HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
13.7.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
182/1
II
(Non-legislative acts)
REGULATIONS
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 626/2012
of 26 June 2012
amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 349/2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
imports of tartaric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Industria Chimica Valenzana SpA, Distillerie Mazzari
SpA, Caviro Distillerie SRL and Comercial Quimica
Sarasa SL (‘the applicants’).
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union,
(3) The
review
request
was
limited
in
scope
to
the
exam
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of
ination of dumping as far as two PRC exporting
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports
producers were concerned, namely Changmao
from countries not members of the European Community (
Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd, Changzhou, and

1 )
(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9 and
Ninghai Organic Chemical Factory, Ninghai. The request
Article 11(3), (5) and (6) thereof,
alleged that the continued imposition of measures at the
existing level, which was based on the level of dumping
previously established, appeared to be no longer
sufficient to counteract dumping, given that both
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European
companies should be denied market economy
Commission (‘Commission’) after consulting the Advisory
treatment (MET).
Committee,
Whereas:
(4) Having
determined
that
the
Commission
had
at
its
disposal sufficient prima facie evidence for the initiation
of an interim review, and after consulting the Advisory
A. PROCEDURE
Committee, the Commission announced on 29 July
2011, in a notice published in the Official Journal of the
1. Measures in force
European Union ( 6 ) (‘the notice of initiation’), the initiation
of an interim review limited to dumping pursuant to
(1) In
2006,
the
Council
imposed,
by
means
of
Regulation
Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.
(EC) No 130/2006 ( 2 ), a definitive anti-dumping duty on
imports of tartaric acid originating in the People’s
Republic of China (‘PRC’ or ‘the country concerned’)
(‘the original anti-dumping measures’). This Regulation
3. Investigation
was amended by Council Regulation (EC)
No 150/2008 ( 3 ). In 2012, the Council amended those
3.1. Investigation period
measures by Implementing Regulation (EU)
No 332/2012 (
(5) The
investigation
concerning
dumping
covered
the

4 ) and extended them for a further five
years by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 349/2012 (
period from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 (‘the review

5 ).
investigation period’ or ‘RIP’).
2. Initiation of an interim review
(2) A
request
for
review
was
lodged
by
the
following
3.2. Parties concerned by this investigation
producers in the Union: Distillerie Bonollo SpA,
(6) The
Commission
officially
advised
the
two
exporting
producers in the country concerned and the authorities
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
of the country concerned of the initiation of the interim
( 2 ) OJ L 23, 27.1.2006, p. 1.
review.
( 3 ) OJ L 48, 22.2.2008, p. 1.
( 4 ) OJ L 108, 20.4.2012, p. 1.
( 5 ) OJ L 110, 24.4.2012, p. 3.
( 6 ) OJ C 223, 29.7.2011, p. 16.

---

L 182/2
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
13.7.2012
(7) Interested
parties
were
given
the
opportunity
to
make
other products. It can be obtained either from the by-
their views known in writing and to request a hearing
products of winemaking, as is the case with production
within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.
in the Union or via chemical synthesis from petro
chemical compounds, as is the case with production in
the PRC. Only L+ tartaric acid is manufactured from the
3.3. Questionnaire replies and verifications
by-products of winemaking. Synthetic production allows
the manufacture of both L+ and DL tartaric acid. Both
(8) The
Commission
sent
questionnaires
to
the
two
types are product concerned and have overlapping uses.
exporting producers named in the request for review
and to producers in the analogue country, Argentina.
2. Like product
(9) Questionnaire
replies
were
received
from
the
two
PRC (14) As
in
the
previous
investigation,
it
was
considered
that
exporting producers, and also from the cooperating
the tartaric acid produced in the PRC and exported to the
producer in the analogue country.
Union, the tartaric acid produced and sold on the
domestic market of the analogue country (Argentina)
and the tartaric acid manufactured and sold in the
(10) In order to allow the two exporting producers in the PRC
Union by the Union producers have the same basic
to submit a claim for market economy treatment (MET)
physical and chemical characteristics, and the same
or individual treatment (IT), if they so wished, the
basic uses. They were therefore considered to be like
Commission sent claim forms for this purpose. Claims
products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the
for MET, or for IT in case the investigation established
basic Regulation.
that they do not meet the conditions for MET, were
received from both of them.
C. DUMPING
(11) The
Commission
sought
and
verified
all
the
information
1. Market economy treatment
deemed necessary for a determination of dumping and
carried out verifications at the premises of the following
(15) Both
companies
named
in
the
request
for
review
claimed
companies:
market economy treatment. Pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of
the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations
concerning imports originating in the PRC, normal
(a) Exporting producers in the PRC:
value is to be determined in accordance with paragraphs
1 to 6 of that Article for those producers which were
found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of
the basic Regulation.
— Ninghai Organic Chemical Factory, Ninghai,

— Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd,
(16) Briefly,
and
for
ease
of
reference
only,
the
MET
criteria
Changzhou;
are set out in summarised form below:
(b) Exporting producers in the analogue country:
(1) business decisions and costs are made in response to
market conditions and without significant State inter
ference;
— Tarcol SA, Buenos Aires.
B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
(2) accounting records are independently audited in line
with international accounting standards and applied
1. Product concerned
for all purposes;
(12) The
product
concerned
by
this
review
is
the
same
as
the
one in the original investigation, namely tartaric acid,
excluding D-(-)- tartaric acid with a negative optical
(3) there are no significant distortions carried over from
rotation of at least 12,0 degrees, measured in a water
the former non-market economy system;
solution according to the method described in the
European Pharmacopoeia, originating in the PRC,
currently falling within CN code ex 2918 12 00 (‘the
product concerned’).
(4) legal certainty and stability is provided by bankruptcy

and property laws;
(13) The
product
concerned
is
used
in
wine,
in
beverage
and
food additives, as a retardant in plaster and in numerous
(5) currency exchanges are carried out at the market rate.

---

EN
13.7.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
182/3
(17) Both
producers
in
the
PRC
requested
MET
pursuant
to
(24) As
in
the
original
investigation,
Argentina
was
proposed
Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. Each MET appli
in the notice of initiation as an appropriate analogue
cation was analysed, and on-the-spot investigations were
country for the purposes of establishing normal value
carried out at the premises of these cooperating
pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.
companies.
Following the publication of the notice of initiation,
one company in India and one company in Australia
were identified as alternative possible producers in a
market economy third country. However neither of the
(18) For
both
companies,
MET
was
denied
under
Criterion
1
two companies responded to the questionnaire sent to
of Article 2(7)(c) based on evidence that the price of the
them.
basic raw material, benzene, was distorted. A comparison
of domestic prices in the PRC, using the purchase prices
of one cooperating producer as a source, against prices in
other market economy countries showed a price
(25) One
producer
of
tartaric
acid
in
Argentina
cooperated
difference of between 19 % and 51 % during the inves
with the investigation by replying to a questionnaire.
tigation period. The PRC imposes an import tariff on
The investigation showed that Argentina had a
benzene of 40 % (although this was not in fact in
competitive market for tartaric acid with two
force during the RIP) and also does not refund any of
competing local producers and imports from third coun
the 17 % VAT levied on its export. Distortions were also
tries. The production volume in Argentina constitutes
found in the price of the intermediate raw material,
more than 20 % of the volume of PRC exports of the
maleic anhydride, purchased by the other cooperating
product concerned to the Union. The Argentinian market
producer using its purchases as a source.
was therefore deemed sufficiently representative for the

determination of normal value for the PRC.
(19) MET
was
also
denied
to
one
company
under
Criteria
2
(26) It is therefore concluded, as in the previous investigation,
and 3 due to evidence of depressed land use right prices
that Argentina constitutes an appropriate analogue
and also overvaluation of the company’s assets for the
country in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic
purpose of guaranteeing a loan from a State-owned bank.
Regulation.
(20) Both
companies
disputed
the
findings
of
the
Commission
3. Normal value
after they were disclosed to them. However neither
(27) Normal value was established on the basis of the
company could explain the low price of benzene on
information received from the cooperating producer in
the PRC market. The company referred to in recital 19
the analogue country. Although the analogue country
provided some documents to dispute the Commission’s
producer had domestic sales of the product concerned,
findings regarding the land use right prices and the
given the difference in the production method between
valuation of their assets. However as these documents
Argentina and the PRC which has a significant impact on
were requested during the inspection and were not
prices and costs, it was decided to construct normal
provided, it was therefore decided that this information
value, rather than use these domestic sales prices. The
could not be verified or relied upon.
cost of raw materials in Argentina was replaced by an
average market price for benzene and an adjustment
made to selling, general and administrative expenses
(21) MET
is
therefore
denied
to
both
companies.
(SG&A) in Argentina to better reflect the domestic
market in the PRC.
(22) However
both
companies
meet
the
requirements
set
out
(28) Normal
value
for
L+
tartaric
acid
(which
is
manufactured
in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation and are therefore
by the Argentinian producer) was therefore constructed
entitled to an individual anti-dumping duty using their
from the cost of production in Argentina of L+ tartaric
own export prices.
acid, taking into account the difference in production
methods between Argentina and the PRC.
2. Analogue country
(29) Given
that
the
Argentinian
producer
did
not
manufacture
(23) Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation,
DL tartaric acid, a normal value was also constructed
normal value was determined on the basis of the price
using the difference in price found between the two
or constructed value in an appropriate market economy
product types.
third country (‘the analogue country’), or the price from
the analogue country to other countries, including the
Union, or, where those are not possible, on any other
4. Export price
reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or
payable in the Union for the like product, duly
(30) Export
prices
were
determined
based
on
the
actual
price
adjusted if necessary to include a reasonable profit
paid or payable by the first independent customer in the
margin.
Union for both PRC exporting producers.

---

L 182/4
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
13.7.2012
5. Comparison
(37) All
parties
were
informed
of
the
essential
facts
and
considerations on the basis of which it was intended to
(31) For
the
purposes
of
ensuring
a
fair
comparison
between
recommend that the existing measures be amended. They
the normal value and the export price in accordance with
were also granted a period within which they could make
Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, due allowance in
representations subsequent to this disclosure.
the form of adjustments was made with regard to certain
differences in transport, insurance and indirect taxation,
where these were proven to affect prices and price
comparability.
(38) One PRC company replied to the disclosure again
disputing the findings regarding the denial of MET on
the grounds of price distortion of the main raw material.
However, it provided no new evidence to support its
6. Dumping margins
assertions and its arguments were therefore rejected. It
(32) For
both
companies
the
weighted
average
normal
value
also requested further information on the adjustments
for each product was compared with the weighted
referred to in recital 27, but this had to be rejected as
average export price for the same product type, as
it would be impossible to do so without disclosing the
provided for under Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation.
production methods and costs of the sole producer in
Argentina.
(33) On
this
basis,
the
weighted
average
dumping
margins
expressed as a percentage of the cif Union frontier
(39) The
Union industry responded to the disclosure by
price duty unpaid are:
contesting the use of a constructed normal value rather
than domestic sales prices in the analogue country, and
also the adjustments referred to above to the constructed
normal value to take account of the difference in raw
materials and production processes between Argentina
Company Dumping
margin
and the PRC.
Changmao Biochemical Engineering
13,1 %
Co. Ltd, Changzhou
Ninghai Organic Chemical Factory,
8,3 %
(40) As
regards
the
use
of
a
constructed
normal
value
rather
Ninghai
than prices from Argentina, this cannot be considered a
change of methodology under Article 11(9) of the basic
Regulation. In the original investigation both PRC
companies were granted MET and therefore normal
7. Lasting nature of changed circumstances
value was taken from their own domestic prices. Now
that MET has been denied to both companies, the same
(34) The request for review alleged that the two PRC
methodology could no longer be used.
exporting producers should no longer be granted MET

and that this change was of a lasting nature. Given the
reasons for denial of MET it can be considered that the
conclusions of this review are of a lasting nature.
Evidence shows that the distortion in the price of
(41) The
Union
industry
further
claimed
that
the
Commission
benzene in the PRC was in existence prior to the RIP
should have used the methodology set out in the original
and there is no evidence to show that the PRC
investigation to calculate the residual duty for the PRC to
government has, or will, remove such distortions.
calculate the individual margins for the two exporters
concerned by this review. This argument was rejected
as the residual duty was calculated for companies that
did not cooperate with the original investigation. It is
(35) For
the
company-specific
reasons
set
out
in
recital
19
therefore not comparable to calculating an individual
these are also of a lasting nature, as they affect the
duty for a cooperating exporter that has been denied
company’s costs and decisions over a significant period
MET.
of time. They were not events that would have affected
the original investigation in which MET was granted to
this company.
(42) As regards the adjustments made to the normal value
referred to above, these were necessary to ensure a fair
comparison between the export price of a synthetically
D. AMENDMENT OF THE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
produced tartaric acid, and a normal value based on a
IN FORCE
natural production process. Attempting the same calcu
lation using domestic sales prices in Argentina and then
(36) In light of the above, it is considered that the present
adjusting the normal value and/or export price under
anti-dumping review should amend the level of the
Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation would not have
existing measures in force on imports of tartaric acid
provided for a fair comparison. These arguments were
from the PRC.
therefore rejected.

---

EN
13.7.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
182/5
E. UNDERTAKINGS
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
(43) One
exporting
producer
in
the
PRC
offered
a
price
undertaking in accordance with Article 8(1) of the
Article 1
basic Regulation. The product concerned is not suitable
for a fixed price undertaking due to the volatility of the
The Table in Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU)
export price. In order to overcome this problem, the
No 349/2012 shall be amended to read as follows:
exporting producer offered an indexation clause, but
without specifying how this indexation would be calcu
lated. It also offered an indexation based on the distorted
‘Company Anti-dumping
duty
TARIC additional
domestic benzene price in the PRC, which could not be
code
accepted.
Changmao Biochemical
13,1 % A688
Engineering Co. Ltd,
Changzhou
(44) Moreover,
that
exporting
producer
produces
different
types of other chemical products and may sell these
Ninghai Organic Chemical
8,3 % A689
products to common customers in the European Union
Factory, Ninghai
via related trading companies. This would create a serious
risk of cross-compensation and would make effective
All other companies
34,9 % A999’
monitoring extremely difficult.
(except Hangzhou Bioking

Biochemical Engineering
Co. Ltd, Hangzhou —
TARIC additional code
(45) Furthermore, there are different types of the product
A687)
concerned which are not easily distinguishable and
have a considerable difference in price. The different
MIPs proposed by the exporting producer would
Article 2
therefore render monitoring impracticable. On the basis
of the above, it was concluded that the undertaking
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that
offers cannot be accepted,
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 Luxembourg, 26 June 2012.
For the Council
The President
N. WAMMEN

---

Document Outline

• �

---