HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
14.5.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
125/1
II
(Non-legislative acts)
REGULATIONS
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 464/2011
of 11 May 2011
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on
imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
impose provisional anti-dumping measures (‘provisional
disclosure’), several interested parties made written
submissions making known their views on the provi
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
sional findings. The parties who so requested were
Union,
granted the opportunity to be heard.
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 (
(4) The
Commission
continued
to
seek
and
verify
all

1 ),
(‘the basic Regulation’) and in particular Article 9 thereof,
information it deemed necessary for its definitive
findings.
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European
Commission (‘the Commission’) after having consulted the
Advisory Committee,
(5) The
investigation
of
dumping
and
injury
covered
the
period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009
(‘the investigation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of
Whereas:
trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the
period from 1 January 2005 to the end of the investi
gation period (‘period considered’).
1. PROVISIONAL MEASURES
(1) By
Regulation
(EU)
No
1036/2010
( 2 ) (‘the provisional
Regulation’), the Commission imposed a provisional
anti-dumping duty on imports of zeolite A powder orig
(6) All
parties
were
informed
of
the
essential
facts
and
inating in Bosnia and Herzegovina (‘BiH’).
considerations on the basis of which the Commission
intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive
anti-dumping duty on imports of zeolite A powder orig
(2)
The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint
inating in the BiH and the definitive collection of the
lodged on 4 January 2010 by Industrias Quimicas del
amounts secured by way of the provisional duty. They
Ebro SA, MAL Magyar Aluminium, PQ Silicas BV, Silkem
were also granted a period of time within which they
d.o.o. and Zeolite Mira Srl Unipersonale (the
could make representations.
‘complainants’), representing a major proportion, in this
case more than 25 % of the total Union production of
zeolite A powder. The complaint contained evidence of
dumping and of material injury resulting therefrom,
which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation
(7) The
oral
and
written
comments
submitted
by
the
interested parties were considered and taken into
of a proceeding.
account where appropriate.
2. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE
(3)
Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and
3. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
considerations on the basis of which it was decided to
(8) In
the
absence
of
any
comments
on
these
issues,
recitals
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
12 to 15 of the provisional Regulation are hereby
( 2 ) OJ L 298, 16.11.2010, p. 27.
confirmed.

---

L 125/2
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.5.2011
(9) In
view
of
the
above,
it
is
definitively
concluded
that
all
have cooperated with the investigation. In this respect it
types of zeolite A powder as defined above are alike
is noted that the mining company was listed in MAL’s
within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regu
questionnaire response. Also, the costs associated with
lation.
the sourcing of bauxite, and its conversion into
aluminium trihydrate, were fully reported in MAL’s cost
of production. Therefore, the MAL Group fully complied
with the reporting requirements set out by the
4. SAMPLING
Commission services. This claim is therefore rejected.
(10) The
Bosnian
exporting
producer
group
(‘Birac’)
returned
to its claim made at the provisional stage of the investi
gation that a non-sampled Union producer (Silkem d.o.o.
(14) In
the
absence
of
any
other
comments
on
these
issues,
or ‘Silkem’) should have been fully consolidated into the
recitals 16 to 20 of the provisional Regulation are hereby
reply to the questionnaire of a sampled Union producer
definitively confirmed.
(MAL Magyar Aluminium or ‘MAL’) because the two
companies are related. It was claimed that if that
omission were accepted it would amount to discrimi
nation between Union producers and exporters as in
cases where there are related exporting producers
5. DUMPING
located in countries subject to an anti-dumping investi
gation they are all required to submit replies to ques
5.1. Normal value
tionnaires. Further, Birac claimed that both MAL and
(15) It is recalled that in the absence of representative
Silkem should be declared to be non-cooperating.
domestic sales, normal value was constructed in
accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.
(11) Those claims cannot be accepted. For the reasons
explained at recital 19 of the provisional Regulation
both MAL and Silkem have fully cooperated with the
(16) To construct normal value pursuant to Article 2(3) of the
investigation. It is recalled that Silkem provided
basic Regulation, the selling, general and administrative
information in the reply to the sampling form and
(SG&A) expenses incurred and the weighted average
account was taken of Silkem in the macro data
profit realised by each of the cooperating exporting
indicators. However, the company was not included in
producers on domestic sales of the like product, in the
the list of sampled companies on account of its small
ordinary course of trade, during the investigation period,
size. Therefore, Silkem did not need to submit so-called
were added to their own average cost of production
micro data and a fortiori those have not been verified.
during the investigation period. Since there are no
Moreover, since their sales of the product concerned are
separate types of the product concerned or like
relatively small in comparison to those of MAL, there is
product, a weighted average profit was used. Where
no indication that consolidating Silkem’s data into MAL’s
necessary, the costs of production and SG&A expenses
data would have made any difference.
were adjusted, before being used in the ordinary course
of trade test and in constructing normal values.
(12) Furthermore,
the
allegation
of
discrimination
between
exporting producers and Union producers is clearly
(17) Further
to
the
provisional
disclosure
Birac
submitted
unfounded because the situations are different. On the
comments regarding the determination of the profit
one hand, the investigation into the existence of
margin used for constructing normal value. According
dumping is the one that is normally conducted at
to Birac, the methodology applied violates Article 2(3)
company level for which the Commisson services need
of the basic Regulation because in this specific case the
to calculate a company-specific dumping margin.
result of using the profit margin of the non-represen
Furthermore, a group of exporting producers has to be
tative domestic sales to construct normal value is
looked at in its totality since otherwise there is a risk that
exactly the same as if the prices of the non-representative
exports would be channelled through the part of the
domestic sales had been used. It claimed that such an
group with the lowest duty level. On the other hand,
incoherent approach cannot have been intended by a
the injury investigation aims at examining whether the
combined reading of Article 2(3) and 2(6) of the basic
Union industry as a whole suffers material injury. In this
Regulation. It also considered that the profit margin used
case, the sampled Union producers in this investigation
is unreasonable and disproportionate, in particular in
were considered to represent the entire Union production
comparison to the target profit used for the underselling
in respect of certain injury indicators (micro indicators).
calculations.
This claim is therefore rejected.
(18) Furthermore,
Birac
claimed
that
the
domestic
sales,
due
(13) Birac
also claimed
that
a Bosnian mining company,
to their nature, should not be considered as having been
related to MAL, which supplies to this particular Union
made in the ordinary course of trade and should thus not
producer a pre-raw material (i.e. bauxite) should also
be used to establish normal value.

---

EN
14.5.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
125/3
(19) Regarding the first claim, it is noted that the method
6. INJURY
applied is in line with the provisions of the basic Regu
lation and the jurisprudence stemming from WTO
(25) Comments on the findings concerning injury were
rulings, according to which when constructing the
received from certain Union producers, two users in
normal value, the profit of the domestic sales in the
the EU and from the sole Bosnian exporting producer.
ordinary course of trade has to be used, even if these
sales were not representative. In this specific case it is
noted that since all domestic sales were profitable,
(26) To the extent that arguments have already been fully
constructing the normal value indeed gave the same
addressed in the provisional Regulation they are are
result as if the normal value had been based on
not repeated in this Regulation.
domestic sales prices. It should first be noted that the
profit and SG&A data were based on the company’s own
domestic sales which were considered to be in the
6.1. General remarks
ordinary course of trade. It is further noted that ‘reason
ableness’ cannot be measured against the target profit
(27) It is made clear at recitals 45 and 68 of the provisional
used for the underselling calculations, since that profit
Regulation that the term ‘Union industry’ in this investi
reflects the situation on the EU market in the absence
gation covers all Union producers. In addition the injury
of dumped imports and cannot therefore constitute a
factors on which the finding of injury was reached are, as
proper benchmark for determining the profit to be
a rule, based on data relating to the Union industry.
used in the context of constructing normal value.The
When data relating to the Union industry have been
claim should therefore be rejected.
used, section 5.4 of the provisional Regulation identifies
this by referring to ‘macro data’. However, where
information was not available for the entire Union
industry the data of the representative sample of Union
producers was used. No comments were received on
(20) As
regards
the
claim
that
the
domestic
sales
should
not
these issues and thus the provisional findings are
be considered as having been made in the ordinary
definitively confirmed.
course of trade, the investigation established that the

data and evidence provided by Birac constituted a
reliable basis for determining the normal value.
Therefore this claim was not considered warranted and
(28) However,
an
erroneous
statement
was
made
in
recital
34
was therefore rejected.
of the provisional Regulation. This recital should have
read ‘All Union producers constitute the Union
industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and
Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation and will be
hereafter referred to as the “Union industry”’.
(21) In
the
absence
of
any
other
comments
concerning
the
determination of normal value, the method described in
recitals 21 to 26 of the provisional Regulation is hereby
(29) In the absence of any other comments, the findings set
confirmed.
out in recitals 52 to 56 of the provisional Regulation are
hereby confirmed.
5.2. Export price
6.2. Union consumption
(22) In the absence of any comments regarding the export
(30) In the absence of any comments, the findings set out in
price, recitals 27 and 28 of the provisional Regulation
recitals 35 to 38 of the provisional Regulation are hereby
are hereby confirmed.
confirmed.
6.3. Imports from the country concerned
5.3. Comparison
(31) In the absence of any comments, the findings set out in
(23) In the absence of any comments regarding the
recitals 39 to 43 of the provisional Regulation are hereby
comparison between normal value and export price,
confirmed.
recital 29 of the provisional Regulation is hereby
confirmed.
6.4. Situation of the Union industry
6.4.1. Injury indicators
5.4. Dumping margin
(32) In
October
2010
an
industrial
incident
occurred
at
the
site of one of the Union producers, MAL. However,
(24) In
the
absence
of
any
other
comments
concerning
the
figures supplied by the company show that its deliveries
determination of the dumping margin, which would alter
of the product concerned had recovered by January
the provisional findings, recitals 30 to 32 of the provi
2011. It was therefore clear that this incident did not
sional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
cause serious supply problems on the EU market.

---

L 125/4
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.5.2011
(33) Birac asserted that as the above-mentioned Bosnian
7. CAUSATION
mining company related to MAL made profits in the
IP, the Commission should adjust MAL’s COP and
(39) One
cooperating
user
claimed
that
the
causation
analysis
profit in the calculation of the economic indicators
is flawed because the Commission stated that a
because MAL’s profit situation was allegedly reduced as
temporary improvement was seen in certain injury
a result of high profits made by its related mining
factors for the IP (2009). That user did not agree with
company in BiH.
the assessment made by the Commission that the higher
profitability in 2009 as compared to 2008 was the result
of short-lived temporary developments which would not
be repeated in 2010.
(34) With respect to the above claim it is noted that the
purchases of bauxite from the related company were
made at arm’s length. This issue was covered during
(40) With respect to the above submission it is noted that the
the on-the-spot verification. Because MAL purchased
party’s arguments are simply statements and not backed
bauxite from both related and unrelated companies
up by any new evidence. In contrast, the Commission’s
during the IP at roughly the same average prices, the
position is supported by information submitted by the
Commission was satisfied that bauxite purchases were
Union producers during the investigation both during the
made at arm’s length and therefore no adjustments are
provisional and definitive stages. The information
necessary to the profitability trend of MAL which was
submitted in the run up to the verification visits was
used in the calculation of the trend shown at recital 52
also verified on the spot. The post-IP deterioration in
of the provisional Regulation. This claim was therefore
profit margins predicted by the Commission is also
rejected.
confirmed by data for the entire year 2010 provided
by two Union producers. That claim is therefore rejected.
(35) Birac
also
claimed
that
since
it
obtained
certain
raw
materials directly from its production of alumina it had
(41) Birac
contested
the
provisional
finding
concerning
the
significant competitive advantages over the majority of
impact of imports from third countries. However, the
the Union producers and this should be reflected in the
Commission’s analysis in the provisional Regulation
injury margins. This argument cannot be accepted. If a
(recital 77) was that Birac was the only major exporter
company has a competitive advantage this should
to the EU market. There were practically no imports
normally have an effect on its overall dumping calcu
from other sources. Birac provides no new evidence in
lation in terms of lower costs and hence also a lower
this respect and its claim is therefore rejected.
normal value. This kind of competitive advantage has
conceptually nothing to do with the injury margin. The
latter examines whether a level of duty lower than the
dumping margin would be sufficient to remove the
(42) One
cooperating
user
contested
the
analysis
made
in
the
injury. This claim was therefore rejected.
provisional Regulation concerning the fall in
consumption and quoted the cathode-ray colour
television tubes anti-dumping investigation as a
precedent regarding a contraction in demand ( 1 ). It was
(36) Union
users
claimed
that
the
positive
development
of
claimed that in that investigation a contraction in
certain injury factors was ignored in the Commission
demand led to the closure of the proceedings. However
provisional assessment (profitability, cash flow and
there is no parallel between the cathode-ray colour
return on investment) stating that all factors should be
television tubes case and the current investigation. In
analysed. However in the injury assessment these positive
the former, consumption fell dramatically because the
developments are fully analysed. They were taken into
product concerned was substituted by other products.
account but they were not considered decisive in this
By contrast, the fall in consumption in the current inves
case for the reasons set out in recitals 52 to 60 of the
tigation is very moderate (7 % — as stated in recitals 37
provisional Regulation. That claim was therefore rejected.
and 38 of the provisional Regulation). In this respect it is
also noted that the development of consumption was
further elaborated in recitals 78 to 80 of the provisional
Regulation, but the cooperating user concerned was not
in a position to provide any evidence to rebut the
(37) In the absence of any other comments, the findings set
Commission’s findings. Those claims are therefore
out in recitals 44 to 64 of the provisional Regulation are
rejected.
hereby confirmed.
(43) In the light of the above, the findings set out in recitals
6.5. Conclusion on injury
70 to 92 of the provisional Regulation, i.e. that the
material injury to the Union industry was caused by
(38) Accordingly,
and
in
the
absence
of
any
other
comments
the dumped imports, are herby confirmed.
in this respect, the conclusions reached at recitals 65 to
69 of the provisional Regulation, are hereby confirmed.
( 1 ) Commission Decision 2006/781/EC (OJ L 316, 16.11.2006, p. 18).

---

EN
14.5.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
125/5
8. UNION INTEREST
evidence exists in order to evaluate the alleged impact to
the Union industry of this hypothetical switch. That
(44) One cooperating
user claimed that the Commission
claim is therefore rejected.
provided misleading information regarding the
importance of zeolite costs in its total costs at recital
104 of the provisional Regulation. In particular it
claimed that costs of zeolite are more than the 5 % of
(48) The
points
made
above
were
taken
into
account
in
the
total cost as quoted at that recital. In this respect it is
definitive stage of the investigation but do not alter its
noted that this party did not supply any new data to
main conclusions. In the absence of any other comments,
support its claim while the Commission’s findings were
the findings set out in recitals 93 to 112 of the provi
based on verified information from the cooperating
sional Regulation are hereby confirmed. It is therefore
users. It is noted that the term ‘total costs’ used in
concluded that no arguments have been raised to
recital 104 of the provisional Regulation includes all
suggest that it is not in the Union interest to impose
manufacturing costs plus SG&A expenses. In addition,
measures as a result of this investigation.
the ‘less than 5 %’ statement is an average covering
both laundry detergent and water softener products
combined. Finally it should be clarified that the zeolite
costs in water softener are higher than those of laundry
9. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
detergent but by far the most important use relates to
laundry detergent. Indeed with respect to this particular
9.1. Injury elimination level
cooperating user the water softeners constituted a minor
(49) In the absence of any comments, the findings set out in
part of the turnover of its downstream products using
recitals 114 to 116 of the provisional Regulation are
zeolite. That claim is therefore rejected.
hereby confirmed.
(45) One
cooperating
user
challenged
the
finding
in
recital
102 of the provisional Regulation that China is a
9.2. Definitive measures
potential alternative source of supply. Bearing in mind
(50) In
view of the conclusions reached with regard to
the comments made, the Commission accepts that,
dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, and in
although some Chinese merchandise has entered the
accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, a
EU market during the IP, it is unlikely that China will
definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed at the
in the near future become a major supplier (see recital 41
level of the lowest of the dumping and injury margins
above). However, given the capacity utilisation rates in
found, in accordance with the lesser duty rule. In this
the Union for the product concerned, the Commission
case, the duty rate should accordingly be set at the level
maintains its view that there are no supply problems in
of the dumping found. This was calculated at 28,1 %.
respect of the product concerned. That claim is therefore
rejected.
(51) On the basis of the above, the rate of the definitive anti-
dumping duty for BiH is 28,1 %.
(46) One cooperating user claimed that if duties were
imposed as a result of this investigation, zeolite costs
would increase to such an extent that its prices for
laundry detergent and water softener products would
10. DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL
also increase thereby increasing consumer prices. This
DUTY
argument is based on the assumption that users will
pass on price increases of zeolite as a result of an anti-
(52) In view of the magnitude of the dumping margin found
dumping duty. In the first place, the Commission is of
and given the level of the injury caused to the Union
the opinion that Union producers would rather benefit
industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts
from the measures by increased economies of scale and
secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty
not by increasing prices (see recitals 108 and 111 of the
imposed by the provisional Regulation should be
provisional Regulation). Finally, as stated above, the
definitively collected to the extent of the amount of the
proportion of costs associated with zeolite in the total
duty definitively imposed by this Regulation.
cost of production of downstream products is small so
any consequence of the duty, albeit unlikely, would not
put into question the provisional conclusion that there
are no overriding Union interest reasons against the
11. FORM OF THE MEASURES
imposition of measures. That claim is therefore rejected.
(53) In the course of the investigation the Bosnian exporting
producer Alumina d.o.o. Zvornik, together with its
related company in the Union, Kauno Tiekimas AB,
(47) One
cooperating
user
claimed
that
it
may
switch
to
non-
located in Kaunas Lithuania, offered a price undertaking
zeolite formulas in its laundry detergents which would
in accordance with Article 8(1) of the basic Regulation. It
negatively impact the Union producers of zeolite. The
is noted that recently Fabrica glinice ‘Birac’ became a
Union producers are aware from information on the
holding company and Alumina d.o.o, located in
file ‘Open for Inspection by Interested Parties’ that this
Zvornik, remained the sole exporting producer of the
risk to their business exists. However, no concrete
group.

---

L 125/6
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.5.2011
(54) The Commission examined the offer. The product
of the declaration for release into free circulation as
concerned is a commodity product which only exists in
described in recitals 56 and 57 even if an undertaking
one product type and specification, thus excluding a
offered by the manufacturer from whom they were
possible risk of price compensation through various
buying, directly or indirectly, had been accepted by the
product types. The investigation showed that all
Commission.
exports to the Union were invoiced via the related
company in the Union (i.e. Kauno Tiekimas AB,
Kaunas, Lithuania). This related company sells also
(59) Pursuant to Article 14(7) of the basic Regulation,
other products produced by the Birac group. However,
customs authorities should inform the Commission
the market for zeolite A powder is well defined and the
immediately whenever indications of a violation of the
customers purchasing zeolite A powder would by nature
undertaking are found.
not buy the other products produced by the Birac Group.
Therefore, it was concluded that a risk of cross-compen
sation by possibly selling other products to the same
clients was very low.
(60) For the reasons stated above, the undertaking offered by
Alumina d.o.o. Zvornik and Kauno Tiekimas is
considered acceptable by the Commission. The
companies concerned have been informed of the
essential facts, considerations and obligations upon
(55) By
Decision
2011/279/EU
( 1 ) the Commission accepted
which acceptance were based.
the undertaking offer from Alumina d.o.o. Zvornik and
its related company Kauno Tiekimas. The Council
recognises that the offer of a price undertaking eliminates
(61) In the event of a breach or withdrawal of the under
the injurious effect of dumping and limits to a sufficient
takings, or in the event of withdrawal of acceptance of
degree the risk of circumvention.
the undertakings by the Commission, the anti-dumping
duty which has been imposed by the Council in
accordance with Article 9(4) shall automatically apply
by means of Article 8(9) of the basic Regulation,
(56) To further enable the Commission and the customs
authorities to effectively monitor the compliance of
Alumina d.o.o. Zvornik and its related company with
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
the undertaking, when the request for release for free
circulation is presented to the relevant customs authority,
exemption from the anti-dumping duty is to be condi
Article 1
tional on (i) the presentation of an undertaking invoice,
which is a commercial invoice containing at least the
1. A
definitive
anti-dumping
duty
is
hereby
imposed
on
elements listed and the declaration stipulated in the
imports of zeolite A powder, also referred to as Zeolite NaA
Annex; (ii) the fact that imported goods are manu
or Zeolite 4A powder, currently falling within CN code
factured, shipped and invoiced either directly by
ex 2842 10 00 (TARIC code 2842 10 00 30) and originating
Alumina d.o.o. Zvornik to the first independent
in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
customer in the Union or invoiced directly by Kauno
Tiekimas to the first unrelated customer in the Union
and (iii) the fact that the goods declared and presented
to the customs authorities correspond exactly with the
2. The
rate
of
the
definitive
anti-dumping
duty
applicable
to
description on the undertaking invoice. Where the above
the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the products
conditions are not met, the appropriate anti-dumping
described in paragraph 1 shall be 28,1 %.
duty shall be incurred at the time of acceptance of the
declaration for release into free circulation.
3. Unless
otherwise
specified,
the
provisions
in
force
concerning customs duties shall apply.
(57) Whenever,
pursuant
to
Article
8(9)
of
the
basic
Regu
lation, the Commission withdraws its acceptance of an
Article 2
undertaking following a breach by referring to particular
1. Imports
declared
for
release
into
free
circulation
which
are
transactions and declares the relevant undertaking
invoiced by companies from which undertakings are accepted
invoices to be invalid, a customs debt shall be incurred
by the Commission and whose names are listed in Decision
at the time of acceptance of the declaration for release
2011/279/EU, shall be exempt from the anti-dumping duty
into free circulation.
imposed by Article 1, on condition that:
(a) they are manufactured, shipped and either invoiced directly
(58) Importers
should
be
aware
that
a
customs
debt
may
be
by Alumina d.o.o., Zvornik, Bosnia and Herzegovina to the
incurred, as a normal trade risk, at the time of acceptance
first independent customer in the Union or invoiced directly
by the company Kauno Tiekimas AB, Kaunas, Lithuania to
( 1 ) See page 26 of this Official Journal.
the first independent customer in the Union;

---

EN
14.5.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
125/7
(b) they are accompanied by an undertaking invoice which is a
— when the Commission withdraws its acceptance of the
commercial invoice containing at least the elements and the
undertaking pursuant to Article 8(9) of the basic Regulation
declaration set out in the Annex to this Regulation; and
by a Regulation or Decision which refers to particular trans
actions and declares the relevant undertaking invoices to be
invalid.
(c) the goods declared and presented to the customs authorities
correspond exactly with the description on the undertaking
Article 3
invoice.
Amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty
pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1036/2010 on imports of
zeolite A powder, currently falling within CN code
2. A
customs
debt
shall
be
incurred
at
the
time
of
acceptance ex 2842 10 00 (TARIC code 2842 10 00 30) originating in
of the declaration for release into free circulation:
Bosnia and Herzegovina shall be definitively collected.
Article 4
— whenever it is established, in respect of imports described in
paragraph 1, that one or more of the conditions listed in
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its
that paragraph are not fulfilled, or
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, 11 May 2011.
For the Council
The President
MARTONYI J.

---

L 125/8
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.5.2011
ANNEX
The following elements shall be indicated in the commercial invoice accompanying the companies’ sales to the Union of
goods which are subject to the undertaking:
1. The heading ‘COMMERCIAL INVOICE ACCOMPANYING GOODS SUBJECT TO AN UNDERTAKING’.
2. The name of the company issuing the commercial invoice.
3. The commercial invoice number.
4. The date of issue of the commercial invoice.
5. The TARIC additional code under which the goods on the invoice are to be customs-cleared at the Union frontier
(Taric additional code xxxx or yyyy).
6. The exact description of the goods, including:
— plain language description of the goods corresponding to the goods subject to the undertaking,
— the company product code number (CPC),
— TARIC code,
— quantity (in tonnes).
7. The description of the terms of the sale, including:
— price per tonne,
— the applicable payment terms,
— the applicable delivery terms,
— total discounts and rebates.
8. Name of the company acting as an importer (i.e. the person who declares the goods for customs clearance) in the
Union to which the commercial invoice accompanying goods subject to an undertaking is issued directly by the
company.
9. The name of the official of the company that has issued the commercial invoice and the following signed declaration:
‘I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for direct export to the European Union of the goods covered by this invoice is
being made within the scope and under the terms of the Undertaking offered by Alumina d.o.o., Zvornik and its
related company Kauno Tiekimas AB, and accepted by the European Commission by Decision 2011/279/EU. I declare
that the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct.’

---