title: Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/904 of 29 May 2017 implementing Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               LI 138/1

         COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/904
   of 29 May 2017
   implementing Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo
   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 1183/2005 of 18 July 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 18 July 2005, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005.

               (2)

               On 12 December 2016, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 (2) in response to the obstruction of the electoral process and the related human rights violations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). On 6 March 2017, the Council adopted conclusions expressing its deep concern at the political situation in DRC caused by the blockage in the implementation of the inclusive political agreement of 31 December 2016, as well as by the security situation in several parts of the country, where the disproportionate use of force has been observed.

               (3)

               In view of the gravity of the situation in DRC, nine persons should be added to the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005.

               (4)

               Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 29 May 2017.

            For the Council

            The President

         C. CARDONA

      (1)  OJ L 193, 23.7.2005, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 of 12 December 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ L 336, 12.12.2016, p. 1).

      ANNEX
      The following persons are added to the list of persons and entities set out in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005:
      A.   Persons

                     Name

                     Identifying information

                     Grounds for designation

                     Date of listing

                     ‘8.

                     Evariste Boshab, former Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Interior and Security

                     a.k.a Evariste Boshab Mabub Ma Bileng.
                     DOB: 12.1.1956.
                     POB: Tete Kalamba (DRC).
                     Diplomatic passport number: DP 0000003 (valid: 21.12.2015 – expiry: 20.12.2020).
                     Schengen visa expired on 5.1.2017.
                     DRC nationality.

                     In his capacity as Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Interior and Security from December 2014 to December 2016, Evariste Boshab was officially responsible for the police and security services and coordinating the work of provincial governors. In this capacity, he was responsible for arrests of activists and opposition members, as well as disproportionate use of force, including between September 2016 and December 2016 in response to demonstrations in Kinshasa, which resulted in a large number of civilians being killed or injured by security services. Evariste Boshab was therefore involved in planning, directing, or committing acts that constitute serious human rights violations in DRC.

                     29.5.2017

                     9.

                     Gédéon Kyungu Mutanga

                     DOB: circa 1974 in Tanganyika province.
                     DRC nationality.

                     As he was the leader of the Bakata Katanga militia between 2011 and 2016, Gédéon Kyungu Mutanga was involved in serious human rights violations and war crimes such as killings and attacks against civilians, notably in rural zones of the Katanga region.
                     Gédéon Kyungu Mutanga is currently the leader of an armed group involved in human rights abuses in the Kasai Province and supporting governmental forces committing human rights violations. Gédéon Kyungu Mutanga has therefore been involved in planning, directing, or committing acts that constitute serious human rights abuses or violations in DRC.

                     29.5.2017

                     10.

                     Alex Kande Mupompa, Governor of Kasai Central

                     a.k.a Alexandre Kande Mupomba; Kande-Mupompa.
                     DOB: 23.9.1950.
                     POB: Kananga (DRC).
                     DRC passport number: OP 0024910 (valid: 21.3.2016 – expiry: 20.3.2021).
                     Address: Messidorlaan 217/25, 1180 Uccle, Belgium
                     DRC and Belgian nationalities.

                     As Governor of Kasai Central, Alex Kande Mupompa is responsible for the ongoing disproportionate use of force, violent repression and extrajudicial killings committed by security forces and the PNC in Kasai Central from 2016, including the alleged unlawful killings of Kamiuna Nsapu militia members and civilians in Mwanza Lomba, Kasai Central, in February 2017.
                     Alex Kande Mupompa was therefore involved in planning, directing, or committing acts that constitute serious human rights violations in DRC.

                     29.5.2017

                     11.

                     Jean-Claude Kazembe Musonda, former Governor of Haut-Katanga

                     DOB: 17.5.1963.
                     POB: Kashobwe (DRC).
                     DRC nationality.

                     As Governor of Haut Katanga until April 2017, Jean-Claude Kazembe Musonda was responsible for the disproportionate use of force and violent repression committed by security forces and the PNC in Haut Katanga, including between 15 and 31 December 2016, when 12 civilians were killed and 64 were injured as a result of the use of lethal force by security forces including PNC agents in response to protests in Lubumbashi.
                     Jean-Claude Kazembe Musonda was therefore involved in planning, directing, or committing acts that constitute serious human rights violations in DRC.

                     29.5.2017

                     12.

                     Lambert Mende, Minister of Communications and Media, and spokesperson of the Government

                     a.k.a Lambert Mende Omalanga.
                     DOB: 11.2.1953.
                     POB: Okolo (DRC).
                     Diplomatic passport number: DB0001939 (issued: 4.5.2017 – expiring: 3.5.2022).
                     DRC nationality.

                     As Communications and Media Minister since 2008, Lambert Mende is responsible for the repressive media policy applied in DRC, which breaches the right to freedom of expression and information and undermines a consensual and peaceful solution towards elections in DRC. On 12 November 2016, he adopted a decree limiting the possibility for foreign media outlets to broadcast in the DRC.
                     In breach of the political agreement settled on 31 December 2016 between the presidential majority and opposition parties, broadcasts have not resumed for a number of media outlets as at May 2017.
                     In his capacity as Communications and Media Minister, Lambert Mende is therefore responsible for obstructing a consensual and peaceful solution towards elections in DRC, including by acts of violence, repression or inciting violence, or by undermining the rule of law.

                     29.5.2017

                     13.

                     Muhindo Akili Mundos, FARDC Commander 31st Brigade

                     a.k.a Charles Muhindo Akili Mundos; Charles Muhindo Akilimani Mundos.
                     DOB: 10.11.1972.
                     POB: Kirotse (DRC).
                     Military ID number: 1-72-96-80384-52.
                     DRC nationality.

                     Muhindo Akili Mundos was the FARDC commander of the Sukola I operation responsible for military operations against the ADF from August 2014 to June 2015. He recruited and equipped former fighters from a local armed group to participate in extrajudicial killings and massacres that began in October 2014.
                     Muhindo Akili Mundos was therefore involved in planning, directing, or committing acts that constitute serious human rights violations in DRC.

                     29.5.2017

                     14.

                     Brigadier General Eric Ruhorimbere, Deputy Commander of the 21st military region (Mbuji-Mayi)

                     a.k.a Eric Ruhorimbere Ruhanga;Tango Two; Tango Deux.
                     DOB: 16.7.1969.
                     POB: Minembwe (DRC).
                     Military ID number: 1-69-09-51400-64.
                     DRC nationality.

                     As Deputy Commander of the 21st military region since 18 September 2014, Eric Ruhorimbere was responsible for the disproportionate use of force and extrajudicial killings perpetrated by FARDC forces, notably against the Nsapu militia and women and children.
                     Eric Ruhorimbere was therefore involved in planning, directing, or committing acts that constitute serious human rights violations in DRC.

                     29.5.2017

                     15.

                     Ramazani Shadari, Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Interior and Security

                     a.k.a Emmanuel Ramazani Shadari Mulanda; Shadary.
                     DOB: 29.11.1960.
                     POB: Kasongo (DRC).
                     DRC nationality.

                     As Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Interior and Security since 20 December 2016, Ramazani Shadari is officially responsible for the police and security services and coordinating the work of provincial governors. In this capacity, he is responsible for the recent arrests of activists and opposition members, as well as the disproportionate use of force since his appointment, such as the violent crackdown on members of the Bundu Dia Kongo (BDK) movement in Kongo Central, the repression in Kinshasa over January-February 2017 and the disproportionate use of force and violent repression in Kasai provinces.
                     In this capacity, Ramazani Shadari is therefore involved in planning, directing, or committing acts that constitute serious human rights violations in DRC.

                     29.5.2017

                     16.

                     Kalev Mutondo, Head (formally Administrator-General) of the National Intelligence Service (ANR)

                     a.k.a Kalev Katanga Mutondo, Kalev Motono, Kalev Mutundo, Kalev Mutoid, Kalev Mutombo, Kalev Mutond, Kalev Mutondo Katanga, Kalev Mutund.
                     DOB: 3.3.1957.
                     Passport number: DB0004470 (issued: 8.6.2012 – expires: 7.6.2017).

                     As long-term Head of the National Intelligence Service (ANR), Kalev Mutondo is involved in and responsible for the arbitrary arrest, detention and mistreatment of opposition members, civil society activists and others. He has therefore undermined the rule of law and obstructed a consensual and peaceful solution towards elections in DRC, as well as planning or directing acts that constitute serious human rights violations in DRC.

                     29.5.2017’


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1975 of 8 July 2015 setting out the frequency and the format of the reporting of irregularities concerning the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, under Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council

text:
               10.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 293/23

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/1975
   of 8 July 2015
   setting out the frequency and the format of the reporting of irregularities concerning the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, under Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (1), and in particular Article 50(2)(c) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Member States are required to report irregularities pursuant to Article 48(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 and in accordance with the provisions of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1971 (2).

               (2)

               Financial interests of the Union should be protected in the same way irrespective of the fund used to deliver the objectives for which it was established. To that end Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, as well as Regulations (EU) No 1303/2013 (3), (EU) No 223/2014 (4) and (EU) No 514/2014 (5) of the European Parliament and of the Council, empower the Commission to adopt rules on the reporting of irregularities. To ensure that identical rules apply in respect of all the funds governed by those Regulations, it is necessary that this Regulation contains provisions identical to those in Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) 2015/1974 (6), (EU) 2015/1976 (7) and (EU) 2015/1977 (8).

               (3)

               In order to ensure an efficient analysis and overall management of cases of irregularity, Member States are required to submit to the Commission relevant information on detected irregularities on a regular and timely basis. In order to protect the Union's financial interests it is necessary to lay down uniform conditions for the submission of that information, in particular about its frequency and format.

               (4)

               In order to avoid an irregularity having repercussions outside the territory of the reporting Member State, that Member State should report any such irregularity to the Commission without delay.

               (5)

               In order to fully exploit the advantages derived from the use of electronic means for the exchange of information while preserving the security of exchanges, Member States should use the dedicated Irregularity Management System (IMS) provided on the Anti-Fraud Information System platform established by the Commission.

               (6)

               Member States and the Commission should ensure that transfer of data through the Irregularity Management System is performed in a secure manner allowing for availability, integrity, authenticity and confidentiality of information.

               (7)

               The use of the euro as the only currency for the reporting of irregularities is necessary to ensure the comparability of the information reported. For Member States which have not adopted the euro as their currency it is necessary to define the exchange rate to be used to convert the amounts concerned into euro and the exchange rate to be used to convert expenditure which has not been registered in the accounts of the paying agency.

               (8)

               The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on the Agricultural Funds established by Article 116 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013.

               (9)

               As payments have already been made for the funds concerned and irregularities could occur, the provisions of this Regulation should be applicable immediately. This Regulation should therefore enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   Subject matter
   This Regulation sets out the frequency and format of the reporting of irregularities referred to in Article 48(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013.
   Article 2
   Frequency of the reporting of irregularities
   1.   Within two months following the end of each quarter, Member States shall send to the Commission an initial report on irregularities referred to in Article 3 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1971.
   2.   Member States shall send to the Commission the follow-up report referred to in Article 4 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1971 as soon as possible after obtaining the relevant information.
   3.   A Member State shall immediately report to the Commission irregularities discovered or supposed to have occurred, indicating any other Member States concerned, where the irregularities may have repercussions outside its territory.
   Article 3
   Reporting format
   The information referred to in Articles 3 and 4 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1971 shall be sent by electronic means, using the Irregularity Management System, established by the Commission.
   Article 4
   Use of the euro
   1.   The amounts reported by Member States shall be denominated in euro.
   2.   Member States which have not adopted the euro as their currency by the date when the report under Article 3(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1971 is submitted shall convert amounts in national currency into euro in accordance with Article 105 and Article 106 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013. Where the expenditure has not been registered in the accounts of the paying agency, the most recent monthly accounting exchange rate, published electronically by the Commission at the moment of initial reporting, shall be used.
   Article 5
   Entry into force
   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, 8 July 2015.

            For the Commission

            The President

         Jean-Claude JUNCKER

      (1)  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 549.

      (2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1971 of 8 July 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with specific provisions on the reporting of irregularities concerning the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 1848/2006 (see page 6 of this Official Journal).

      (3)  Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320).

      (4)  Regulation (EU) No 223/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 on the Fund for European Aid to the Most deprived (OJ L 72, 12.3.2014, p. 1).

      (5)  Regulation (EU) No 514/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 laying down general provisions on the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and on the instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis management (OJ L 150, 20.5.2014, p. 112).

      (6)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1974 of 8 July 2015 setting out the frequency and the format of the reporting of irregularities concerning the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, under Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (see page 20 of this Official Journal).

      (7)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1976 of 8 July 2015 setting out the frequency and the format of the reporting of irregularities concerning the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived, under Regulation (EU) No 223/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (see page 26 of this Official Journal).

      (8)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1977 of 8 July 2015 setting out the frequency and the format of the reporting of irregularities concerning the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and the instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis management, under Regulation (EU) No 514/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (see page 29 of this Official Journal).


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/532 of 30 March 2016 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Huile d'olive d'Aix-en-Provence (PDO))

text:
               6.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 89/3

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/532
   of 30 March 2016
   approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Huile d'olive d'Aix-en-Provence (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 52(2) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined France's application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Huile d'olive d'Aix-en-Provence’, registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 2036/2001 (2).

               (2)

               Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation (3).

               (3)

               As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments to the specification should be approved,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Huile d'olive d'Aix-en-Provence’ (PDO) are hereby approved.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 30 March 2016.

            For the Commission,

            On behalf of the President,

         Phil HOGAN

            Member of the Commission

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

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2036/2001 of 17 October 2001 supplementing the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 on the entry of certain names in the ‘Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications’ provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 275, 18.10.2001, p. 9).

      (3)  OJ C 372, 10.11.2015, p. 4.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 152/2012 of 21 February 2012 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

text:
               22.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 49/17

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 152/2012
   of 21 February 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, 21 February 2012.

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

            Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

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

      (2)  OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.

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

                  (EUR/100 kg)

                  CN code

                  Third country code (1)

                  Standard import value

                  0702 00 00

                  IL

                  113,8

                  JO

                  78,3

                  MA

                  78,0

                  TN

                  92,8

                  TR

                  101,5

                  ZZ

                  92,9

                  0707 00 05

                  JO

                  134,1

                  MA

                  94,2

                  TR

                  172,3

                  ZZ

                  133,5

                  0709 93 10

                  MA

                  75,1

                  TR

                  136,9

                  ZZ

                  106,0

                  0805 10 20

                  EG

                  48,7

                  IL

                  73,3

                  MA

                  50,7

                  TN

                  49,9

                  TR

                  74,9

                  ZZ

                  59,5

                  0805 20 10

                  IL

                  135,4

                  MA

                  85,6

                  ZZ

                  110,5

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

                  EG

                  83,5

                  IL

                  112,4

                  MA

                  99,2

                  TR

                  72,8

                  ZZ

                  92,0

                  0805 50 10

                  EG

                  74,4

                  TR

                  53,2

                  ZZ

                  63,8

                  0808 10 80

                  CA

                  136,5

                  CL

                  98,4

                  CN

                  98,3

                  MK

                  29,3

                  US

                  153,8

                  ZZ

                  103,3

                  0808 30 90

                  AR

                  104,6

                  CL

                  79,3

                  CN

                  75,0

                  US

                  113,9

                  ZA

                  98,8

                  ZZ

                  94,3

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


title: Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 167/2011 of 21 February 2011 terminating the partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating, inter alia , in the Republic of Korea

text:
               24.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 49/1

         COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 167/2011
   of 21 February 2011
   terminating the partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating, inter alia, in the Republic of Korea
   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 11(3) and (6) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,
   Whereas:
   A.   PROCEDURE

   1.   Measures in force

               (1)

               The measures currently in force are a definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 192/2007 (2) on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating, inter alia, in the Republic of Korea (South Korea). For the Korean companies with individual duties, the duties in force are zero. The residual duty is 148,3 EUR/tonne.

         2.   Request for a review

               (2)

               A request for a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation was lodged by the Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Committee of PlasticsEurope (the applicant), representing seven Union producers.

               (3)

               The request was limited in scope to the examination of dumping as far as the exporting producer KP Chemical Group, composed of Honam Petrochemicals Corp. and KP Chemical Corp. (KP Chemical Group), is concerned, and of certain injury aspects.

               (4)

               The applicant provided prima facie evidence showing that, as far as KP Chemical Group is concerned, the continued imposition of the measure at the current level of zero, is no longer sufficient to counteract the current injurious dumping.

         3.   Initiation of a partial interim review

               (5)

               Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed to justify the initiation of a partial interim review, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union
                   (3) the initiation of a partial interim review in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, limited to the examination of dumping and of certain injury aspects insofar as the KP Chemical Group is concerned.

         4.   Product concerned and like product

               (6)

               The product under review is polyethylene terephthalate having a viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher, according to the ISO Standard 1628-5, currently falling within CN code 3907 60 20 and originating in South Korea (the product concerned).

               (7)

               The product concerned and sold on the Korean domestic market and that exported to the Union has the same basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics and uses and is therefore considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

         5.   Parties concerned

               (8)

               The Commission officially advised the exporting producer, representatives of the exporting country, Union producers and the applicant of the initiation of the partial interim review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time-limit set in the notice of initiation. All interested parties who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.

               (9)

               The Commission sent questionnaires to the exporting producer and the Union industry and received replies within the deadlines set for that purpose. The Commission sought and verified all information deemed necessary. The Commission carried out verification visits at the premises of the KP Chemical Corp., South Korea; Honam Petrochemicals Corp, South Korea; Novapet SA, Spain; Equipolymers Srl, Italy; UAB Orion Global PET (Indorama), Lithuania; UAB Indorama Polymers Europe, Lithuania; UAB Neo Group, Lithuania; La Seda de Barcelona, S.A., Spain and M&G Polimeri Italia SpA, Italy.

         6.   Review investigation period

               (10)

               The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009 (review investigation period).

         B.   RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

               (11)

               As far as the determination of normal value is concerned, the Commission first established whether the total domestic sales of the product concerned made by KP Chemical Group were representative in comparison with its total export sales to the Union. In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, domestic sales are considered representative when the total domestic sales volume is at least 5 % of the total export sales volume to the Union. The Commission established that the product concerned, which was considered a homogenous product and not subdivided into different product types, was sold domestically by KP Chemical Group in overall representative volumes.

               (12)

               An examination was also made as to whether the sales of the product concerned sold domestically in representative quantities could be regarded as having been made in the ordinary course of trade, by establishing the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers on the domestic market. As it was found that there were sufficient sales in the ordinary course of trade, normal value was based on the actual domestic price of profitable sales.

               (13)

               As the product concerned was exported directly to independent customers in the Union, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, i.e. on the basis of the export price actually paid or payable.

               (14)

               The comparison between normal value and export price was made on an ex-works basis.

               (15)

               For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Allowances for differences in transport costs, freight and insurance costs, bank charges, packing costs and credit costs were granted where they were found to be reasonable, accurate and supported by verified evidence.

               (16)

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

               (17)

               The dumping margin thus calculated is less than 2 %, expressed as a percentage of the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, duty unpaid, and shall therefore be considered de minimis in accordance with Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation.

         C.   LASTING NATURE OF CIRCUMSTANCES

               (18)

               Like the previous interim review which resulted in Regulation (EC) No 192/2007, the present interim review showed a dumping margin at a de minimis level for the KP Chemical Group.

               (19)

               No indications were found that this de minimis margin would not be of a lasting nature, as the KP Chemical Group has been found to operate at a very high capacity utilisation rate (almost 100 %). In addition, the KP Chemical Group has no plans to increase their production capacity in South Korea. Indeed, the KP Chemical Group has acquired a production plant within the Union and is more likely to decrease its exports from South Korea.

               (20)

               Therefore the circumstances under which the dumping margin has been calculated in this investigation can be considered to be of a lasting nature.

         D.   TERMINATION OF THE REVIEW

               (21)

               In light of the above findings, the present review should be terminated without amending the level of the duty applicable to KP Chemical Group. In these circumstances, the injury aspects do not need to be addressed.

         E.   DISCLOSURE

               (22)

               Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to terminate the present partial interim review. All parties were given the opportunity to comment. Comments were received from the Union industry, which however, were not of a nature to change the above conclusions.

         F.   FINAL PROVISION

               (23)

               This review should therefore be terminated without any amendment to Regulation (EC) No 192/2007,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating, inter alia, in the Republic of Korea, is hereby terminated without amending the measures in force.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

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

            For the Council

            The President

         MARTONYI J.

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

      (2)  OJ L 59, 27.2.2007, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ C 47, 25.2.2010, p. 24.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1032/2012 of 26 October 2012 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Ciliegia di Vignola (PGI))

text:
               8.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 308/5

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1032/2012
   of 26 October 2012
   entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Ciliegia di Vignola (PGI))
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to 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), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Ciliegia di Vignola’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union
                   (2).

               (2)

               As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 26 October 2012.

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

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

      (2)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2012, p. 17.

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

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

      ITALY
      Ciliegia di Vignola (PGI)


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 309/2014 of 20 March 2014 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Aceite de la Comunitat Valenciana (PDO)]

text:
               27.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 91/9

      COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 309/2014
   of 20 March 2014
   entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Aceite de la Comunitat Valenciana (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 52(2) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Aceite de la Comunitat Valenciana’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union
                   (2).

               (2)

               As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Aceite de la Comunitat Valenciana’ should therefore be entered in the register,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The name ‘Aceite de la Comunitat Valenciana’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.
   The name referred to in the first paragraph identifies a product in Class 1.5. Oils and fats (butter, margarine, oil, etc.) of Annex II to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1898/2006 (3).
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 20 March 2014.

            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 C 276, 25.9.2013, p. 9.

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1898/2006 of 14 December 2006 laying down detailed rules of implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 369, 23.12.2006, p. 1).


title: Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1269/2012 of 21 December 2012 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless steel pipes, of iron or steel, originating, inter alia, in Russia, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009

text:
               28.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 357/1

         COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1269/2012
   of 21 December 2012
   amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless steel pipes, of iron or steel, originating, inter alia, in Russia, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9(4) and Article 11(3), (5) and (6) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (‘the Commission’) after consulting the Advisory Committee,
   Whereas:
   1.   PROCEDURE

   1.1.   Measures in force

               (1)

               By Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 (2) the Council, following an investigation (‘the original investigation’), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Croatia, Romania, Russia and Ukraine. The measures consisted of an ad valorem anti-dumping duty of 24,1 % imposed on imports from individually named exporting producers in Russia, with a residual duty rate of 35,8 % on imports from all other companies in Russia. The definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on the group subject to the current review investigation, OAO TMK (‘the TMK Group’ or ‘the applicant’) composed of OAO Volzhsky Pipe Plant, OAO Taganrog Metallurgical Works, OAO Sinarsky Pipe Plant and OAO Seversky Tube Works was 35,8 %, i.e. the residual duty.

               (2)

               By Regulation (EC) No 812/2008 (3) the Council, following the initiation of an interim review requested by the TMK Group pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation (‘the review investigation’), amended the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, to 27,2 % for the TMK Group.

               (3)

               By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012 (4) the Council, following an expiry review (‘the expiry review investigation’), maintained the measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 on imports of seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine.

               (4)

               Accordingly, the measures currently in force are those imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012. The TMK Group composed of OAO Volzhsky Pipe Plant, OAO Taganrog Metallurgical Works, OAO Sinarsky Pipe Plant and OAO Seversky Tube Works is subject to an anti-dumping duty of 27,2 %.

         1.2.   Initiation of a partial interim review

               (5)

               On 14 October 2011, the Commission announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (‘notice of initiation’) (5) the initiation of a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia.

               (6)

               The review, which is limited in scope to the examination of dumping, was initiated following a substantiated request lodged by the TMK Group. In the request the applicant provided prima facie evidence that the continued imposition of the measures at the current level is no longer necessary to offset injurious dumping.

         1.3.   Parties concerned

               (7)

               The Commission officially informed the applicant, the authorities of the exporting country and the Union industry of the initiation of the partial interim review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.

               (8)

               In order to obtain the information necessary for its investigation the Commission sent a questionnaire to the applicant, which responded within the given deadline.

               (9)

               The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the purpose of determining the level of dumping. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the applicant and at its related trading companies ZAO TMK Trade House (Moscow), TMK Warehouse Complex LLC (Lytkaryno), TMK Europe GmbH (Cologne), TMK Italia s.r.l. (Lecco) and TMK Global S.A. (Geneva).

         1.4.   Review investigation period

               (10)

               The investigation of the level of dumping covered the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011 (‘the review investigation period’ or ‘RIP’).

         2.   PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

   2.1.   Product concerned

               (11)

               The product concerned is the same as that defined in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012 which imposed the measures currently in force, i.e. seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel, of circular cross-section, of an external diameter not exceeding 406,4 mm with a Carbon Equivalent Value (CEV) not exceeding 0,86 according to the International Institute of Welding (IIW) formula and chemical analysis (6), currently falling within CN codes ex 7304 11 00, ex 7304 19 10, ex 7304 19 30, ex 7304 22 00, ex 7304 23 00, ex 7304 24 00, ex 7304 29 10, ex 7304 29 30, ex 7304 31 80, ex 7304 39 58, ex 7304 39 92, ex 7304 39 93, ex 7304 51 89, ex 7304 59 92 and ex 7304 59 93, originating in Russia (‘the product concerned’ or ‘SPT’).

         2.2.   Like product

               (12)

               As established in the original investigation as well as in the expiry review investigation, the current investigation confirmed that the product produced in Russia and exported to the Union, the product produced and sold on the domestic market of Russia, and the product produced and sold in the Union by the Union producers have the same basic physical and technical characteristics and end uses. These products are therefore considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

         3.   DUMPING

   3.1.   Dumping of imports during the RIP

   3.1.1.   Normal value

               (13)

               Sales on the domestic market were made via the related companies, ZAO TMK Trade House and TMK Warehouse, which resold SPT to independent customers in Russia.

               (14)

               In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation it was first examined whether each of the exporting producers' total volume of domestic sales of the like product to independent customers was representative in comparison with its total volume of export sales to the Union, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales represented at least 5 % of the total volume of export sales of the product concerned to the Union. The examination established that the domestic sales were representative for all exporting producers.

               (15)

               It was further examined whether each product type of the like product sold by the exporting producers on its domestic market were sufficiently representative for the purposes of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular product type were considered sufficiently representative when the total volume of that product type sold by the applicant on the domestic market to independent customers during the RIP represented at least 5 % of its total sales volume of the comparable product type exported to the Union.

               (16)

               In accordance with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation it was subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of each product type that had been sold in representative quantities could be regarded as being made in the ordinary course of trade. This was done by establishing the proportion of profitable domestic sales to independent customers on the domestic market for each exported type of the product concerned during the RIP.

               (17)

               For those product types where more than 80 % by volume of sales on the domestic market of the product type were above cost and the weighted average sales price of that type was equal to or above the unit cost of production, normal value, by product type, was calculated as the weighted average of the actual domestic prices of all sales of the type in question, irrespective of whether those sales were profitable or not.

               (18)

               Where the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below the unit cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, which was calculated as a weighted average price of only the profitable domestic sales of that type made during the RIP.

               (19)

               The normal value for the non-representative types (i.e. those of which domestic sales constituted less than 5 % of export sales to the Union or were not sold at all in the domestic market) was calculated on the basis of the cost of manufacturing per product type plus an amount for selling, general and administrative costs and for profits. In case of existing domestic sales, the profit of transactions in the ordinary course of trade on the domestic market per product type for the product types concerned was used. In case of no domestic sales, an average profit was used.

               (20)

               With regard to manufacturing costs, and in particular energy costs, as far as gas is concerned, it was examined whether the gas prices paid by the exporting producers reasonably reflected the costs associated with the production and distribution of gas.

               (21)

               It was found that the domestic gas price paid by the exporting producers was around one third of the export price of natural gas from Russia. In this regard, all available data indicates that domestic gas prices in Russia are regulated prices, which are far below market prices paid in unregulated markets for natural gas. Therefore, since gas costs were not reasonably reflected in the exporting producers' records as provided for in Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, they had to be adjusted accordingly. In the absence of any sufficiently representative, undistorted gas prices relating to the Russian domestic market, it was considered appropriate to base the adjustment, in accordance with Article 2(5), on the basis of information from other representative markets. The adjusted price was based on the average price of Russian gas when sold for export at the German/Czech border (Waidhaus), adjusted for local distribution costs. Waidhaus, being the main hub for Russian gas sales to the EU, which is both the largest market for Russian gas and has prices reasonably reflecting costs, can be considered a representative market within the meaning of Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation.

               (22)

               After disclosure, the TMK Group argued that the gas price adjustment was contrary to Article 2(5) of the Basic Regulation and 2.2.1.1 of the WTO AD Agreement. As mentioned in recital (21), it was found that the domestic gas price paid by the TMK Group was around one third of the export price of natural gas from Russia. Therefore, since gas costs were not reasonably reflected in the exporting producers' records as provided for in Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, they had to be adjusted accordingly. The claim made by the TMK Group was considered to be unsubstantiated and in the absence of any evidence, it was rejected.

         3.1.2.   Export price

               (23)

               It should be noted that some export quantities of the product concerned had not been reported by the TMK Group as they considered that these SPT did not fall within the scope of the investigation. Samples in the form of cross-sections cuts of the product allegedly falling outside the product scope before and after further processing were shown to the Commission services during the on spot verification visits which however cannot be regarded as conclusive evidence.

               (24)

               Having examined the issue, it was considered that these SPT fall within the product scope. The corresponding export transactions were therefore taken into account in the dumping calculation.

               (25)

               During a hearing chaired by the Hearing Officer on November 9, 2012, the TMK group stated that it wished to address mainly the classification issue, raised in the disclosure document, which in their view resulted in an increase of their dumping margin from circa 13-14 %. The TMK group expressed some surprise regarding the fact that these products were considered as falling within the scope of the investigation and reiterated that these exported quantities had not been reported on the grounds that these products were ‘blanks’ (also named ‘hollows’) and not pipes, and thus, in their opinion, did not fall within the product scope. They further indicated that in fact, this matter had been addressed very concisely by the Commission services in the course of the verification visit. In this regard, it should be noted that the TMK Group itself indicated in one submission dated 31 August 2012, that ‘the question of whether or not “hollows” falling under CN code 7304 59 10 should be included within the scope of the investigation has been extensively addressed in the course of the investigation’. In fact, both the European Steel Tube Association (‘ESTA’) and the TMK group have had ample opportunity to comment on this issue on several occasions. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Commission services requested TMK's related importers to fill in the Annex to the questionnaire and verified the information received during an on-spot verification visit in order to collect all relevant information. The statement that this matter was very ‘concisely’ addressed by the Commission services during the investigation and these products had been considered to be part of the product scope was incorrect and was therefore rejected.

               (26)

               The TMK Group further indicated that the inclusion of these export quantities was illegal and unjustified as the Commission services failed to demonstrate that the pipes were not ‘unworked’ and the conclusions that these ‘blanks’ were ‘semi-finished’ (or partially worked) products were ill-founded.

               (27)

               First it is recalled that the products covered by CN codes 7304 39 10 and 7304 59 10 are ‘Tubes, pipes and hollow profiles’ seamless, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel, ‘Unworked, straight and of uniform wall thickness, for use solely in the manufacture of tubes and pipes with other cross-sections and wall thicknesses’. The Explanatory Note to subheadings 7304 39 10 and 7304 59 10 states that they include ‘seamless steel tubes usually obtained by piercing and hot-rolling or by piercing and hot drawing; they are usually called “blanks”. They are intended to be transformed into tubes of other shapes and wall thickness with more reduced dimensional tolerances. They are presented with the ends roughly cut off and deburred but are otherwise unfinished. Their exterior and interior surfaces are rough and not descaled. They are not oiled, zinc-coated or painted’. After consideration of the arguments put forward by the TMK Group and ESTA, it is considered that based on the various documents collected during the on-spot verification visits (customer purchase order and specifications, intercompany contracts, invoices issued by related importers, description of the standard ISO 9809-1) these tubes are indeed ‘semi-finished’ in the sense that they have to correspond to certain requirements and specifications such as ‘top quality SS hot finished tubes for cylinders, in steel type 34CrMo4 subject to UNI EN 10083-1 and DIN 1629 “annealed coarse” and “smooth at ends”, of the dimensions specified in the purchase order.’ Furthermore, other requirements which are listed in the customer purchase order and specifications such as ‘ultrasonic testing for feasible defects, thickness control, ovalization and straightness’ also point to further processing of these tubes, which is not the case for so-called ‘blanks’.

               (28)

               The TMK Group claimed that the features of ‘annealed coarse’ and ‘smooth at ends’ are not among the criteria listed in the text of the relevant CN codes and the Explanatory Note to determine whether a pipe is ‘unworked’. In this respect, it must be noted that heading texts and relevant Explanatory notes do not always contain an exhaustive list of all the features of the products covered. In relation to products such as those in question, which partake of the characteristics of different kinds of goods, classification depends on the most important features of the imported goods. Therefore, while noting that these features are not among the criteria listed in the text of the relevant CN codes and the Explanatory Note, they remain important elements in assessing whether or not product types can be considered to be ‘unworked’ and thus within the scope of CN codes 7304 39 10. and 7304 59 10.

               (29)

               The TMK group also claimed that these tubes were not annealed as they were not heat treated as indicated in the mill test certificates. In this regard, it should be noted that the purchase specifications of the customer contain contradictory information as they mention heat treatment of the product. Reference to these purchase specifications is made on other documents such as the manufacturer declaration issued by the TMK Group and the specification to the contracts signed by the TMK Group and its unrelated customer.

               (30)

               It was further noted that in the above-mentioned intercompany contracts provided by the TMK Group during the on-spot verification, these products were initially classified in a different CN code (under measures) and were changed to a CN code not under measures (including during the IP), although, based on the information available, there were no changes to the customer purchase order and product specifications. The TMK Group argued that this change in the CN code was irrelevant as what matters under the applicable customs classification rules are the objective characteristics of the goods at the time of their importation to the Union. While the objective characteristics of the goods at the time of their importation to the Union are an important element, it is not denied by the TMK Group that they classified the product types as falling under measures before changing that classification even without any change in the product specifications. This is considered to be one of the elements that leads to the conclusion that the concerned product types fall within the scope of the investigation.

               (31)

               It was also noted that the unrelated customer's purchase specifications clearly referred to ‘semi finished’ products rather than ‘blanks’ or ‘hollows’. On this latter point, TMK argued that it is totally irrelevant for customs classification purposes how the product is described by a purchaser. In reply to this, it must be stated that the description of the product by the purchaser has some value in the sense that the purchaser is obviously aware of the product requirements at the time of order. To say, therefore, that the purchaser's description is ‘totally irrelevant’ is doubtful.

               (32)

               In conclusion, the semi-finished seamless steel tubes produced with heat treatment purchased for the purpose of producing such cylinders have to correspond to very detailed technical/quality/dimensional requirements. These features are clearly not corresponding with the notion of ‘unworked’ as mentioned in the Explanatory Notes to CN 7304 39 10 and 7304 59 10 and therefore, the comments made by the TMK Group regarding the alleged wrong interpretation of the term ‘unworked’ by the Commission had to be rejected.

               (33)

               Contrary to several previous statements, the TMK group also argued that these products sold to an unrelated customer were not solely destined for the same application i.e. the production of cylinders, but could also be transformed in so-called ‘precision pipes’. The group stated that the unrelated customer first transforms blanks into cold rolled pipes (or precision pipes) which are then processed into gas cylinders. It should be noted that this element is not only contradictory to what was stated by the TMK group in previous submissions and to what was found in the documents collected during the verification visits. Notwithstanding the above, it should be noted that this additional allegation was new, was submitted at a late stage and was not substantiated by evidence. In addition, the group submitted evidence that allegedly showed that the unrelated customer also sold precision pipes. While noting that this evidence was submitted very late in the investigation, it was also noted that the evidence related to a period long after the end of the RIP and that the documents related to possible sales of any types (or sections) of cold rolled products (pipes). These arguments were therefore rejected.

               (34)

               The majority of exports of the product concerned by the exporting producers to the Union were made to independent customers in the Union through two related trading companies, i.e. TMK Europe GmbH located in Germany and TMK Italia s.r.l. located in Italy. The export price for the above-mentioned exports was established on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, i.e. using the resale prices actually paid or payable to the related company by the first independent buyer in the Union in the RIP, adjusted for all costs incurred between importation and resale and for profits.

               (35)

               Some limited quantities were exported directly to independent customers in the Union. The export price for these quantities was established on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

         3.1.3.   Comparison

               (36)

               The normal value and the export price of the exporting producers were compared on an ex-works basis. For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. On this basis, adjustments were made in respect of packaging, transport costs, credit costs and anti-dumping duties.

               (37)

               The TMK Group requested that certain characteristics pertaining to steel grade, threading type and coating of SPT be taken into account in order to ensure a fair comparison between SPT sold domestically and for export.

               (38)

               The Defence Committee of the Seamless Steel Tube Industry of the European Union (‘ESTA’) claimed that any request to change the product definition or the methodology used in the original investigation or subsequent review was in breach of Article 11(9) of the basic Regulation and should be disregarded.

               (39)

               In this regard, the investigation revealed that the request made by the TMK Group did not affect the product definition but rather allowed the identification of additional characteristics which ensure a fair comparison of SPT sharing the same features. Further, it was found that these additional characteristics affected prices and price comparability.

               (40)

               On the basis of the above, it was considered that the request was warranted and the above mentioned characteristics were therefore taken into account.

               (41)

               The TMK Group claimed that, in accordance with Article 11(10) of the basic Regulation, the duties paid on DDP (‘delivered duty paid’) transactions should not be deducted in order to construct export price. It claims that, in comparison with the last full 12-month period prior to the imposition of anti-dumping duties on TMK's exports of SPT to the Union (1 July 2005-30 June 2006 or ‘reference period’), the duty was duly reflected in the prices charged in the RIP and the subsequent selling prices in the Union.

               (42)

               In this regard, it was found that the DDP prices charged to the first unrelated customers did not cover costs let alone the anti-dumping duties; i.e. these transactions were overall loss making. It is further noted that, even though prices for similar products increased by ca. 30 % since the reference period, the price of raw materials which account on average for more than 50 % of the cost of manufacturing increased by more than 70 % over the same period. On the basis of the above, it is considered that no conclusive evidence was provided to show that the duty is duly reflected in the prices charged.

               (43)

               It is also noted that, even if one were to accept that the duty is reflected in the subsequent selling prices (quod non), Article 11(10) of the basic Regulation requires that resale prices and subsequent selling prices both reflect the duty.

               (44)

               After disclosure, the TMK Group continued to object to the deduction of the duties from the export prices and further argued that the gas cost adjustment made resulted in losses, which in its view, were certainly of a lower magnitude, without providing however any further evidence. The TMK Group maintained its view that the fact that ex-works export prices should be above the costs of production was legally flawed and reiterated that the criteria to be examined was only whether anti-dumping duties paid were duly reflected in the resale price charged by its unrelated customers which purchased on a DDP basis. However, since the DDP prices charged to the first unrelated customers did not cover the costs, let alone the anti-dumping duties, even without the gas adjustment and since the price of raw materials which account on average for more than 50 % of the cost of manufacturing increased by more than 70 % over the same period as mentioned in recital (42) above, it is considered that the TMK Group has not provided conclusive evidence showing that the duty was duly reflected in the prices charged or subsequent selling prices.

               (45)

               On the basis of the above, this claim had to be rejected.

         3.1.4.   Dumping margin

               (46)

               Pursuant to Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, the weighted average normal value was compared with the weighted average export price per product type on an ex-work basis separately for each of the exporting producers. One common dumping margin is established for the TMK Group by calculating a single weighted average rate of dumping for the exporting producers within the TMK Group.

               (47)

               On this basis the dumping margin, expressed as an percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, was 29,6 %. Following disclosure, the TMK group pointed to some clerical errors in the dumping calculations for two of its production entities. These clerical errors were corrected and the weighted average dumping margin found for the TMK Group is 28,7 % instead of 29,6 %.

               (48)

               It is noted that this dumping margin is, contrary to the prima facie evidence provided in the review request, higher than the existing duty applicable to imports from the TMK Group. The increase results from a number of factors: firstly, the evidence provided in the review request only related to certain transactions of one of the three exporting producers. Some of these transactions were found not to relate to the product concerned. Secondly, during the course of the investigation, as mentioned in recital (23) above, some export transactions of the product concerned had not been reported by the group. Finally, the group's claim in regard to duty as a cost (see recitals (41) to (45)) was rejected. The combination of these elements, together with other elements verified during the course of the investigation, resulted in an increase in the dumping margin.

         4.   LASTING NATURE OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES

               (49)

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

               (50)

               TMK Group indicated in its review request that there were changed circumstances of a lasting nature as it had made significant changes in its internal structure and substantial improvements to its production equipment which had a direct impact on its cost structure.

               (51)

               The investigation revealed that the TMK Group had indeed made significant investments that lead to efficiency gains and increased capacity. However, given the increase in raw material prices and the evolution of the product mix towards more added-value products, a decrease of production cost could not be ascertained. The improvements referred to in recital (50) were found to be of structural nature and to be unlikely to change in the near future.

               (52)

               In addition, the development of export prices to non-EU countries in the RIP and to the EU after the RIP was also considered. It was found that exports to non-EU countries of identical products were made at comparable price levels as the export sales to the EU in the same period. As far as the period after the RIP is concerned, it was found they were made at slightly higher prices than in the RIP, which is in line with international price level evolution. There was thus no indication that the export prices would fluctuate considerably in the foreseeable future.

         5.   AMENDMENT OF THE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

               (53)

               In the light of the results of the investigation, it is considered appropriate to amend the anti-dumping duty applicable to imports of the product concerned from the TMK Group to 28,7 %. The amended anti-dumping duty should be set at the level of the dumping margin found, as it is lower than the injury margin established in the original investigation.

               (54)

               Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend an amendment of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012 and were given an opportunity to comment,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The entry concerning OAO Volzhsky Pipe Plant, OAO Taganrog Metallurgical Works,
   OAO Sinarsky Pipe Plant and OAO Seversky Tube Works in the table of Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012 is hereby replaced by the following:

                  ‘OAO Volzhsky Pipe Plant, OAO Taganrog Metallurgical Works,
                  OAO Sinarsky Pipe Plant and OAO Seversky Tube Works

                  28,7 %

                  A859’

   Article 2
   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, 21 December 2012.

            For the Council

            The President

         A. D. MAVROYIANNIS

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

      (2)  OJ L 175, 29.6.2006, p. 4.

      (3)  OJ L 220, 15.8.2008, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ L 174, 4.7.2012, p. 5.

      (5)  OJ C 303, 14.10.2011, p. 11.

      (6)  The CEV is determined in accordance with Technical Report, 1967, IIW doc. IX-555-67, published by the International Institute of Welding (IIW).


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/914 of 29 May 2017 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

text:
               30.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 139/36

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/914
   of 29 May 2017
   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 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),
   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, 29 May 2017.

            For the Commission,

            On behalf of the President,

         Jerzy PLEWA

            Director-General

            Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

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

      (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

                  MA

                  115,8

                  TR

                  67,0

                  ZZ

                  91,4

                  0707 00 05

                  TR

                  84,9

                  ZZ

                  84,9

                  0709 93 10

                  TR

                  129,3

                  ZZ

                  129,3

                  0805 10 22 , 0805 10 24 , 0805 10 28

                  EG

                  67,6

                  MA

                  55,3

                  TR

                  48,9

                  ZA

                  99,2

                  ZZ

                  67,8

                  0805 50 10

                  AR

                  116,2

                  TR

                  123,7

                  ZA

                  150,8

                  ZZ

                  130,2

                  0808 10 80

                  AR

                  100,8

                  BR

                  113,7

                  CL

                  128,0

                  CN

                  145,5

                  NZ

                  152,5

                  US

                  110,3

                  ZA

                  105,8

                  ZZ

                  122,4

                  0809 29 00

                  TR

                  367,5

                  ZZ

                  367,5

         (1)  Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1106/2012 of 27 November 2012 implementing Regulation (EC) No 471/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics relating to external trade with non-member countries, as regards the update of the nomenclature of countries and territories (OJ L 328, 28.11.2012, p. 7). Code ‘ZZ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 148/2012 of 20 February 2012 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (New Season Comber Potatoes/Comber Earlies (PGI))

text:
               21.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 48/9

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 148/2012
   of 20 February 2012
   entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (New Season Comber Potatoes/Comber Earlies (PGI))
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to 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), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the United Kingdom’s application to register the name ‘New Season Comber Potatoes/Comber Earlies’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union
                   (2).

               (2)

               As no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 20 February 2012.

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

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

      (2)  OJ C 144, 14.5.2011, p. 32.

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

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

      UNITED KINGDOM
      New Season Comber Potatoes/Comber Earlies (PGI)


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 556/2013 of 14 June 2013 amending Regulations (EC) No 798/2008, (EU) No 206/2010, (EU) No 605/2010 and (EU) No 28/2012 as regards the transit of certain products of animal origin from Bosnia and Herzegovina  Text with EEA relevance

text:
               18.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 164/13

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 556/2013
   of 14 June 2013
   amending Regulations (EC) No 798/2008, (EU) No 206/2010, (EU) No 605/2010 and (EU) No 28/2012 as regards the transit of certain products of animal origin from Bosnia and Herzegovina
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (1), and in particular the third indent of Article 8(5), Article 9(2)(b) and Article 9(4)(c) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Commission Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 (2) lays down a list of third countries, territories, zones or compartments from which poultry and poultry products may be imported into and transit through the Union and the veterinary certification requirements.

               (2)

               Commission Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 (3) lays down lists of third countries, territories or parts thereof authorised for the introduction into the Union of certain animals and fresh meat and the veterinary certification requirements.

               (3)

               Commission Regulation (EU) No 605/2010 (4) lays down animal and public health and veterinary certification conditions for the introduction into the Union of raw milk and dairy products intended for human consumption.

               (4)

               Commission Regulation (EU) No 28/2012 (5) lays down requirements for the certification for imports into and transit through the Union of certain composite products.

               (5)

               It is necessary to lay down specific conditions for transit via the Union of consignments of poultry products, fresh meat, raw milk and dairy products and certain composite products to third countries from Bosnia and Herzegovina due to the geographical situation and the necessity to maintain access to the Croatian port of Ploče after the accession of Croatia to the Union.

               (6)

               Commission Decision 2009/821/EC (6) draws up a list of approved border inspection posts and lays down certain rules on the inspections carried out by Commission veterinary experts and lays down the veterinary units in Traces. As the arrangements for the transit via the Union to third countries from Bosnia and Herzegovina, of the consignments covered by Regulations (EC) No 798/2008, (EU) No 206/2010, (EU) No 605/2010 and (EU) No 28/2012 can be effective only through access via Croatian border inspection posts of Nova Sela and Ploče, it is necessary to include those border inspection posts in the list set out in Annex I to Decision 2009/821/EC as soon as the technical conditions for their approval are complied with.

               (7)

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

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   Amendment to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008
   In Regulation (EC) No 798/2008, the following Article 18a is inserted:

      ‘Article 18a
      Derogation for transit through Croatia of consignments coming from Bosnia and Herzegovina and destined to third countries
      1.   By way of derogation from Article 4(4), the direct transit by road shall be authorised between the border inspection post of Nova Sela and the border inspection post of Ploče, of consignments of meat, minced meat and mechanically separated meat of poultry including ratites and wild game-birds, eggs and egg products and specified pathogen-free eggs coming from Bosnia and Herzegovina and bound for third countries where the following conditions are complied with:

                  (a)

                  the consignment is sealed with a serially numbered seal by the official veterinarian at the border inspection post of entry;

                  (b)

                  the documents accompanying the consignment, as provided for in Article 7 of Directive 97/78/EC, are stamped with the words “ONLY FOR TRANSIT TO THIRD COUNTRIES VIA THE EU” on each page by the official veterinarian at the border inspection post of entry;

                  (c)

                  the procedural requirements provided for in Article 11 of Directive 97/78/EC are complied with;

                  (d)

                  the consignment is certified as acceptable for transit on the Common Veterinary Entry Document referred to in Article 2(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 (7) by the official veterinarian at the border inspection post of entry.

            2.   Unloading or storage, as defined in Article 12(4) or in Article 13 of Directive 97/78/EC, of such consignments in the Union shall not be allowed.
      3.   Regular audits shall be made by the competent authority to ensure that the number of consignments and the quantities of products leaving the Union matches the number and quantities entering the Union.

   Article 2
   Amendment to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010
   In Regulation (EU) No 206/2010, the following Article 17a is inserted:

      ‘Article 17a
      Derogation for transit through Croatia of consignments coming from Bosnia and Herzegovina and destined to third countries
      1.   By way of derogation from Article 16, the direct transit by road through the Union, between the border inspection post of Nova Sela and the border inspection post of Ploče, of consignments coming from Bosnia and Herzegovina and destined to third countries shall be authorised provided that the following conditions are complied with:

                  (a)

                  the consignment is sealed with a serially numbered seal by the official veterinarian at the border inspection post of entry;

                  (b)

                  the documents accompanying the consignment and referred to in Article 7 of Directive 97/78/EC are stamped “ONLY FOR TRANSIT TO THIRD COUNTRIES VIA THE EU” on each page by the official veterinarian at the border inspection post of entry;

                  (c)

                  the procedural requirements provided for in Article 11 of Directive 97/78/EC are complied with;

                  (d)

                  the consignment is certified as acceptable for transit on the Common Veterinary Entry Document referred to in Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 by the official veterinarian at the border inspection post of entry.

            2.   Unloading or storage, as defined in Article 12(4) or in Article 13 of Directive 97/78/EC, of such consignments on Union territory shall not be allowed.
      3.   Regular audits shall be made by the competent authority to ensure that the number of consignments and the quantities of products leaving the Union matches the number and quantities entering the Union.’

   Article 3
   Amendment to Regulation (EU) No 605/2010
   In Regulation (EU) No 605/2010, the following Article 7a is inserted:

      ‘Article 7a
      Derogation for transit through Croatia of consignments coming from Bosnia and Herzegovina and destined to third countries
      1.   By way of derogation from Article 6, the direct transit by road through the Union, between the border inspection post of Nova Sela and the border inspection post of Ploče, of consignments coming from Bosnia and Herzegovina and destined to third countries shall be authorised provided that the following conditions are complied with:

                  (a)

                  the consignment is sealed with a serially numbered seal by the official veterinarian at the border inspection post of entry;

                  (b)

                  the documents accompanying the consignment and referred to in Article 7 of Directive 97/78/EC are stamped “ONLY FOR TRANSIT TO THIRD COUNTRIES VIA THE EU” on each page by the official veterinarian at the border inspection post of entry;

                  (c)

                  the procedural requirements provided for in Article 11 of Directive 97/78/EC are complied with;

                  (d)

                  the consignment is certified as acceptable for transit on the Common Veterinary Entry Document referred to in Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 by the official veterinarian at the border inspection post of entry.

            2.   Unloading or storage, as defined in Article 12(4) or in Article 13 of Directive 97/78/EC, of such consignments on Union territory shall not be allowed.
      3.   Regular audits shall be made by the competent authority to ensure that the number of consignments and the quantities of products leaving the Union matches the number and quantities entering the Union.’

   Article 4
   Amendment to Regulation (EU) No 28/2012
   In Regulation (EU) No 28/2012, the following Article 5a is inserted:

      ‘Article 5a
      Derogation for transit through Croatia of consignments coming from Bosnia and Herzegovina and destined to third countries
      1.   By way of derogation from Article 4, the direct transit by road through the Union, between the border inspection post of Nova Sela and the border inspection post of Ploče, of consignments of composite products referred to Article 3 coming from Bosnia and Herzegovina and destined to third countries shall be authorised provided that the following conditions are complied with:

                  (a)

                  the consignment is sealed with a serially numbered seal at the border inspection post of introduction into the Union by the official veterinarian at the border inspection post of entry;

                  (b)

                  the documents accompanying the consignment and referred to in Article 7 of Directive 97/78/EC are stamped “ONLY FOR TRANSIT TO THIRD COUNTRIES VIA THE EU” on each page by the official veterinarian at the border inspection post of entry;

                  (c)

                  the procedural requirements provided for in Article 11 of Directive 97/78/EC are complied with;

                  (d)

                  the consignment is certified as acceptable for transit on the Common Veterinary Entry Document referred to in Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 by the official veterinarian at the border inspection post of entry.

            2.   Unloading or storage, as defined in Article 12(4) or in Article 13 of Directive 97/78/EC, of such consignments in the Union shall not be allowed.
      3.   Regular audits shall be made by the competent authority to ensure that the number of consignments and the quantities of products leaving the Union matches the number and quantities entering the Union.’

   Article 5
   Entry into force and application
   This Regulation shall enter into force subject to and on the date of the entry into force of the Treaty of Accession of Croatia.
   It shall apply from the date of application of the amendments to Decision 2009/821/EC which insert the entries for Nova Sela and Ploče in Annex I thereto.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 14 June 2013.

            For the Commission

            The President

         José Manuel BARROSO

      (1)  OJ L 18, 23.1.2003, p. 11.

      (2)  OJ L 226, 23.8.2008, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 73, 20.3.2010, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ L 175, 10.7.2010, p. 1.

      (5)  OJ L 12, 14.1.2012, p. 1.

      (6)  OJ L 296, 12.11.2009, p. 1.

      (7)  OJ L 21, 28.1.2004, p. 11.’