HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
25.1.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
22/1
II
(Non-legislative acts)
REGULATIONS
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 60/2012
of 16 January 2012
terminating the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of
the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of ferro-silicon originating, inter alia, in Russia
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
(3)
In its request, the applicant claimed that, as far as the
applicant is concerned, the circumstances on the basis of
which the existing measures were imposed have changed
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
and that these changes are of a lasting nature.
Union,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of
(4) The
applicant
provided
prima
facie
evidence
showing
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports
that, as far as the applicant is concerned, the continued
from countries not members of the European Community ( 1 )
imposition of the measure at its current level is no longer
(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 11(3) thereof,
necessary to offset dumping. According to the
information submitted in the request, the comparison
of the applicant’s domestic prices and its export prices
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European
to the Union indicated that the dumping margin
Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,
appeared to be substantially lower than the current
level of the measure.
Whereas:
1.3. Initiation of a review
1. PROCEDURE
(5) Having
determined,
after
consulting
the
Advisory
1.1. Measures in force
Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the
initiation of an interim review, the Commission decided
(1) The
Council,
by
Regulation
(EC)
No
172/2008
( 2 ) (‘the
original Regulation’), imposed a definitive anti-dumping
to initiate a partial interim review in accordance with
duty on imports of ferro-silicon originating, inter alia, in
Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, limited in scope
Russia. The measures consist of an ad valorem duty at a
to the examination of dumping as far as the applicant
rate ranging from 17,8 % to 22,7 %. The investigation
is concerned. The Commission published a notice of
which led to this Regulation will be referred to below
initiation on 27 October 2010 in the Official Journal of
as ‘the original investigation’.
the European Union ( 3 ) (‘Notice of initiation’) and
commenced an investigation.
1.2. Request for a review
1.4. Product concerned and like product
(2) On
30
November
2009,
the
European
Commission
(‘Commission’) received a request for a partial interim
(6) The
product
concerned
by
the
interim
review
is
the
same
review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation
as that in the original investigation, i.e. ferro-silicon, orig
(‘the interim review’). The request, lodged by an exporting
inating in Russia, currently falling within CN codes
producer from Russia, Joint Stock Company (JSC)
7202 21 00, 7202 29 10 and 7202 29 90.
Chelyabinsk Electrometallurgical Integrated Plant and its
related company Joint Stock Company (JSC) Kuznetsk
Ferroalloy Works (hereinafter referred to jointly as ‘the
applicant’),was limited in scope to the examination of
(7) The product produced and sold in Russia and that
dumping as far as the applicant is concerned. The anti-
exported to the Union have the same basic physical
dumping duty rate applicable to the applicant is 22,7 %,
and technical characteristics and uses and are therefore
based on the applicant’s dumping margin.
considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4)
of the basic Regulation.
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
( 2 ) OJ L 55, 28.2.2008, p. 6.
( 3 ) OJ C 290, 27.10.2010, p. 15.

---

L 22/2
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
25.1.2012
1.5. Parties concerned
2.2. Regarding the question whether the applicant
was still dumping on the EU market during
(8) The
Commission
officially
informed
the
Union
industry,
the RIP ( 2 )
the applicant and the authorities of the exporting country
of the initiation of the interim review. Interested parties
(13) Before replying to the various arguments of the applicant
were given the opportunity to make their views known
on the (allegedly) lasting nature of the (allegedly) changed
in writing and to be heard.
circumstances, it is useful to first describe the Institutions’
considerations regarding the question whether the
applicant may still have been dumping on the EU
(9) The
Commission
sent
questionnaires
to
the
applicant
and
market during the RIP.
received a reply within the deadline set for that purpose.
The Commission sought and verified all the information
it deemed necessary for the determination of dumping,
and verification visits were carried out at the following
2.2.1. Normal value
locations:
(14) For
the
determination
of
normal
value,
it
was
first
estab
lished whether the company’s total volume of domestic
— Joint Stock Company JSC Chelyabinsk Electrometal
sales of the like product to independent customers was
lurgical Integrated Plant (‘CHEM’), Chelyabinsk,
representative in comparison with its total volume of
Russia,
export sales to the Union. In accordance with
Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, domestic sales are
considered to be representative when the total domestic
— Joint Stock Company JSC Kuznetsk Ferroalloy Works
sales volume is at least 5 % of the total volume of sales
(‘KF’), Kuznetsk, Russia,
of the product concerned to the Union. It was found that
the overall sales, by the company, of the like product on
the domestic market were representative.
and
— RFA International LP (‘RFAI’) in Mishawaka, USA &
(15) For
each
product
type
sold
by
the
company
on
its
Nieuwdorp Zld, The Netherlands.
domestic market and found to be directly comparable
with the product type sold for export to the Union, it
was established whether domestic sales were sufficiently
1.6. Investigation period
representative for the purposes of Article 2(2) of the
basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular product
(10) The
investigation
covered
the
period
from
1
October
type were considered sufficiently representative when the
2009 to 30 September 2010 (the review investigation
total volume of that product type sold on the domestic
period or ‘RIP’).
market to independent customers during the RIP repre
sented at least 5 % of the total sales volume of the
comparable product type exported to the Union.
2. LASTING NATURE OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES
2.1. Introduction
(11) As
a
starting
point,
it
is
recalled
that,
according
to
the
(16) It
was
also
examined
whether
the
domestic
sales
of
each
case-law of the EU courts (
product type could be regarded as being made in the

1 ), when assessing the need to
continue existing measures in a review based on
ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the
Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, the Institutions
basic Regulation. This was done by establishing the
have a wide discretion, which includes the option of
proportion of domestic sales to independent customers
carrying out a prospective assessment of the pricing
on the domestic market which were profitable for each
policy of the exporters concerned. It is in this context
exported type of the product concerned during each of
that the Institutions must examine the applicant’s
the periods.
arguments as to why the circumstances of its situation
have changed in a lasting manner, allegedly justifying a
reduction or even removal of the duty.
(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
(12) The
applicant
claimed
that
changed
circumstances
could
price of that type was equal to or above the unit cost
be reasonably said to be of a lasting nature and thus the
of production, normal value, by product type, was
level of measures should be reduced or the measures
calculated as the weighted average of the actual
should be repealed altogether as far as the applicant is
domestic prices of all sales of the type in question, irre
concerned, as it was unlikely that in the foreseeable
spective of whether those sales were profitable or not.
future there would be a recurrence of dumped imports
at all or at levels similar to those established in the
original investigation.
( 2 ) As will be explained below, normal value, export price and their
comparison were first calculated/performed for CHEM and KF,
separately. To clarify this, in this part, the word ‘company’ is
( 1 ) See, in particular [2009] ECR II-4133. Case T-143/06 MTZ Polyfilms
sometimes used rather than ‘applicant’, since ‘applicant’, as stated
Ltd v Council.
above, refers to CHEM and KF jointly.

---

EN
25.1.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
22/3
(18) Where the volume of profitable sales of a product type
— RFAI sells ferro-silicon in its own name and for its
represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that
own account to unrelated customers in the EU and
type, or where the weighted average price of that type
elsewhere,
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 each of the
— RFAI has a purchase-sales relationship with the two
periods.
related Russian producers KF and CHEM,
(19) Wherever
domestic
prices
of
a
particular
product
type
— each company drafts its own financial report and no
sold by the company could not be used in order to
consolidated financial report exists, and
establish normal value, the normal value was constructed
in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.
— each company files its own tax return with the
(20) When constructing normal value pursuant to Article 2(3)
respective authorities.
of the basic Regulation, the amounts for selling, general
and administrative costs and for profits have been based,
pursuant to the introductory phrase of Article 2(6), of
the basic Regulation, i.e. on the actual data pertaining to
Accordingly, the claim that no deduction should be made
the production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade,
for SG&A and profit in the construction of the export
of the like product, by the company.
price had to be rejected. The applicant’s comments on
this point in reply to the final disclosure will be discussed
below (point 2.3).
2.2.2. Export price
(21) The
company’s
export
sales
to
the
Union
are
made
through the Swiss branch of its related company RFAI
(25) The
applicant
also
claimed
that
no
deduction
of
the
anti-
which during the RIP performed all import functions in
dumping duty should be made in the calculation of the
relation to the goods entering into free circulation in the
export price in accordance with the Article 11(10) of the
Union, i.e. that of a related importer.
basic Regulation, since the duty is duly reflected in resale
prices and the subsequent selling prices in the Union.
With respect to this claim, the investigation has estab
(22) The
export
price
was
thus
established
in
accordance
with
lished that the weighted average resale prices of ferro-
Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of prices
silicon in the Union have increased in comparison with
at which the imported products were first resold to an
the prices in the original investigation and the current
independent buyer, adjusted for all costs, incurred
resale export prices are largely more than 22,7 % higher
between importation and resale, as well as a reasonable
than such prices in the original investigation. Therefore,
margin for SG&A and for profits. For this purpose, in the
it can be concluded that the anti-dumping duty is duly
absence of new information from independent importers
reflected in the applicant’s resale prices. As a result, this
concerning profits accruing, use was made of the profit
claim of the applicant could be accepted and, in the
rate applied in the original investigation, namely 6 %.
calculation of the constructed export prices in accordance
with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, no deduction of
the anti-dumping duties has been carried out.
(23) The
applicant
claimed
that
RFAI
should
be
treated
as
part
of the same single economic entity (SEE) and that
consequently when determining the export prices no
deduction should be made for SG&A and profit of RFAI.
2.2.3. Comparison


(26) The
normal
value
and
the
export
price
were
compared
on an ex-works basis. For the purpose of ensuring a fair
(24) This
claim
can
not
be
accepted
for
the
following
reasons:
comparison between the normal value and export price,
due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for
transport costs, insurance costs, terminal and handling
— the two exporting producers have their own export
costs, credit costs, and commissions, where applicable
sales department,
and justified, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the
basic Regulation.
— RFAI is strongly involved in the international activity
of the Group (customer assistance, logistics and
schedule of the deliveries, purchasing of capital
2.2.4. Dumping margin
goods and key raw materials, etc.),
(27) As
provided
for
under
Article
2(11)
of
the
basic
Regu
lation, the weighted average normal value by type was
— the Swiss branch of RFAI is performing all the
compared with the weighted average export price of the
functions normally performed by a related importer
corresponding type of the product concerned. The
in the EU,
outcome showed the existence of dumping.

---

L 22/4
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
25.1.2012
(28) In order to calculate the dumping margin, the Insti
(32) Following
disclosure,
the
applicant
claimed
that
packing
tutions, as in the original investigation, noted that
costs were not treated consistently when comparing
CHEM and KF are closely related. As in the original
export prices with normal values. This issue was inves
investigation, and in line with the Institutions’ standard
tigated and, where applicable, clerical errors were
practice, a single dumping margin was calculated for the
corrected.
whole Group. In the method used for doing so in the
final disclosure, the amount of dumping was calculated
for each individual exporting producer before deter
mining a weighted average rate of dumping for the
(33) The
applicant
commented
also
on
the
exclusion
of
the
group as a whole. It should be noted that this
export transactions of a particular product type. The sales
methodology was different from the methodology
of this product type in the Union represented less than
applied in the original investigation, where the
5 % of the applicant’s sales in the Union of the product
dumping calculation was done by collapsing all
concerned during the RIP. This point has to be rejected
relevant data with regard to domestic sales, cost of
given that no sales of this product type were made on
production, profitability and sales in the Union of the
the domestic market neither specific cost of production
producing entities. The applicant claimed that applying
had been provided. As this product type had been
this methodology would be contrary to Article 11(9) of
exported to the EU in low volumes during the RIP, it
the basic Regulation. This issue, too, will be returned to
was therefore considered not appropriate to resort to
below (point 2.3).
constructing the normal value on the basis of manufac
turing costs of other product types, thereby making
adjustments for product differences.
2.3. Analysis of the reactions to final disclosure
relating to the dumping margin during the RIP.
(34) In addition and as explained above, in particular
(29) The
applicant
submitted
several
comments
on
certain
regarding two important points of the dumping margin
aspects of the calculations such as cost of production,
calculation, namely: (i) the question whether CHEM, KF
SG&A, profit margin, normal value and allowances. All
and RFAI form a single economic entity ( 1 ) and (ii) the
these comments were considered and, where appropriate,
calculation of an individual amount of dumping for
clerical errors were corrected. Accordingly, the definitive
CHEM on the one hand, and KF on the other hand ( 2 ),
findings have been modified.
the applicant made detailed comments in its reaction to
the definitive disclosure.
(30) In addition, the applicant requested the Commission to
express the dumping amount on the basis of a cif value
(35) Regarding the first claim, and in particular on the points
that they constructed themselves for the purposes of this
put forward by the applicant in its reaction to the
investigation, therefore making reference to Article 2(9)
definitive disclosure, the following is observed.
of the basic Regulation. The claim was based on the
grounds that the price declared to customs authorities
is a transfer price which would perhaps be the correct
price for customs purposes, but not a price that should
(36) The applicant reiterated its position that the two
be used when calculating dumping in anti-dumping
exporting producers and the related trader RFAI are
proceedings. This claim has to be rejected because the
ultimately owned and controlled by the same bene
difference between the export price and the normal value,
ficiaries and that it, therefore, would have no
i.e. the dumping amount, should be expressed on the
autonomy and simply follow the instructions of the
same basis as the one which is subsequently used by
owners of the applicant. It acknowledged all the
customs authorities to determine any duty to be
elements listed in recital 24 above, but it disagreed to
collected. This is in fact the cif value declared by the
the Institutions’ appreciation thereof as they would have
applicant to customs authorities. Consequently, the
no bearing on whether CHEM, KF and RFAI are all parts
latter was used in the calculations.
of an SEE.
(31) With regards to the calculation of the cost of production,
(37) The
Institutions
reject
the
applicant’s
comments.
The
the applicant contested the Commission approach to use
criteria already listed above, are, especially if all taken
the average purchase price of a main cost item from an
together, well-grounded to justify the rejection of the
unrelated supplier in place of the actual price paid to a
applicant’s claim. All the elements listed in recital 24
related supplier of the same cost item in the construction
above point at a group structure where all the
of the normal value. This claim has to be rejected
companies are distinctive legal entities in which KF and
because the price charged by the related supplier was
CHEM performed the complete function of an exporting
significantly lower than the price paid for the same
producers (production and export function) while RFAI
raw material to an independent supplier. This price,
operates mainly as a related trader/importer in the EU.
therefore, cannot be considered as an arm’s length
price. Consequently, this cost element needed to be
( 1 ) See recital 23.
adjusted.
( 2 ) See recital 27.

---

EN
25.1.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
22/5
(38) Regarding the second claim, it is not necessary to take a
nevertheless been extremely volatile. As an example,
final position on this matter in the context of this review
within the RIP, the difference between the lowest and
investigation. This results from the combination of two
highest transaction price per tonne of the most sold
reasons. First, even if this claim were accepted (in
model on the EU market was more than 100 %. A
addition to the acceptance, where appropriate, of the
similar volatility could be observed on the domestic
claims referred to in recital 29 above), the applicant
market, but the price trend on the EU market was not
would still have been found dumping on the EU
comparable to the price trend on the domestic market.
market, during the RIP, at a dumping margin of
This is also true for the 12-month period preceding the
approximately 13 %. Second, as explained below, in
RIP which was closely looked at in the framework of a
any case there is currently insufficient evidence to
parallel refund investigation. Indeed, the export sales
consider the dumping margin during the RIP as a
prices appear to have simply followed the global
lasting one.
market prices.
(39) In
its
reaction
to
definitive
disclosure,
the
Union
industry
(43) Following
disclosure,
similar
arguments
were
used
by
the
argued that, as a result of the review investigation, the
applicant. However, again insufficient evidence was
duty on the applicant’s products should be increased,
provided. It is therefore concluded that there is insuf
because, assuming that all of the applicant’s claims
ficient evidence, at this point in time, that these higher
would be refused, the dumping margin found during
export prices by the applicant are anything other than a
the RIP was higher than the applicable duty. However,
consequence of the prevailing market prices (in particular
since, as explained below, there is insufficient evidence of
those on the EU market) during the RIP. In other words,
a lasting change in circumstances, there is no justification
there is insufficient evidence that the changes by the
for modifying the duty, neither upward nor downward.
applicant in its corporate export structure were the
cause of these higher prices, and that therefore these
prices can be expected to remain at similar (or higher)
levels in the future. In particular, contrary to what the
applicant implies, even assuming that the new structure
has made the group more efficient, this does not mean
2.4. Analysis of the question whether there is a
that in the future its export prices to the EU will be high
lasting change in circumstances justifying a
and not result in dumping.
reduction or removal of the duty
(40) Nevertheless, in spite of the acceptance of certain of the
applicant’s claims as described above, it is still found to
have been dumping on the EU market, during the RIP, at
a dumping margin of at least 13 %. Moreover, as will be
(44) (ii)
Secondly,
the
applicant
declared
that
its
export
prices
to other markets were in line with or even higher than its
explained below, in any case there is insufficient evidence
sales prices to the Union. Significant investments had
to consider the dumping margin during the RIP as a
been made to better supply other markets. Thus, a
lasting one.
reduction or removal of the antidumping measures in
relation to the applicant would not create an incentive
to increase exports to the EU and/or reduce prices
thereof.
(41) The
applicant
based
its
reasoning
why
there
is
a
lasting
change of circumstances on the following points:
(45) However,
this
claim
cannot
lead
to
a
removal
or
decrease
of the measures in force. It is recalled that, even
according to the applicant itself, during the RIP it was
still dumping. Moreover, the applicant itself highlighted
(42) (i)
Firstly,
the
applicant
referred
to
the
changes
in
the
that the EU remains one of its traditional markets. This is
export sales structure of the group, which, coupled
corroborated by the fact that the volumes sold by the
with the exploration of new growing markets, would
applicant in the EU are still very significant; if one
have contributed to higher export prices of ferro-silicon
compares the sales volumes with the EU consumption
to all export markets, including in the EU, in comparison
during the IP of the original investigation (
to the prices during the original investigation. However,

1 ), they would
represent a significant market share (between 5 and
the applicant did not provide any substantiated evidence
20 %, the precise figures cannot be disclose for reasons
in order to show the link between the new corporate
of confidentiality).
structure, exploration of new growing markets and
higher prices on the EU market. Nor did the findings
of the investigation indicate such a link. On the
( 1 ) The Institutions use the data on EU consumption during the IP of
contrary, while export prices were clearly higher in the
the original investigation rather than the RIP. That is because, since
this review is limited to the examination of dumping — and does
RIP as compared to the prices observed during the inves
not cover injury issues — the Institutions do not have verified data
tigation period of the original investigation, they have
regarding EU consumption during the RIP.

---

L 22/6
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
25.1.2012
(46) After
disclosure
the
applicant
reiterated
its
position
that
(52) However,
a
significant
recovery
of
capacities
after
the
the new market opportunities would be in other markets
financial crisis of 2009 was noted and the applicant
(India, Asia and United States) rather in the EU. However,
reported an expansion of capacities by 10 %-20 %
the applicant did not provide any substantial evidence to
(range provided for reasons of confidentiality) as
support its market strategies. The still existing dumping
compared to the period prior to the 2009 financial crisis.
margin during the RIP, the lack of data on other markets
and the volatility of the export sales price in the inter
national market are all elements that do not support this
claim which, therefore, has to be rejected.
(53) Following
disclosure, the applicant submitted that a
comparison of the post-RIP production capacity with
that during the reference period was not appropriate as
(47) (iii) Thirdly, in the applicant’s view, the Russian domestic
the applicant would have anticipated the 2009 financial
market, with significant steel production, remains one of
crisis and, therefore, already reduced the production
its most important markets and the demand for the like
capacity. This argument cannot be accepted; an
product in Russia is expected to grow. Domestic and
expansion of reported capacities by 10 %-20 % can be
export prices of ferro-silicon would also grow much
observed as compared to 2007 — not 2009 when
faster than cost of production. The applicant would
capacities were at their lowest levels. Moreover, the
thus be likely to increase its sales on the domestic
2009 financial crisis cannot yet have impacted the
market further, also because, according to the applicant,
2007 production capacity of the applicant.
the sole other Russian producer of ferro-silicon would
since a recent change of ownership produce
predominantly for captive consumption.
2.5. Conclusion: insufficient evidence of lasting
nature of changed circumstances
(48) Even
if
all
these
allegations
are
assumed
to
be
true,
it
nevertheless remains the case that during the RIP, the
(54) The
analysis
of
the
applicant’s
claims
with
regard
to
the
applicant was dumping at a considerable margin, and
lasting nature of the changed circumstances, as
at volatile prices. Moreover, as explained above, the
summarised above, lead to the conclusion that there is
volumes sold by the applicant to the EU during the
currently insufficient evidence that any changed circum
RIP do not suggest that it has shifted away from that
stances are of a lasting nature. The applicant’s export
market or that it intends to do so in the near future.
prices, and therefore its dumping margin, appear likely

to continue to fluctuate, following, in particular, the
development of world market prices. To the extent that
the applicant has shown certain changed circumstances
they can, therefore, not be considered to show that the
(49) In its comments to the disclosure, the applicant asserted
pricing behaviour of the applicant during the RIP is of a
that the only reasoning presented in the disclosure by the
lasting nature. It is therefore concluded that it would be
Commission to deny the relevance of the increasing
premature and therefore unjustified to lower the duty at
demand on the domestic market would be the
this point in time.
significance of the dumping margin found. Furthermore,
the applicant sustained that the Commission, although it
acknowledged many of the key points relating to the
Russian market, fails to draw the adequate conclusion
from these arguments.
3. UNDERTAKINGS
(55) The
applicant
together
with
its
related
importer
offered
a
price undertaking in accordance with Article 8(1) of the
(50) These
assertions
have
to
be
rejected.
Firstly,
not
only
the
basic Regulation.
dumping findings but also the volumes findings speak
against this argument. Secondly, the Institutions note
that no acknowledgment was made by the Commission
and no conclusive independent data was provided to
support the claim that the demand for the product
(56) The
investigation
confirmed
that
the
price
of
the
product
concerned is expected to grow in Russia and that
is highly volatile. As already mentioned in recital 42
export prices of the group would grow much faster
above, it was established that the applicant’s sales
than cost of production.
prices in the Union during the RIP varied very
significantly. The product is therefore not suited for a
fixed price undertaking. Although an indexation
mechanism was proposed by the exporter, it was not
(51) (iv)
Fourthly,
the
applicant
pointed
out
that
its
Russian
possible to establish a correlation between the price vola
production sites of ferro-silicon had been working at full
tility of the finished product and the indexation source
capacity for years, that it had no plans to increase its
proposed, in particular as it also related to the finished
overall production capacity of ferro-silicon in the fore
product and referred to prices which were influenced by
seeable future and that there were no indications to the
dumped imports. Therefore, the proposed indexation was
contrary.
considered not appropriate.

---

EN
25.1.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
22/7
(57) As
regards
company
specific
risks,
it
was
established
that
it is concluded that JSC Chelyabinsk Electrometallurgical
due to the complexity of the company structure, the risk
Integrated Plant and its related company JSC Kuznetsk
of cross-compensation is very high: other products than
Ferroalloy Works should continue to be subject to the
the product concerned could be sold via a trader outside
duty level specified in the original Regulation, i.e. 22,7 %,
the Union to another related third country branch and
then be re-sold to the Union.
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
(58) Finally, as the product itself exists in different qualities
and is mainly imported in bulk form, it would not be
possible for customs authorities to distinguish the
Article 1
chemical specification (potentially subject to different
Minimum Import Prices) without individual analysis of
The partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures
each transaction, thus rendering the monitoring very
applicable to imports of ferro-silicon originating, inter alia, in
burdensome, if not impracticable.
Russia, initiated pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No
1225/2009 is hereby terminated without amending the level of
the anti-dumping measure in force.
(59) The
undertaking
offer
was
therefore
rejected.
4. TERMINATION OF THE REVIEW
Article 2
(60) In view of the findings of dumping as well as the absence
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its
of a proven lasting nature of the changed circumstances,
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 January 2012.
For the Council
The President
N. WAMMEN

---