HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"L 346/20
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
20.12.2013
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1371/2013
of 16 December 2013
extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011
on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People's Republic of China
to imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from India and Indonesia, whether
declared as originating in India and Indonesia or not
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
1.2 Request
(3) On
25
February
2013,
the
European
Commission
(‘the
Commission’) received a request under Articles 13(3) and
14(5) of the basic Regulation to investigate the possible
circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres orig
Union,
inating in the PRC and to make imports of certain open
mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from India and
Indonesia, whether declared as originating in India and
Indonesia or not, subject to registration.
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports
from countries not members of the European Community ( 1 )
(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 13 thereof,
(4)
The request was lodged by Saint-Gobain Adfors CZ s.r.o.,
Tolnatext Fonalfeldolgozo es Muszakiszovet-gyarto Bt.,
Valmieras ‘Stikla Skiedra’ AS and Vitrulan Technical
Textiles GmbH, four Union producers of certain open
mesh fabrics of glass fibres.
Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
Whereas:
(5) The
request
contained
sufficient prima facie evidence that
following the imposition of the measures in force, a
significant change in the pattern of trade involving
exports from the PRC, India and Indonesia to the
Union occurred, for which there was insufficient due
cause or economic justification other than the imposition
1. PROCEDURE
of the measures in force. This change in the pattern of
trade stemmed allegedly from consignment of certain
1.1 Existing measures
open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the
PRC via India and Indonesia and/or false declaration of
(1) By
Implementing
Regulation
(EU)
No
791/2011
( 2 ) (‘the
origin of the Chinese products.
original Regulation’) the Council imposed a definitive
anti-dumping duty of 62,9 % on imports of certain
open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the
People's Republic of China (‘the PRC’) for all other
companies than the ones mentioned in Article 1(2) and
Annex 1 of that Regulation. Those measures are the
(6)
Furthermore, the evidence pointed to the fact that the
measures in force and the investigation that led to the
remedial effects of the measures in force were being
measures is the original investigation.
undermined both in terms of quantity and price. The
evidence showed that the increased imports from India
and Indonesia were made at prices below the non-
injurious price established in the original investigation.
(2) The
measures
in
force
were
previously
extended
to
Malaysia, by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No
672/2012 ( 3 ), and to Taiwan and Thailand, by Council
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 21/2013 ( 4 ).
(7) Finally,
there
was
evidence
that
prices
of
certain
open
mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from India and
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
Indonesia were dumped in relation to the normal value
( 2 ) OJ L 204, 9.8.2011, p. 1.
( 3 ) OJ L 196, 24.7.2012, p. 1.
established for the like product during the original inves
( 4 ) OJ L 11, 16.1.2013, p. 1.
tigation.

---

EN
20.12.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
346/21
1.3 Initiation
the reporting period from 1 April 2012 to 31 March
2013 (‘the RP’) in order to examine the possible under
(8) Having
determined,
after
consulting
the
Advisory
mining of the remedial effect of the measures in force
Committee, that sufficient prima facie evidence existed
and existence of dumping.
for the initiation of an investigation under Articles
13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission
initiated an investigation by Commission Regulation (EU)
2. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION
No 322/2013 ( 1 ) (‘the initiating Regulation’). Pursuant to
Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation the
2.1 General considerations
Commission, by the initiating Regulation, also directed
the customs authorities to register imports of certain
(13) In
accordance
with
Article
13(1)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
open mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from India
the assessment of the existence of circumvention was
and Indonesia.
made by analysing successively whether there was a
change in the pattern of trade between the PRC, India,
Indonesia and the Union; if that change stemmed from a
1.4 Investigation
practice, process or work for which there was insufficient
due cause or economic justification other than the
(9) The
Commission
officially
advised
the
authorities
of
the
imposition of the duty; if there was evidence of injury
PRC, India and Indonesia, the producers/exporters in
or that the remedial effects of the duty were being
those countries, the importers in the Union known to
undermined in terms of the prices and/or quantities of
be concerned and the Union industry of the initiation of
the product under investigation; and whether there was
the investigation. Questionnaires were sent to the
evidence of dumping in relation to the normal values
producers/exporters in the PRC, India and Indonesia
previously established for the product concerned, if
known to the Commission or which made themselves
necessary in accordance with the provisions of
known within the deadlines specified in recital 15 of
Article 2 of the basic Regulation.
the initiating Regulation. Questionnaires were also sent
to importers in the Union. Interested parties were given
the opportunity to make their views known in writing
2.2 Product concerned and the product under inves
and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the
tigation
initiating Regulation. All parties were informed that non-
cooperation might lead to the application of Article 18
(14) The product concerned is as defined in the original inves
of the basic Regulation and to findings being based on
tigation: Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, of a cell size
the facts available.
of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width and
weighing more than 35 g/m 2 , excluding fibreglass discs,
originating in the PRC, currently falling within CN codes
(10) Two
exporting
producers
in
India
and
one
unrelated
ex 7019 51 00 and ex 7019 59 00.
importer in the Union made themselves known and
submitted replies to the questionnaires. Later the Union
importer informed the Commission that it imported
(15) The product under investigation is the same as that
other products and it did not import any product
defined in the previous recital, but consigned from
under investigation in the past. No exporting producer
India and Indonesia, whether declared as originating in
in Indonesia submitted a reply. The following exporting
India and Indonesia or not.
producers in India submitted an exemption form reply:
(16) The
investigation
showed
that
open
mesh
fabrics
of
glass
— Montex Glass Fibre Industries Pvt.Ltd. (‘Montex’), and
fibres, as defined above, exported from the PRC to the
Union and those consigned from India and Indonesia to
the Union have the same basic physical and technical
— Urja Products Pvt.Ltd.
characteristics and have the same uses, and are
therefore to be considered as like products within the
meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
(11) Subsequently, Urja Products Pvt.Ltd. informed the
Commission that it does not produce the product
under investigation and its products have different
2.3 Level of cooperation
technical characteristics and different use (falling within
other CN codes). Therefore, a verification visit was carried
2.3.1 India
out only at the premises of Montex.
(17) As
stated
in
recital
10
above,
only
two
Indian
companies
submitted an exemption form reply. As one of them,
1.5 Investigation period
Urja Products Pvt.Ltd., was found not to be a producer
of the product under investigation, there was only one
(12) The
investigation
period
covered
the
period
from
1
April
cooperating company, Montex. The company represented
2009 to 31 March 2013 (‘the IP’). Data were collected
only 1 % of the exports from India to the Union in the
for the IP to investigate, inter alia, the alleged change in
RP, compared to overall exports from India. This led to
the pattern of trade. More detailed data were collected for
the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation and
findings with regard to India were based on facts
( 1 ) OJ L 101, 10.4.2013, p. 1.
available.

---

L 346/22
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
20.12.2013
2.3.2 Indonesia
basic Regulation given the relatively low or no
cooperation of Indian, Indonesian and Chinese
(18) As stated in recital (10), no Indonesian companies
companies (see Section 2.3 above).
submitted a questionnaire reply. There was no
cooperation from Indonesian companies. This led to
the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation
and findings with regard to Indonesia were based on
(21) To
that
end,
COMEXT
statistics
( 3 ), trade statistics from
facts available.
India and Indonesia received from the respective national
authorities and Global Trade Information Services ( 4 )
statistics were used for the analysis. Accounting years
starting on 1 April and finishing 31 March were used
in order to use 12-month periods.
2.3.3 The PRC
(19) There
was
no
cooperation
from
the
Chinese
exporting
producers. This led to the application of Article 18 of the
(22) The
import
volume
recorded
in
COMEXT
statistics
covers
basic Regulation and findings with regard to the PRC
a larger product group than the product concerned and
were based on facts available.
the product under investigation. However, based on
estimates provided by the Union industry, it could be
established that a significant part of that import
volume covered the product concerned and the product
under investigation. Accordingly, those data could be
2.4 Change in the pattern of trade
used to establish a change in the pattern of trade.
(20) To
determine
whether
there
was
a
change
in
the
pattern
of trade, imports of the product under investigation from
India and Indonesia into the Union and exports of the
2.4.1 Imports into the Union
product under investigation from the PRC to India and
Indonesia were assessed. Those imports were established
(23) COMEXT
statistics
show a significant
change
in the
on the basis of facts available under Article 18(1) of the
pattern of trade over the IP (see Table 1 below).
Table 1
Import volumes
(millions of m 2 ) ( 1 )
April 2009/March 2010 April
2010/March
2011 April
2011/March
2012 April
2012/March
2013
PRC 288,40 385,85 110,30 85,93
India 0,35 0,28 0,89 13,13
Indonesia 0,004 0,16 3,22 33,31
Source: COMEXT statistics
( 1 ) The volume in Comext is reported in metric tonnes and converted to square meters according to UI conversion rates; i.e. for CN
70 195 100: 1 m 2 = 0,05kg, for CN 70 195 900: 1 m 2 = 0,14 kg.
I m p o r t s f r o m t h e P R C
Union accounted for 0,35 million m 2 , in the financial
year 2010/2011 it was 0,28 million m 2 and it increased
(24) According to COMEXT statistics imports of the product
sharply between 2011/2012 and 2012/2013, reaching
concerned from the PRC to the Union dropped
13,13 million m
dramatically subsequent to the imposition of the

2 in the financial year 2012/2013.
provisional measures in February 2011 ( 1 ) and of the
definitive measures in August 2011 ( 2 ). Table 1 above
shows that between 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 the
imports to the Union from the PRC dropped from
385,85 million m 2 to 110,30 million m 2 (by approxi
(26) As
stated
in
recital
17
above,
the
company
Montex
mately 70 %) and between 2010/2011 and 2012/2013
exported a very small quantity to the Union of the
(by approximately 80 %) further to 85,9 million m 2 .
product under investigation in the IP – compared to
overall exports from India it represents 1 % of the
I m p o r t s f r o m I n d i a
exports from India to the Union in the period of
2012/2013. Moreover, it was found that Montex
(25) According
to
COMEXT
statistics,
in
the
financial
year
exports the product under investigation under an
2009/2010 the quantities imported from India to the
( 3 ) Comext is a database on foreign trade statistics managed by Eurostat.
( 1 ) OJ L 43, 17.2.2011, p. 9.
( 4 ) Global Trade Information Services are trade statistics from a
( 2 ) OJ L 204, 9.8.2011, p. 1.
commercial database provider.

---

EN
20.12.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
346/23
incorrect CN code – 7019 52. Its exports had therefore
2010/2011 they amounted to 0,16 million m 2 and they
to be added to the COMEXT statistics as shown in Table
increased sharply between 2011/2012 and 2012/2013,
1 above.
from 3,22 million m 2 to 33,31 million m 2 respectively.
I m p o r t s f r o m I n d o n e s i a
2.4.2 Exports from the PRC to India and Indonesia
(27) According
to
COMEXT
statistics,
in
the
financial
year
2009/2010 the quantities imported from Indonesia to
(28) A
dramatic
increase
of
exports
can
also
be
observed
from
the Union market accounted for 0,004 million m 2 , in
the PRC to India and Indonesia in the same period.
Table 2
Import volumes
(millions of m 2 )
April 2009/March 2010 April
2010/March
2011 April
2011/March
2012 April
2012/March
2013
India 4,80 16,35 18,38 29,28
Indonesia 5,78 4,01 8,94 11,54
Source: China customs Statistics
E x p o r t s f r o m t h e P R C t o I n d i a
process or work for which there is insufficient due cause
or economic justification other than the imposition of
(29) According
to
the
Chinese
customs
statistics,
imports
the duty. The practice, process or work includes, inter
from the PRC to India of the product under investigation
alia, the consignment of the product subject to
increased from 4,8 million m 2 in the financial year
measures in force via third countries in accordance
2009/2010 to 29,3 million m 2 in the financial year
with Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation.
2012/2013.
(33) During
the
investigation,
evidence
was
found
of
trans
E x p o r t s f r o m t h e P R C t o I n d o n e s i a
hipment practices via Indonesia and India and/or
incorrect certificates of origin. For instance, some of
(30) According
to
the
Chinese
customs
statistics,
imports
from the PRC to Indonesia of the product under inves
the imports of the product concerned to the Union
tigation increased from 5,78 million m
were transhipped through Dubai or Singapore with

2 in the financial
year 2009/2010 to 11,54 million m
certificates of origin of Indonesia/India and a part of

2 in the financial
year 2012/2013.
the imports to the Union was transhipped through an
Indian company which did not cooperate in the investi
gation. The lack of cooperation by any of the producers
of the product under investigation, except Montex, is also
2.4.3 Conclusion on the change in the pattern of trade
an indication that there is no genuine production in
Indonesia and India that could justify the export levels
(31) The
overall
decrease
of
the
exports
from
the
PRC
to
the
from Indonesia and India to the Union. It is reasonable
Union and the parallel increase of both exports from
to expect that if there are genuine producers, they would
India and Indonesia to the Union and exports from the
try to distinguish themselves from circumvention
PRC to India and Indonesia, following the imposition of
practices by participating in this investigation in the
provisional measures in February 2011 and of definitive
first place. In addition, the investigation did not reveal
measures in August 2011, constitutes a change in the
evidence of genuine production in the two contries
pattern of trade between the abovementioned countries,
concerned, other than that of Montex. Furthermore, the
on the one hand, and of the exports of those countries to
surge in imports from those two countries indicates that
the Union, on the other hand.
the Chinese products are transhipped to the Union
through India and Indonesia and/or with incorrect
certificates of origin.
2.5 Nature of the circumvention practice
(32) Article
13(1)
of
the
basic
Regulation
requires
that
the
(34) The
existence
of
transhipment
of
Chinese-origin
products
change in the pattern of trade stems from a practice,
via India and Indonesia is therefore confirmed.

---

L 346/24
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
20.12.2013
2.6 Insufficient due cause or economic justification
(40) In the original Regulation the normal value was estab
other than the imposition of the anti-dumping duty
lished on the basis of prices in Canada, which in that
investigation was found to be an appropriate market
(35) The
investigation
did
not
bring
to
light
any
due
cause
or
economy analogue country for the PRC. In line with
economic justification for the transhipment other than
Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation the normal value
the avoidance of the measures in force on the product
as established in the original investigation was used.
concerned. No elements were found, other than the duty,
which could be considered as a compensation for the
costs of transhipment, in particular regarding transport
and reloading, of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres
originating in the PRC from the PRC via India and
(41) The
export
prices
from
India
and
Indonesia
were
based
Indonesia.
on facts available under Article 18 of the basic Regu
lation. The export price was the average export price of
certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres from each of the
two contries concerned during the RP as reported in
2.7 Undermining of the remedial effect of the anti-
COMEXT. The exports of the Indian company Montex
dumping duty
were not reflected in the statistics due to the misclassifi
cation of their products (see recital 25 above), and were
(36) Next, it was assessed whether the imports of the product
not used for the calculation of the dumping margin.
under investigation into the Union had undermined the
remedial effects of the measures in force in terms of
quantities and prices. COMEXT data was used as the
best data available concerning quantities and prices of
exports by the non-cooperating companies in India and
(42) For the purpose of a fair comparison between the normal
Indonesia. The prices so determined were compared to
value and the export price, due allowance, in the form of
the injury elimination level established for the Union
adjustments, was made for differences which affect prices
industry in recital (74) of the original Regulation.
and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10)
of the basic Regulation. Accordingly, adjustments were
made for differences in transport, insurance and packing
costs. Given that data available did not allow to establish
(37) The
increase
of
imports
from
India
to
the
Union
from
the level of the adjustments to be made, the adjustments
0,35 million m 2 in 2009/2010 to 13,10 million m 2 in
had to be established on the basis of the best facts
the RP was significant in terms of quantities, compared
available. Thus, the adjustment for these allowances
to (very low) volumes of imports from India before the
was based on a percentage calculated as the proportion
imposition of the provisional measures in 2009/2010.
of the total transport, insurance and packing costs over
Also, the increase of imports from Indonesia to the
the value of the Union sales transactions with CIF
Union from 0,04 m 2 in 2009/2010 to 33,31 million
delivery terms provided by the cooperating Chinese
m 2 in the RP was considered to be substantial in terms
exporting producers in the original investigation.
of quantities, compared to (very low) volumes of imports
from Indonesia before the imposition of the provisionnal
measures in 2009/2010.
(43) In accordance with Articles 2(11) and 2(12) of the basic
Regulation, dumping was calculated by comparing the
weighted average normal value as established in the
(38) To assess whether the remedial effects of the measures in
force are undermined in terms of prices, the prices of the
original Regulation and the corresponding weighted
imports from Indonesia and India were compared with
average export prices of the two countries concerned
the injury elimination level as established in the original
during this investigation's RP, expressed as a percentage
Regulation. The injury elimination level as established in
of the CIF price at the Union frontier duty unpaid.
the original Regulation was adjusted for inflation. The
weighted average export price of exports from India
and Indonesia was adjusted for post importation costs
and quality adjustments as established in the original
(44) The
comparison
of
the
weighted
average
normal
value
investigation for imports from PRC. The comparison
and the weighted average export price as established
showed significantly lower export prices for exports
showed dumping.
from the countries concerned to the Union. It was
therefore concluded that the remedial effects of the
measures in force are also being undermined in terms
of both quantities and prices.
3. MEASURES
(45) In view of the above, it is concluded that the definitive
2.8 Evidence of dumping
anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain open
mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the PRC was
(39) Finally,
in
accordance
with
Article
13(1)
of
the
basic
circumvented by transhipment via India and Indonesia
Regulation it was examined whether there was evidence
within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regu
of dumping.
lation.

---

EN
20.12.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
346/25
(46) In
accordance
with
the
first
sentence
of
Article
13(1)
of
did not reveal any genuine producer of the product
the basic Regulation, the measures in force on imports of
under investigation in Indonesia.
the product concerned, should be extended to imports of
the same product but consigned from India and
Indonesia, whether declared as originating in India and
4.3 Newcomers
Indonesia or not.
(53) Producers in India and Indonesia which did not
participate in this investigation and/or did not export
(47) The measures to be extended should be the measures
the product under investigation to the Union in the RP
established in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) No
may request an exemption from the extended anti-
791/2011 for ‘all other companies’, which is a definitive
dumping duty under Articles 11(3), 11(4) and 13(4) of
anti-dumping duty of 62,9 % applicable to the net, free-
the basic Regulation. They will be asked to complete a
at-Union-frontier price, before duty.
questionnaire in order to enable the Commission to
determine whether an exemption may be warranted.
Such exemption may be granted after the assessment
of the market situation of the product concerned,
(48) In accordance with Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic
production capacity and capacity utilisation, procurement
Regulation, which provides that any extended measure
and sales and the likelihood of a continuation of
should apply to imports which entered the Union
practices for which there is insufficient due cause or
under registration imposed by the initiating Regulation,
economic justification and the evidence of dumping.
duties should be collected on those registered imports of
The Commission would normally also carry out an on-
certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from
the-spot verification visit. The request should be
India and Indonesia.
addressed to the Commission, with all relevant
information, in particular any modification in the
company's activities linked to the production and sales.
4. REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION
4.1 India
(54) Where
an
exemption
is
warranted,
the
Commission
will,
(49) As
stated
in
recital
(10)
two
exporting
producers
came
after consultation of the Advisory Committee, propose
forward following initiation and submitted questionnaire
the amendment of the extended measures in force
replies and requested exemption in accordance with
accordingly. Subsequently, any exemption granted will
Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation – Montex and
be monitored to ensure compliance with the conditions.
Urja Products.
5. DISCLOSURE
(50) As
stated
in
recital
(11),
it
was
found
that
one
of
the
two
(55) All
interested
parties
were
informed
of
the
essential
facts
companies, Urja Products does not produce the product
and considerations leading to the above conclusions and
under investigation. The exemption under Article 13(4)
were invited to comment. The oral and written
of the basic Regulation is not applicable to that
comments submitted by the parties were considered.
company.
None of the arguments presented gave rise to a modifi
cation of the definitive findings,
(51) Montex
was
found
not
to
be
engaged
in
the
circum
vention practices subject to this investigation. The
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
company demostrated that it is a genuine producer
whose production capacity exceeds the volume of
exports of the product under investigation to the
Union. The company submitted a complete set of data
Article 1
and was verified on the spot. The verified data relating to
the setting-up of the company, purchase of machinery,
1. The
definitive
anti-dumping
duty
applicable
to
‘all
other
production process, capacity, stocks, purchases of raw
companies’ imposed by Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) No
material and cost of production support this conclusion.
791/2011 on imports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, of
Furthermore, this producer could demonstrate that it is
a cell size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width
not related to any of the Chinese producers/exporters
and weighing more than 35 g/m 2 , excluding fibreglass discs,
subject to the existing measures or to companies
originating in the People's Republic of China, is hereby
involved in the circumvention practices. Therefore, the
extended to imports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, of a
exemption from the extended duties could be granted
cell size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width and
to this company.
weighing more than 35
g/m 2 , excluding fibreglass discs,
consigned from India and Indonesia, whether declared as orig
inating in India and Indonesia or not, currently falling in CN
4.2 Indonesia
codes ex 7019 51 00 and ex 7019 59 00 (TARIC codes
7019 51 00 14,
7019 51 00 15,
7019 59 00 14
and
(52) As stated in recital
(10) no exporting producer in
7019 59 00 15) with the exception of those produced by
Indonesia submitted a request for exemption under
Montex Glass Fibre Industries Pvt.Ltd. (TARIC additional code
Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation. The investigation
B942).

---

L 346/26
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
20.12.2013
2. The
application
of
the
exemption
granted
to
Montex
Glass European Commission
Fibre Industries Pvt. Ltd. shall be conditional upon presentation
Directorate-General for Trade
to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid
commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements
Directorate H
set out in the Annex to this Regulation. If no such invoice is
Office: N-105 8/20
presented, the anti-dumping duty as imposed by paragraph 1 of
1049 Brussels
this Article shall apply.
Belgium
Fax (32 2) 295 65 05
3. The
duty
extended
by
paragraph
1
of
this
Article
shall
be
collected on imports consigned from India and Indonesia,
whether declared as originating in India and Indonesia or not,
2. Imports
from
companies
which
do
not
circumvent
the
registered in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No
anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EU) No
322/2013 and Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No
791/2011 may be exempted from the duty extended by
1225/2009.
Article 1 under the relevant provisions of the Basic Regulation.
4. Unless
otherwise
specified,
the
provisions
in
force
Article 3
concerning customs duties shall apply.
Customs authorities are hereby directed to discontinue the regis
tration of imports, established in accordance with Article 2 of
Regulation (EU) No 322/2013.
Article 2
1. Requests
for
exemption
from
the
duty
extended
by
Article 1 shall be made in writing in one of the official
Article 4
languages of the European Union and must be signed by a
person authorised to represent the entity requesting the
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that
exemption. The request must be sent to the following address:
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, 16 December 2013.
For the Council
The President
V. JUKNA
ANNEX
A declaration signed by an official of the entity issuing the commercial invoice, in the following format, must appear on
the valid commercial invoice referred to in Article 1(2):
1. The name and function of the official of the entity issuing the commercial invoice;
2. The following declaration: ‘I, the undersigned, certify that the (volume) of (product concerned) sold for export to the
European Union covered by this invoice was manufactured by (company name and address) (TARIC additional code)
in (country concerned). I declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct’;
3. Date and signature

---

Document Outline

• �

---