16.7.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 244/1

(1)

The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1600/1999 (3), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel wire having a diameter of 1 mm or more (the product concerned) falling within CN code ex 7223 00 19 originating in India. The measures took the form of an ad valorem duty ranging between 0 % and 55,6 %.

(2)

The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999 (4), imposed at the same time a definitive countervailing duty on imports of the same product originating in India. The measures took the form of an ad valorem duty ranging between 0 % and 35,4 % for individual exporters, with a rate of 48,8 % for non-cooperating exporters.

(3)

Subsequent to the imposition of definitive measures, the Commission received a request for the initiation of a ‘new exporter’ review of Regulation (EC) No 1600/1999, pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation, from one Indian producer, VSL Wires Limited (the applicant). The applicant claimed that it was not related to any other exporters of the product concerned in India. Furthermore, it claimed that it had not exported the product concerned during the original period of investigation (i.e. from l April 1997 to 31 March 1998), but had exported the product concerned to the Community after that period. On the basis of the above, it requested that an individual duty rate be established for it, in case dumping would be found.

(4)

The Commission examined the evidence submitted by the applicant and considered it sufficient to justify the initiation of a review in accordance with the provisions of Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation. After consultation of the Advisory Committee and after the Community industry concerned had been given the opportunity to comment, the Commission initiated, by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1225/2003 (5), a ‘new exporter’ review of Regulation (EC) No 1600/1999 with regard to the applicant and commenced its investigation. At the same time, the anti-dumping duty in force was repealed with regard to imports of the product concerned produced and exported to the Community by the applicant, and those imports were made subject to registration pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation.

(5)

At the same time and on the same grounds, following a request from the applicant, the Commission initiated an accelerated review of Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999 (6) pursuant to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2026/97.

(6)

The product covered by the current review is the same product as that under consideration in Regulation (EC) No 1600/1999, namely stainless steel wire having a diameter of 1 mm or more, containing by weight 2,5 % or more of nickel, excluding wire containing by weight 28 % or more but no more than 31 % of nickel and 20 % or more but no more than 22 % of chromium.

(7)

The investigation covered the period from 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 (the review investigation period).

(8)

The Commission officially advised the applicant and the Government of India (GOI) of the initiation of the procedure. Furthermore, it gave other parties directly concerned the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing. However, no such views or any request for a hearing was received by the Commission.

(9)

The Commission sent a questionnaire to the applicant and received a full reply within the required deadline. The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the purpose of the investigation and carried out a verification visit at the premises of the applicant.

(10)

As no request for a review of the findings on injury was made by the applicant, the review was limited to dumping.

(11)

The applicant was able to satisfactorily demonstrate that it was not related, directly or indirectly, to any of the Indian exporting producers subject to the anti-dumping measures in force with regard to the product concerned.

(12)

The investigation confirmed that the applicant had not exported the product concerned during the original investigation period, i.e. from 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998.

(13)

The Commission examined whether the applicant had exported the product concerned to the Community subsequent to the original investigation period. In this respect, it was established that the applicant has not realised any sales whatsoever to the Community and neither has it entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Community of the product concerned during the review investigation period.

(14)

It was established that the applicant had only realised one sale to the Community which actually took place in August 2001, i.e. after the original investigation period but well before the review investigation period.

(15)

The applicant requested the Commission to extend the review investigation period to cover the period in which the sale mentioned in recital 14 was realised. In this respect, the applicant argued that it had requested the ‘new exporter’ review in August 2001 and proposed an investigation period from 1 July 2001 to 31 March 2003.

In that respect, it should be pointed out that pursuant to Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation, for the purpose of a representative finding, the Commission shall select an investigation period which, in the case of dumping, shall normally cover a period of not less than six months immediately prior to the initiation of the proceeding. The fact that it took almost two years and numerous exchanges of correspondence before the applicant submitted a satisfactory review request does not justify departing from the rule set out in Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation. Moreover, the acceptance of such an extended investigation period, coupled with the fact that it would only cover that export transaction, could lead to a situation where outdated data and accounting information would be used and considerably undermine the accuracy of the findings of the investigation in relation to the current situation of the applicant.

Furthermore, it should be noted that, even if such a long review investigation period was selected and the single sale of August 2001 included, this single sale would not constitute a representative basis for the assessment of dumping and the establishment of an individual dumping margin. The single transaction represented only around 0,2 % of the applicant's annual production of the product concerned and its price was double the export price of the same product to all other third countries during that period. Consequently, such a sale could not be used for a representative dumping determination for the applicant.

(16)

In reply to the questionnaire, the applicant identified a contract that had been signed during the review investigation period, but on spot confirmed that the sale had never been materialized. It is therefore established that the applicant has not entered into an irrevocable obligation to export a significant quantity to the Community and that the applicant's statement of ‘intent to continue the export to EC’ following the 2001 sale has not been materialized. For the above reasons, it is considered that in the absence of any export transaction to the Community or any irrevocable contractual obligation during the review investigation period, no individual dumping margin can be established for the applicant in accordance with the provisions of Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation. Thus, the dumping margin found in the original investigation for parties not individually investigated, i.e. 76,2 % (see recital 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1600/1999), should apply.

(17)

Given that the highest injury elimination level of 55,6 % established during the original investigation is lower than the 76,2 % dumping margin set for the applicant (see recital 16), the anti-dumping duty rate for the applicant should not be higher than this injury elimination level in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation.

(18)

Despite the lack of exports to the Community during the review investigation period, an individual countervailing duty rate based on the export subsidy amount (ad valorem 14,1 %), was calculated for the applicant in the parallel accelerated review of Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999, pursuant to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 (see recital 5).

(19)

In accordance with Article 14(1) of the basic Regulation and Article 24(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2026/97, no product shall be subject to both anti-dumping and countervailing duties for the purpose of dealing with one and the same situation arising from dumping or from export subsidisation.

(20)

On the basis of the above, the definitive anti-dumping duty rate imposed for imports into the Community of stainless steel wire with a diameter of 1 mm or more produced and exported by VSL Wires Limited, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Community frontier price (customs duty unpaid) and taking into account the results of the parallel accelerated review of the countervailing measures in force, should be 41,5 %, i.e. 55,6 % minus 14,1 %. Regulation (EC) No 1600/1999 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(21)

The anti-dumping duty applicable to VSL Wires Limited shall also be levied retroactively on imports which have been subject to registration pursuant to Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1225/2003.

(22)

The Commission informed the applicant and the GOI of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to propose that Regulation (EC) No 1600/1999 be amended. They were also given a reasonable period of time to comment.

(23)

In its response to the disclosure, the applicant claimed that the Commission failed to consider other available alternatives for establishing export price and in particular the use of the applicant's export prices to other third countries for the purpose of dumping margin calculations. In this respect, it should be noted that in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, the export price in a dumping calculation shall be the price actually paid or payable for the product when sold for export from the exporting country to the Community. There is no provision whatsoever that the export price can also be established on the basis of exports from the exporting country to destinations other than the Community. The claim should therefore be rejected and the conclusions set out in recitals 11 to 16 confirmed.

(24)

This review does not affect the date on which Regulation (EC) No 1600/1999 will expire pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation,

16.7.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 244/5

(1)

The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999 (2), imposed a definitive countervailing duty on imports of stainless steel wire having a diameter of 1 mm or more (the product concerned), falling within CN code ex 7223 00 19 and originating in India. The measures took the form of an ad valorem duty ranging between 0 % and 35,4 % for individual exporters, with a rate of 48,8 % for non-cooperating exporters.

(2)

Subsequent to the imposition of definitive measures, the Commission received a request for the initiation of an accelerated review of Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999, pursuant to Article 20 of the basic Regulation, from one Indian producer, VSL Wires Limited (the applicant). The applicant claimed that it was not related to any other exporters of the product concerned in India. Furthermore, it claimed that it had not exported the product concerned during the original period of investigation (i.e. from 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998), but had exported the product concerned to the Community after that period. On the basis of the above, it requested that an individual duty rate be established for it.

(3)

The Commission examined the evidence submitted by the applicant and considered it sufficient to justify the initiation of a review in accordance with the provisions of Article 20 of the basic Regulation. After consultation of the Advisory Committee and after the Community industry concerned had been given the opportunity to comment, the Commission initiated, by a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union  (3), an accelerated review of Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999 with regard to the company concerned and commenced its investigation.

(4)

The product covered by the current review is the same product as that under consideration in Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999, namely stainless steel wire having a diameter of 1 mm or more, containing by weight 2,5 % or more of nickel, excluding wire containing by weight 28 % or more but no more than 31 % of nickel and 20 % or more but no more than 22 % of chromium.

(5)

The investigation of subsidisation covered the period from 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 (the review investigation period).

(6)

The Commission officially advised the applicant and the Government of India (GOI) of the initiation of the procedure. Furthermore, it gave other parties directly concerned the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing. However, no such views or any request for a hearing was received by the Commission.

(7)

The Commission sent a questionnaire to the applicant and received a full reply within the required deadline. The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the purpose of the investigation and carried out a verification visit at the premises of the applicant.

(8)

As no request for a review of the findings on injury was made in by the applicant, the review was limited to subsidisation.

(9)

The Commission examined the same subsidy schemes which were analysed in the original investigation. It also examined whether the applicant had used any subsidy schemes which were alleged to confer benefits in the original complaint but not found to have been used during the original investigation.

It was finally examined whether the applicant had made use of any subsidy schemes which were established after the end of the original investigation period, or had received ad hoc subsidies after this date.

(10)

The applicant was able to satisfactorily demonstrate that it was not related, directly or indirectly, to any of the Indian exporting producers subject to the countervailing measures in force with regard to the product concerned.

(11)

The investigation confirmed that the applicant had not exported the product concerned during the original investigation period, i. e. from 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998.

(12)

It was established that the applicant had only realised one sale to the Community which actually took place in August 2001, i. e. after the original investigation period but well before the review investigation period.

(13)

In reply to the questionnaire, the applicant identified only one contract that had been signed during the review investigation period, but the on-spot verification confirmed that the sale had never been materialised. Consequently, there was no irrevocable contractual obligation undertaken by the applicant to export to the Community.

(14)

However, it is noted that the company had significant export sales to other countries during the review investigation period which allowed for the calculation of the benefit accruing to export sales from subsidisation, since such benefits accrue regardless of the destination of these sales.

In this respect, the Commission decided to verify all information it deemed necessary for the purpose of the investigation of the accelerated review in order to calculate any amount of countervailable subsidy by allocating such amount over the level of the relevant total turnover of the applicant during the review investigation period.

(15)

On the basis of the information contained in the applicant's reply to the Commission's questionnaire, the following schemes were investigated:

(16)

It was established that the applicant received benefits under this scheme during the review investigation period. It made use of the DEPB on a post-export basis. The detailed description of the scheme is contained in paragraph 4.3 of the Export and Import Policy (Notification No 1/2002-07 of 31 March 2002 of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry of the Government of India).

Under this scheme, any eligible exporter can apply for credits which are calculated as a percentage of the value of exported finished products. Such DEPB rates have been established by the Indian authorities for most products, including the product concerned, on the basis of the Standard Input/Output Norms (SION). A licence stating the amount of credit granted is issued automatically.

DEPB on post-export basis allows for the use of such credits for any subsequent imports (e. g. raw materials or capital goods) except for goods the importation of which is restricted or prohibited. Such imported goods can be sold on the domestic market (subject to sales tax) or used otherwise.

DEPB credits are freely transferable. The DEPB licence is valid for a period of 12 months from the date on which the licence is granted.

(17)

The characteristics of the DEPB have not changed since the original investigation. The scheme is a subsidy contingent in law upon export performance, and it was therefore determined during the original investigation that it is deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 3(4)(a) of the basic Regulation.

(18)

It was established that the applicant transferred all the DEPB credits to its related company Viraj Alloys Ltd. The same practice was also followed by three other related Indian companies of the applicant, i.e. Viraj Forgings Ltd, Viraj Impoexpo Ltd and Viraj Profiles Ltd. The investigation confirmed that Viraj Alloys Ltd is the provider of the raw materials of all the previous mentioned companies and used their transferred DEPB credits to make duty-free imports.

Moreover, it was established that exports of the product concerned were made via several related companies. Taking into account that the owners of the applicant control all these related companies through an extensive shareholding system, and that the related companies are involved in certain aspects of the manufacture and distribution of the product concerned, it was considered appropriate to treat all these companies as a single recipient of the benefit.

Therefore, the subsidy amount under the DEPB scheme was based on the amount of the total credit in the licences granted to both the applicant and its related companies. Given that the subsidy was not granted by reference to the quantities exported, the subsidy amount has been allocated over the total export turnover of the applicant and its related companies in accordance with the provisions of Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation.

In conclusion, VSL Wires Limited benefited from this scheme during the review investigation period and obtained subsidies of 12,7 %.

(19)

It was established that the applicant received benefits under this scheme and in particular under Section 80HHC of the Indian Income Act.

The Indian Income Tax Act 1961 sets out the basis for exemptions that can be claimed by firms on the collection of taxes. Among the exemptions which can be claimed are those covered by Sections 10A (applicable for companies located in Free Trade Zones), 10B (applicable for companies being Export Oriented Units) and 80HHC (applicable for companies which export goods) of the Act. To benefit from the ITES, a firm has to make the relevant claim when submitting its tax return to the Tax Authorities. The tax year runs from 1 April to 31 March and the tax return must be submitted by 30 November of the following year. In this case, the review investigation period coincided with the tax and the financial year 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003.

(20)

The characteristics of the ITES have not changed since the original investigation. It was determined during the original investigation that the ITES is a countervailable subsidy, as the GOI confers a financial contribution to the company by forgoing government revenue in the form of direct taxes on profits from exports which would otherwise be due if the income tax exemptions were not claimed by the company. However, it was found that the ITES under Section 80HHC is gradually being phased out starting from the financial year 2000-2001 until the financial year 2004-2005 when no export profit would be exempted from income tax. During the review investigation period only 50 % of profits obtained from exports were exempted from income tax.

(21)

The subsidy is contingent in law upon export performance within the meaning of Article 3(4)(a) of the basic Regulation, since it exempts profits from export sales only, and is therefore deemed to be specific.

(22)

The benefit to the applicant has been calculated on the basis of the difference between the amount of taxes normally due with and without the benefit of the exemption during the review investigation period. The rate of income tax, including corporate tax plus surcharge, applicable during this period was 36,75 %. In order to establish the full benefit to the applicant and given that three companies related to the applicant have also exported the product concerned during the review investigation period (see recital 18), the amount of subsidy has been established taking into account the income tax exemptions under Section 80HHC of the applicant, Viraj Forgings Ltd, Viraj Impoexpo Ltd and Viraj Profiles Ltd. Given that the subsidy was not granted by reference to the quantities exported, the subsidy amount has been allocated over the total export turnover of the applicant and its related companies in accordance with the provisions of Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation. On this basis, it was established that VSL Wires Limited obtained under this scheme subsidies of 1,4 %.

(23)

It was established that the applicant had not availed itself of the EPCGS.

(24)

It was established that the applicant was not located in an EPZ and was not an EOU and, therefore, had not availed of the scheme.

(25)

It was established that the applicant had neither made use of new subsidy schemes which were established after the end of the original investigation period, nor had it received any ad hoc subsidies after this date.

(26)

Taking account of the definitive findings relating to the various schemes as already set out, the amount of countervailable subsidies for the applicant is as follows:

(27)

Based on the findings made during the investigation, it is considered that imports into the Community of stainless steel wire having a diameter of 1 mm or more produced and exported by VSL Wires Limited should be subject to a level of countervailing duty corresponding to individual amounts of subsidies established for this company during the review investigation period.

(28)

Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(29)

The Commission informed the applicant and the GOI of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to propose that Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999 be amended. They were also given a reasonable period of time to comment.

(30)

In its response to the disclosure, the applicant claimed that the post-export DEPB is a substitution remission/ drawback scheme which was wrongly assessed by the Commission in terms of extent of subsidy and amount of countervailable benefit. It argued that the Commission's assessment of the benefits under this scheme was incorrect since only the excess duty drawback could be considered a subsidy and that the practical operations of the system have not been investigated by the Commission.

The Commission has repeatedly concluded (see for example Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2002 (4) and in particular recitals 14 to 20) that post-export DEPB is not a drawback or a substitution drawback scheme as it does not conform to any of the provisions of Annexes I to III of the basic Regulation linked to its Article 2(1)(ii). The scheme lacks a built-in obligation to import only goods that are consumed in the production of the exported goods (Annex II of the basic Regulation) which would ensure that the requirements of Annex I(i) were met. Furthermore, there is no verification system in place to check whether the imports are actually consumed in the production process. It is also not a substitution drawback scheme because the imported goods do not need to be of the same quantity and characteristics as the domestically sourced inputs that were used for export production (Annex III of the basic Regulation). Lastly, exporting producers are eligible for the DEPB benefits regardless of whether they import any inputs at all.

In the case of the applicant, the investigation confirmed that the raw materials were imported duty-free by one of its related companies with the use of the transferred DEPB credits of all related companies obtained from exports of different products. However, no link could be established between each company's credits and the actual imported goods from the sole related company assigned with the task of raw material imports. Furthermore, there was no verification system in place by the GOI to control what imports were actually consumed into what product and by which company. Since the above exception to the subsidy definition does not therefore apply, the countervailable benefit is the amount of the total credit granted under the scheme. For these reasons the claim cannot be accepted.

The applicant further claimed that ‘the Commission's services failed to offset import duties from the costs, thus, rendering the subsidy calculations incorrect and exaggerated’. In this respect, it should be noted that the applicant was requested in advance and based on the situation described in recital 18 above to submit post-export DEPB credits listings for all its exports made during the review investigation period. The applicant was also requested to submit the same information for all exports made by its related companies for the same period, along with details of any application fees or other costs incurred in order to obtain the credits. However, the applicant has not reported any such details and was not in a position to provide such information during the on-spot verification. Therefore, due to the lack of any relevant information, no adjustment for such costs could be made on the amount of subsidy as established in recital 18.

(31)

This review does not affect the date on which Council Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999 will expire pursuant to Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation,

16.7.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 244/10

(1)

On 15 December 1992, the European Community and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam initialled an Agreement on trade in textile and clothing products (1) which was approved by Decision 96/477/EC (2). That Agreement has been last amended by an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, initialled on 15 February 2003 and provisionally applied from 10 September 2003 (3).

(2)

Pursuant to Article 9 of that Agreement, certain quantitative limits may be transferred to the following year if they have not been used in the current year.

(3)

In the light of the quota increase provided for under the Exchange of Letters of 15 February 2003, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, on 10 September 2003, made a request that the unused quantities of the quota increase for 2003 be transferred to the quantitative limits of quota year 2004.

(4)

As Vietnamese and Community operators could only partially benefit from the quota increase in 2003, it is appropriate to transfer the unused part of these additional quantities to the quota levels of quota year 2004,

16.7.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 244/12

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto.

(2)

In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,

16.7.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 244/14

(1)

The rates of the refunds applicable from 25 June 2004 to the products listed in the Annex, exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, were fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1162/2004 (2).

(2)

It follows from applying the rules and criteria contained in Regulation (EC) No 1162/2004 to the information at present available to the Commission that the export refunds at present applicable should be altered as shown in the Annex hereto,

16.7.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 244/16

(1)

Pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation No 136/66/EEC, the unit production aid must be adjusted in each Member State where actual production exceeds the guaranteed national quantity referred to in paragraph 3 of that Article. With a view to assessing the extent of the overrun in Greece, Spain, France, Italy and Portugal, account should be taken of the estimates for the production of table olives, expressed as olive-oil equivalent using the relevant coefficients referred to, in the case of Greece, in Commission Decision 2001/649/EC (3), in the case of Spain, in Commission Decision 2001/650/EC (4), in the case of France, in Commission Decision 2001/648/EC (5), in the case of Italy, in Commission Decision 2001/658/EC (6) and in the case of Portugal, in Commission Decision 2001/670/EC (7).

(2)

Article 17a(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2261/84 provides that, in order to determine the unit amount of the production aid for olive oil that can be paid in advance, the estimated production for the marketing year concerned should be determined. That amount must be set at a level that rules out any risk of undue payment to olive growers. The amount also applies to table olives, expressed as olive-oil equivalent. For the 2002/03 marketing year, the estimated production and the unit amount of the production aid that can be paid in advance were laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1794/2003 (8).

(3)

In order to determine the actual production for which entitlement to aid is recognised, the individual Member States concerned must inform the Commission by no later than 15 May following each marketing year of the quantity on which the aid is payable in that Member State, in accordance with Article 14(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2366/98 (9). According to that information, the quantity on which the aid is payable for the 2002/03 marketing year is 473 820 tonnes for Greece, 960 716 tonnes for Spain, 3 344 tonnes for France, 686 342 tonnes for Italy and 28 771 tonnes for Portugal.

(4)

Confirmation by the Member States that aid is payable on those quantities implies that the controls referred to in Regulations (EEC) No 2261/84 and (EC) No 2366/98 have been carried out. However, setting actual production on the basis of information from the Member States on the quantities on which aid is payable does not prejudge the conclusions that may be drawn from verification of the accuracy of that information under the accounts clearance procedure.

(5)

Taking account of the actual production figures, the unit amount of the production aid provided for in Article 5(1) of Regulation No 136/66/EEC payable on the eligible quantities of actual production should also be set.

(6)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Oils and Fats,

—

473 820 tonnes for Greece,

—

960 716 tonnes for Spain,

—

3 344 tonnes for France,

—

686 342 tonnes for Italy,

—

28 771 tonnes for Portugal.

—

118,35 EUR/100 kg for Greece,

—

103,43 EUR/100 kg for Spain,

—

130,40 EUR/100 kg for France,

—

102,85 EUR/100 kg for Italy,

—

130,40 EUR/100 kg for Portugal.

16.7.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 244/18

(1)

Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001 lays down that the amount of the production aid for unginned cotton is to be fixed on the basis of the difference between, on the one hand, the guide price established in accordance with Article 3(1) and Article 7 of that Regulation and, on the other, the world market price determined in accordance with Article 4 thereof.

(2)

Article 4(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1591/2001 of 2 August 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the cotton aid scheme (3) provides that the amount of aid for unginned cotton applicable for each period for which a world market price for that product has been determined is to be fixed no later than 30 June of the marketing year concerned.

(3)

In accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1123/2004 (4) fixes actual production of unginned cotton and the resulting reduction in the guide price for the 2003/2004 marketing year.

(4)

In accordance with Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001, the world market price for unginned cotton was fixed periodically during the 2003/2004 marketing year.

(5)

The amount of aid applicable for each period for which a world market price for unginned cotton has been determined should accordingly be fixed for the 2003/2004 marketing year,

16.7.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 244/21

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 958/2003 opens an annual tariff quota of 275 000 tonnes of corn for the 2004/2005 marketing year.

(2)

The quantities applied for on 12 July 2004, in accordance with Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 958/2003, exceed the quantities available. The extent to which licences may be issued should therefore be determined and a reduction coefficient laid down to be applied to the quantities applied for,

16.7.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 244/22

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1422/95 of 23 June 1995 laying down detailed rules of application for imports of molasses in the sugar sector and amending Regulation (EEC) No 785/68 (2), stipulates that the cif import price for molasses established in accordance with Commission Regulation (EEC) No 785/68 (3), is to be considered the representative price. That price is fixed for the standard quality defined in Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 785/68.

(2)

For the purpose of fixing the representative prices, account must be taken of all the information provided for in Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 785/68, except in the cases provided for in Article 4 of that Regulation and those prices should be fixed, where appropriate, in accordance with the method provided for in Article 7 of that Regulation.

(3)

Prices not referring to the standard quality should be adjusted upwards or downwards, according to the quality of the molasses offered, in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 785/68.

(4)

Where there is a difference between the trigger price for the product concerned and the representative price, additional import duties should be fixed under the terms laid down in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1422/95. Should the import duties be suspended pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1422/95, specific amounts for these duties should be fixed.

(5)

The representative prices and additional import duties for the products concerned should be fixed in accordance with Articles 1(2) and 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1422/95.

(6)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

16.7.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 244/24

(1)

Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 provides that the difference between quotations or prices on the world market for the products listed in Article 1(1)(a) of that Regulation and prices for those products within the Community may be covered by an export refund.

(2)

Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 provides that when refunds on white and raw sugar, undenatured and exported in its unaltered state, are being fixed account must be taken of the situation on the Community and world markets in sugar and in particular of the price and cost factors set out in Article 28 of that Regulation. The same Article provides that the economic aspect of the proposed exports should also be taken into account.

(3)

The refund on raw sugar must be fixed in respect of the standard quality. The latter is defined in Annex I, point II, to Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001. Furthermore, this refund should be fixed in accordance with Article 28(4) of that Regulation. Candy sugar is defined in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2135/95 of 7 September 1995 laying down detailed rules of application for the grant of export refunds in the sugar sector (2). The refund thus calculated for sugar containing added flavouring or colouring matter must apply to their sucrose content and, accordingly, be fixed per 1 % of the said content.

(4)

In special cases, the amount of the refund may be fixed by other legal instruments.

(5)

The refund must be fixed every two weeks. It may be altered in the intervening period.

(6)

The first subparagraph of Article 27(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 provides that refunds on the products referred to in Article 1 of that Regulation may vary according to destination, where the world market situation or the specific requirements of certain markets make this necessary.

(7)

The significant and rapid increase in preferential imports of sugar from the western Balkan countries since the start of 2001 and in exports of sugar to those countries from the Community seems to be highly artificial.

(8)

To prevent any abuse through the re-import into the Community of sugar products in receipt of an export refund, no refund should be set for all the countries of the western Balkans for the products covered by this Regulation.

(9)

In view of the above and of the present situation on the market in sugar, and in particular of the quotations or prices for sugar within the Community and on the world market, refunds should be set at the appropriate amounts.

(10)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

16.7.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 244/26

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1290/2003 of 18 July 2003 on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar (2), for the 2003/2004 marketing year, requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar to certain third countries.

(2)

Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2003 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the case may be, account being taken in particular of the state and foreseeable development of the Community and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender in question.

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

16.7.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 244/27

(1)

Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 provides that the difference between prices in international trade for the products listed in Article 1 of that Regulation and prices for those products within the Community may be covered by an export refund within the limits resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty.

(2)

Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 provides that when the refunds on the products listed in Article 1 of the abovementioned Regulation, exported in the natural state, are being fixed, account must be taken of:

(3)

Article 31(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 provides that when prices within the Community are being determined account should be taken of the ruling prices which are most favourable for exportation, and that when prices in international trade are being determined particular account should be taken of:

(4)

Article 31(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 provides that the world market situation or the specific requirements of certain markets may make it necessary to vary the refund on the products listed in Article 1 of the abovementioned Regulation according to destination.

(5)

Article 31(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 provides that the list of products on which export refunds are granted and the amount of such refunds should be fixed at least once every four weeks; the amount of the refund may, however, remain at the same level for more than four weeks.

(6)

In accordance with Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 174/1999 of 26 January 1999 on specific detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 804/68 as regards export licences and export refunds on milk and milk products (2), the refund granted for milk products containing added sugar is equal to the sum of the two components; one is intended to take account of the quantity of milk products and is calculated by multiplying the basic amount by the milk products content in the product concerned; the other is intended to take account of the quantity of added sucrose and is calculated by multiplying the sucrose content of the entire product by the basic amount of the refund valid on the day of exportation for the products listed in Article 1(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (3), however, this second component is applied only if the added sucrose has been produced using sugar beet or cane harvested in the Community.

(7)

Commission Regulation (EEC) No 896/84 (4) laid down additional provisions concerning the granting of refunds on the change from one milk year to another; those provisions provide for the possibility of varying refunds according to the date of manufacture of the products.

(8)

For the calculation of the refund for processed cheese provision must be made where casein or caseinates are added for that quantity not to be taken into account.

(9)

It follows from applying the rules set out above to the present situation on the market in milk and in particular to quotations or prices for milk products within the Community and on the world market that the refund should be as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

(10)

The Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,