(1)

The Council by Regulation (EC) No 1212/2005 (2) (the definitive Regulation) imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain castings originating in the People’s Republic of China (original investigation).

(2)

In the original investigation sampling was applied to the Chinese exporting producers. The non-sampled companies which were granted market economy treatment (MET), in accordance with the provisions of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, were attributed the 0 % dumping duty which was established for the sole sampled company which was granted MET. The non-sampled companies which were granted individual treatment (IT), in accordance with the provisions of Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation, received the weighted average duty of 28,6 % established for the sampled companies that were granted IT. A country-wide duty of 47,8 % was imposed on all other companies.

(3)

Pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation, a new exporter review to determine individual dumping margins could not be initiated in this proceeding, as sampling was used in the original investigation. However, in order to ensure equal treatment between any new exporting producer and the cooperating companies not included in the sample of the original investigation, it is considered that provision should be made in order to respectively impose the duty applicable to the companies which received MET (0 %) or the weighted average duty of companies with IT (28,6 %), to any new exporting producers which can demonstrate that they meet the criteria set in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation in order to be granted MET or otherwise the criteria of Article 9(5) in order to be granted IT, and that they would therefore be entitled to a review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation.

(4)

Upon publication of the definitive Regulation, no undertakings could be accepted by the Commission. During the investigation leading to the imposition of definitive measures, several exporting producers had indicated their intention to offer a price undertaking but failed to submit sufficiently substantiated undertaking offers within the deadlines set in Article 8(2) of the basic Regulation. Nevertheless, as set out in recital 152 of the definitive Regulation, the Council, in view of the complexity of the issue for the economic operators in question (predominantly small- and medium-sized enterprises) and given that the definitive disclosure was not preceded by a provisional disclosure, considered that they should exceptionally be allowed to complete their undertaking offers beyond the said deadline.

(5)

Subsequent to the deadline mentioned above, the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME) together with twenty cooperating companies or groups of cooperating companies offered an acceptable joint undertaking.

(6)

The Commission by Decision 2006/109/EC (3), accepted the undertaking offer. The Decision sets out in more detail the reasons for accepting this undertaking. The Council recognises that the undertaking offer eliminates the injurious effect of dumping and limits to a sufficient degree the risk of circumvention.

(7)

To further enable the Commission to effectively monitor compliance with the undertaking, when the request for release for free circulation is presented to the relevant customs authority, exemption from the anti-dumping duty will be conditional upon the presentation of a commercial invoice containing at least the elements listed in the Annex to this Regulation. This level of information is also necessary to enable customs authorities to ascertain with sufficient precision that shipments correspond to the commercial documents. Where no such invoice is presented, or when it does not correspond to the product presented to customs, the appropriate rate of anti-dumping duty will instead be payable.

(8)

To further ensure the effective respect of the undertaking, the importers should be made aware that any violation of the undertaking may lead to the retrospective application of the anti-dumping duty for the relevant transactions. Therefore, it is necessary to implement legal provisions providing for the incurrence of a customs debt at the level of the appropriate anti-dumping duty whenever one or more conditions for the exemption are not respected. A customs debt should therefore be incurred whenever the declarant has chosen to release the goods for free circulation, i.e. without collection of anti-dumping duty, and one or several conditions of that undertaking are found to have been violated.

(9)

In the event of a breach of the undertaking, the anti-dumping duty may be recovered, provided that the Commission has withdrawn the acceptance of the undertaking in accordance with Article 8(9) of the basic Regulation, by referring to that particular transaction and, accordingly, by declaring the relevant undertaking invoice as invalid. Therefore, pursuant to Article 14(7) of the basic Regulation, customs authorities should inform the Commission immediately whenever indications of a violation of the undertaking are found.

(10)

The companies concerned and the CCCME have been informed of the essential facts, considerations and obligations upon which the acceptance of the undertaking is based.

(11)

It should be noted that in the event of a breach or withdrawal of the undertaking or in case of a withdrawal of acceptance of the undertaking by the Commission, the anti-dumping duty shall automatically apply, pursuant to Article 8(9) of the basic Regulation,