal origin only)

      Detailed rules on the use and composition of the animals’ diet must be respected. Pigs are fed in two stages, and their feed mainly consists of cereal products from the macro-area defined in point 4. By-products from cheese-making (whey, curds and buttermilk) are supplied by dairies located within the defined geographical area.
      3.5.   Specific steps in production that must take place in the defined geographical area

      The production of ‘Salame Brianza’ PDO (cleaning, grinding, mixing of ingredients, filling into casings, drying, ageing) must take place within the traditional production area located in the Brianza region, as defined in point 4.
      3.6.   Specific rules concerning slicing, grating, packaging, etc.

      ‘Salame Brianza’ PDO must be cut into slices or portions and packaged within the production area defined in point 4, under the supervision of the authorised monitoring body, in order to guarantee the product’s quality. ‘Salame Brianza’ is sensitive to external influences, in particular to light and to oxidation from exposure to the air and to heat. Preparing ‘Salame Brianza’ for slicing of necessity requires the casing to be removed, and the edible part of the product is therefore directly exposed to the air. Exposing the product to external influences under non-controlled conditions alters the organoleptic characteristics of ‘Salame Brianza’. In order to preserve the product’s original characteristics, ‘Salame Brianza’ must therefore be sliced and packaged immediately after the ageing period and on the production site itself.
      3.7.   Specific rules concerning labelling

      ‘Salame Brianza’ may be marketed loose, vacuum-packed or packaged in a modified atmosphere, in whole salami or in portions or slices.
      The name of the protected designation of origin ‘Salame Brianza’ must appear on the label in clear and indelible letters, fully distinguishable from any other wording, and must be followed immediately by the term ‘Denominazione di Origine Protetta’ [Protected Designation of Origin].
      The above name and term must both be written in Italian.
      The acronym ‘DOP’ [PDO] may also appear elsewhere on the label, in the same visual field. If a product is destined for international markets, the wording ‘Protected Designation of Origin’ may be given in the language of the destination country.
      These details cannot be separated from the PDO logo.

      Any other description not expressly allowed is prohibited.
      However, the use of names, trade names and private brands is permitted, provided that they have no laudatory purport and are not such as to mislead the consumer; the names of the pig farms from which the product originates may also be used, provided that the raw material comes exclusively from these farms.
      If the logo is directly printed on the producers’ label, the number of labels, checked by the authorised monitoring body, must match the amount of raw material destined for production of ‘Salame Brianza’.
      4.   Concise definition of the geographical area

      Pig farms producing meat for ‘Salame Brianza’ must be located within the following regions: Lombardy, Emilia-Romagna and Piedmont (the PDO concerned benefits from the derogation granted by Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006).
      The production area for ‘Salame Brianza’ PDO is located in the Brianza region, bordered to the north by the Ghisallo foothills, to the south by the Villoresi canal, to the east by the deep course of the Adda river, and to the west by the Comasina trunk road (including a 2km outer ring).
      5.   Link with the geographical area

      5.1.   Specificity of the geographical area

      The geographical macro-zone in which pig farms providing meat for ‘Salame Brianza’ are located has a highly uniform landscape, especially in the wholly flat area of the Po Valley, which is criss-crossed by rivers and canals and is rich in plant life, with meadows and maize in particular. The climate is characterised by fairly harsh autumns and winters that are very damp and foggy, with mild and rainy springs, and fairly hot summers where short rain showers are quite common and often come in intense bursts.
      Within this macro-zone, the production micro-zone for ‘Salame Brianza’ PDO is in the Brianza region itself, and offers fertile plains alternating with sun-bathed hills, sheltered by a vast mountain range to the north, which filters the air currents and weather systems, creating various atmospheric phenomena such as air-filtering, warm down-slope winds, cold winds (when the currents blow from the north instead of from the west), and fog.
      5.2.   Specificity of the product

      ‘Salame Brianza’ has unmistakable characteristics. When cut, the slice is homogenous, ruby-red in colour, and has a firm and compact texture. Its aroma is subtle and distinctive, and the flavour is mild and never sour.
      5.3.   Causal link between the geographical area and the quality or characteristics of the product (for PDO) or a specific quality, the reputation or other characteristic of the product (for PGI)

      The requisite features of ‘Salame Brianza’ PDO depend on environmental conditions and on natural and human factors.
      In particular, the properties of the raw material are peculiar to the geographical macro-zone identified in point 4, while the production of ‘Salame Brianza’ is founded on the conditions of the micro-zone described in the same point.
      The characteristics and natural resources of the macro-zone have in fact enabled the considerable expansion of agriculture and livestock farming, shaping the economic activities in the area today, with a major maize-growing industry and numerous feed manufacturers transforming cereal crops into feed for the huge number of pig and cattle farms in the zone.
      Although the macro-zone has always been an ideal source for the raw materials needed for pig-rearing (maize and whey), it is equally true that the geography and morphology of the Brianza region have been key factors in enabling the development of typical products such as ‘Salame Brianza’.
      The alpine range that forms the north-west border of the Brianza area actually brings special climatic conditions to the whole Piedmont region: air currents and weather systems are filtered by the vast mountain ranges, creating various atmospheric phenomena such as air-filtering, warm down-slope winds, cold winds (when the currents blow from the north instead of from the west), and fog. All this naturally produces the ideal conditions for ageing ‘Salame Brianza’, as the fermentation that begins during ageing is due to the array of microbial flora found in the places used for processing and ageing the product, and the microbial flora is itself determined by the environmental characteristics of the zone (temperature, humidity, etc.).

         Reference to publication of the specification

      [Article 5(7) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006]
      The Ministry launched the national objection procedure with the publication of the proposal for amending the ‘Salame Brianza’ protected designation of origin in Official Gazette of the Italian Republic No 8 of 10 January 2008.
      The full text of the product specification for ‘Salame Brianza’ PDO can be found:

                  —

                  on the following website:
                  http://www.politicheagricole.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/3335
                  or

                  —

                  by going directly to the home page of the Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policy (www.politicheagricole.it) and clicking on ‘Qualità e sicurezza’ (at the top right of the screen), and then on ‘Disciplinari di Produzione all’esame dell’UE’.

         (1)  Replaced by 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.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 61/2012 of 24 January 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 as regards the administration of the CXL concessions sugar

text:
               25.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 22/8

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 61/2012
   of 24 January 2012
   amending Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 as regards the administration of the CXL concessions sugar
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1) and in particular Articles 144(1), 148 and 156 in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Article 7(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (2) provides that for CXL concessions sugar with order number 09.4317, 09.4318, 09.4319, 09.4321 (country specific) and Balkan sugar import licence applications are to be accompanied by the original of the export licence.

               (2)

               For CXL concession sugar with order number 09.4320 (any third country) the presentation of the export licence is not required.

               (3)

               By simplifying the administrative requirements to have access to CXL concessions sugar for imports into the Union through the elimination of the requirement to present the export licence for country specific concessions it is possible to encourage competition between operators and secure a smoother functioning of the market. Since the release for free circulation would continue to be subject to the presentation of a certificate of origin, this simplification can be attained without prejudice to the possibility for Member States to take the necessary measures to satisfy themselves that the transactions have been carried out correctly.

               (4)

               In order to ensure a smooth transition to the simplified administrative requirements, it is appropriate to foresee to defer their application to 1 February 2012.

               (5)

               Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly

               (6)

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

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   In Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 891/2009, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

      ‘4.   For Balkan sugar, import licence applications shall be accompanied by the original of the export licence, in accordance with the model in Annex II, issued by the competent authorities of the third country concerned. The quantity mentioned in the import licence applications may not exceed the quantity shown on the export licences.’

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

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 24 January 2012.

            For the Commission

            The President

         José Manuel BARROSO

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

      (2)  OJ L 254, 26.9.2009, p. 82.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 684/2011 of 15 July 2011 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 187/20

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 684/2011
   of 15 July 2011
   establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),
   Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,
   Whereas:
   Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto,
   HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on 16 July 2011.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 15 July 2011.

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

            Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

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

      (2)  OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.

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

                  (EUR/100 kg)

                  CN code

                  Third country code (1)

                  Standard import value

                  0702 00 00

                  AL

                  49,0

                  AR

                  19,4

                  EC

                  19,4

                  MK

                  45,6

                  ZZ

                  33,4

                  0707 00 05

                  AR

                  22,0

                  TR

                  105,8

                  ZZ

                  63,9

                  0709 90 70

                  AR

                  24,9

                  TR

                  110,8

                  ZZ

                  67,9

                  0805 50 10

                  AR

                  62,1

                  TR

                  64,0

                  UY

                  68,5

                  ZA

                  71,8

                  ZZ

                  66,6

                  0808 10 80

                  AR

                  91,7

                  BR

                  78,2

                  CA

                  106,0

                  CL

                  91,2

                  CN

                  75,6

                  EC

                  60,7

                  NZ

                  119,1

                  US

                  181,5

                  ZA

                  96,6

                  ZZ

                  100,1

                  0808 20 50

                  AR

                  140,6

                  CL

                  107,9

                  CN

                  46,2

                  NZ

                  118,4

                  ZA

                  103,6

                  ZZ

                  103,3

                  0809 10 00

                  AR

                  75,0

                  TR

                  222,9

                  XS

                  138,6

                  ZZ

                  145,5

                  0809 20 95

                  TR

                  309,1

                  ZZ

                  309,1

                  0809 40 05

                  BA

                  56,1

                  EC

                  75,9

                  ZZ

                  66,0

         (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’.