21.1.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/1

(1)

The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 (2) (the ‘definitive Regulation’), imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand.

(2)

On 22 May 2003, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union  (3), the initiation of an interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports into the Community of PET originating in the Republic of Korea and Taiwan (the ‘countries concerned’).

(3)

The interim review was initiated as a result of a request lodged in April 2003 by the Association of Plastic Manufacturers in Europe (‘the applicant’) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 80 %, of the total Community production of PET. The request contained sufficient prima facie evidence that dumping and injury had recurred and that the existing measures were no longer sufficient to counteract the injurious dumping. The evidence provided was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a full interim review of the existing measures, pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.

(4)

On 30 June 2004, the applicant withdrew its request for the interim review.

(5)

Nevertheless, it was considered that, in view of the evidence available and the preliminary findings already obtained in the course of the investigation, the continuation of the investigation ex officio on dumping only was warranted. With regard to all other aspects of the review investigation, it was found that the interim review should be terminated following the withdrawal of the request. This approach has been communicated to all interested parties, none of which made any comment.

(6)

On 22 May 2003, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union  (4), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Community of PET originating in Australia, the People's Republic of China (‘PRC’) and Pakistan.

(7)

By Regulation (EC) No 306/2004 (5), the Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of PET originating in Australia, the PRC and Pakistan. By Regulation (EC) No 1467/2004 (6), the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of PET originating in Australia and the PRC and terminated the proceeding on imports of PET originating in Pakistan.

(8)

The Commission services officially advised the applicant, the Community producers included in the complaint, the other Community producers, the exporting producers, importers, suppliers and users as well as associations known to be concerned, and representatives of the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, of the opening of the investigation. Interested parties were given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.

(9)

The Community producers represented by the applicant, other cooperating Community producers, exporting producers, importers, suppliers, users and user associations made their views known. All interested parties who so requested were granted a hearing.

(10)

Questionnaires were sent to all parties known to be concerned and to all the other companies that made themselves known within the deadlines set out in the notice of initiation. Replies were received from the seven Community producers represented by the applicant; four other Community producers; three exporting producers in the Republic of Korea, including one company not currently subject to an individual duty rate; four exporting producers in Taiwan, including one company not currently subject to an individual duty rate; and two suppliers, two related importers, four unrelated importers and nine unrelated users in the Community.

(11)

In the notice of initiation, it was indicated that sampling may be applied in this investigation. However, given that the number of exporting producers in the countries concerned which indicated their willingness to cooperate was lower than expected, it was decided that sampling was not required.

(12)

The Commission services sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for determination of dumping and resulting injury and carried out verifications at the premises of the following companies:

(13)

The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 (‘IP’).

(14)

The product concerned is the same as in the original investigation, i.e. PET with a viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher, according to the ISO Standard 1628-5, originating in the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, currently classifiable within CN code 3907 60 20.

(15)

As in the original investigation it was found that PET produced and sold on the domestic market of the Republic of Korea and Taiwan and PET produced and exported to the Community have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and uses. It is therefore concluded that all types of PET with a viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher are alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

(16)

The general methodology set out below has been applied to all exporting producers in the Republic of Korea and Taiwan and is the same as that used in the original investigation. The presentation of the findings on dumping for each of the countries concerned therefore only describes what is specific for each exporting country.

(17)

For the determination of normal value, it was first established, for each exporting producer, whether its total domestic sales of the product concerned were representative in comparison with its total export sales to the Community. In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, domestic sales were considered representative when the total domestic sales volume of each exporting producer was at least 5 % of its total export sales volume to the Community.

(18)

Subsequently, those types of PET sold domestically by the companies having overall representative domestic sales, and that were identical or directly comparable to the types sold for export to the Community, were identified.

(19)

For each type sold by the exporting producers on their domestic markets and found to be directly comparable to the type of PET sold for export to the Community, it was established whether domestic sales were sufficiently representative for the purposes of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular type of PET were considered sufficiently representative when the total domestic sales volume of that type during the IP represented 5 % or more of the total sales volume of the comparable PET type exported to the Community.

(20)

An examination was also made as to whether the domestic sales of each type of PET could be regarded as having been made in the ordinary course of trade, by establishing the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers of the PET type in question. In cases where the sales volume of a PET type, sold at a net sales price equal to or above the calculated cost of production, represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume of that type, and where the weighted average price of that type was equal to or above the cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of that type made during the IP, irrespective of whether these sales were profitable or not. In cases where the volume of profitable sales of PET type represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below the cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of profitable sales of that type only, provided that these sales represented 10 % or more of the total sales volume of that type.

(21)

It was found that profitable sales of all types of PET represented 10 % or more of the total sales volume of that type.

(22)

In all cases where the product concerned was exported to independent customers in the Community, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, namely on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable.

(23)

In cases where sales were made via a related importer, the export price was constructed on the basis of the resale prices of that related importer to independent customers. Adjustments were made for all costs incurred between importation and resale by that importer, including sales, general and administrative expenses, and a reasonable profit margin, in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation. The appropriate profit margin was established on the basis of information provided by unrelated cooperating traders/importers operating on the Community market.

(24)

The normal value and export prices were compared on an ex-works basis. For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Appropriate adjustments were granted in all cases where they were found to be reasonable, accurate and supported by verified evidence.

(25)

In accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, a dumping margin was calculated for each cooperating exporting producer, by comparing the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export price.

(26)

For those countries where the level of cooperation was found to be high (above 80 %), and where there was no reason to believe that any exporting producer abstained from cooperating, the residual dumping margin was set at the level of the cooperating company with the highest dumping margin in order to ensure the effectiveness of the measures.

(27)

For those countries where the level of cooperation was found to be low, the residual dumping margin was determined in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, i.e. on the basis of the facts available.

(28)

Questionnaire replies were received from three exporting producers, one of which did not export PET to the Community during the IP, and two importers related to one of the exporting producers. It was established that the cooperating exporters represented 100 % of Korean exports of the product concerned during the IP.

(29)

For all types of PET exported by the Korean exporting producers, it was possible to establish normal value on the basis of the prices paid or payable in the ordinary course of trade by independent customers on the domestic market, in accordance with Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation.

(30)

One of the Korean exporting producers made export sales to the Community both directly to independent customers and via related importers in Korea and the Community. Consequently, in the latter situation, a constructed export price has been established pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.

(31)

In order to ensure a fair comparison, account was taken, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, of differences in factors which were claimed and demonstrated to affect prices and price comparability. On this basis, allowances for differences in transport, insurance, handling charges, commissions, credit, packing, customs duties and bank charges have been granted.

(32)

As provided by Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the weighted average normal values of each type of the product concerned exported to the Community were compared to the weighted average export price of each corresponding type of the product concerned.

(33)

The comparison showed the existence of either no dumping or de minimis dumping in respect of the three cooperating exporting producers. The dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the Community border, duty unpaid are as follows:

(34)

Two known Korean exporting producers of PET which are currently subject to an individual duty rate showed that they had not made any exports during the IP. No evidence was provided by these exporters to indicate that a re-assessment of their duty margins was warranted.

(35)

In light of the high level of cooperation by Korean companies (see recital (28)), the residual duty was set at the level of the cooperating company with the highest dumping margin in accordance with the approach outlined in recital (26). The level is the same as that in the original investigation.

(36)

Questionnaire replies were received from four exporting producers, one of which did not export PET to the Community during the IP. It was established that the cooperating exporters represented less than 60 % of Taiwanese exports of the product concerned during the IP.

(37)

For all types of PET exported by the Taiwanese exporting producers, normal value was established on the basis of the prices paid or payable in the ordinary course of trade by independent customers on the domestic market, in accordance with Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation.

(38)

Export prices were established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, namely on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable.

(39)

In order to ensure a fair comparison, account was taken of differences in factors which were claimed and demonstrated to affect prices and price comparability, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. On this basis, allowances for differences in transport, insurance, handling charges, commissions, credit, packing, customs duties and bank charges have been granted.

(40)

As provided by Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the weighted average normal values of each type of the product concerned exported to the Community were compared to the weighted average export price of each corresponding type of the product concerned.

(41)

The comparison showed the existence of dumping in respect of two of the cooperating exporting producers. The dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the Community border, duty unpaid are as follows:

(42)

One exporting producer, which is currently subject to an individual duty, cooperated in this proceeding even though it had made no export sales to the Community during the IP. On the basis of the information provided, it was deemed appropriate to leave its current dumping margin unchanged, because no information was submitted to indicate that a re-assessment of its duty margin was warranted.

(43)

There is one known Taiwanese exporter of PET which is currently subject to an individual duty, but which did not cooperate in this proceeding. For this exporter, it was considered appropriate not to give it an individual duty so as not to reward non-cooperation. More importantly, no data were available which would have allowed the determination of an individual duty.

(44)

In light of this fact and of the low level of cooperation by Taiwanese companies (see recital (36)), the residual dumping margin was determined in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, as outlined in recital (27).

(45)

The residual dumping margin, which was calculated on the basis of data available from Eurostat and also from the cooperating exporting producers, expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the Community border, duty unpaid is as follows:

(46)

In accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, it was also examined whether the changed circumstances with respect to the original investigation regarding dumping could reasonably be considered to be of a lasting nature.

(47)

For those companies which exported during the IP and cooperated with the investigation, the current review showed that their dumping margin either remained at, or had fallen to, a de minimis level. The main reason for this was that whilst the normal values and domestic sales prices for these companies had risen as compared to the data from the original investigation, sales prices on the Community market had risen by a greater margin. Indeed, it was found that export prices to the Community were on average 53 % higher during the IP of this investigation when compared with the export prices found during the IP of the original investigation. No indications were found, suggesting that these changes would not be of a lasting nature. It should also be noted that these companies had a high capacity utilisation, in excess of 80 %, during the IP. Additionally these companies do not have any plans to increase existing capacity, thereby restricting the scope for any future changes in circumstances. It is therefore considered that this situation as far as export price and volume is concerned is not likely to change.

(48)

One company which did not export to the Community during the original investigation cooperated and exported the product concerned to the Community during this investigation. The dumping margin for this company was also found to be de minimis. The normal value, as well as domestic and export prices of this company were found to be in the same range as those for the other two cooperating exporters.

(49)

For the two cooperating exporting producers that did not export to the Community during the IP, no evidence to justify a change in their duty was found as outlined in recital (34). It should also be recalled that there was a wide range of dumping margins found in the original investigation (1,4 % to 55,8 %), which indicates that considerable differences in the dumping behaviour of Korean companies existed. For these reasons, it cannot be concluded that the findings of de minimis dumping margins for the producers which exported to the Community during the IP are representative for those exporters which did not. Accordingly, for these companies, there is no evidence to suggest that a revision of their current anti-dumping duties is warranted, nor is there any data available that would allow a revised individual margin to be calculated for them. These findings were disclosed to the parties concerned, none of which made any comments nor provided any additional information.

(50)

Three of the four companies in Taiwan, currently subject to an individual duty, cooperated in the current investigation. For one of these companies, the current investigation showed that its dumping margin had fallen to a de minimis level. For the second company the dumping margin fell from 7,8 % in the original investigation to 4,6 % in the current investigation. In line with the situation in the Republic of Korea, the main reason for this was that whilst the normal values and domestic sales prices for these companies had risen when compared with data from the original investigation, sales prices to the Community market had risen by a greater margin. For Taiwan, it was found that export prices to the Community were on average 42 % higher during the IP of this investigation when compared with the export prices found during the IP of the original investigation. It was also found for these companies that their capacity utilisation was similar to that found for the companies in Korea. Nor did they have any plans to increase their installed capacity.

(51)

The third cooperating company, currently subject to an individual duty, provided evidence that it did not export the product concerned to the Community during the IP of this investigation.

(52)

In addition, one company in Taiwan which did not export to the Community during the original investigation also cooperated during this investigation. The dumping margin for this company is 10,7 %.

(53)

For the three cooperating producers which exported to the Community during the IP of the current investigation, there are no reasons to believe that the nature of the changes between the current and the original investigations, particularly the increase in export prices to the Community, are not lasting in nature. Accordingly, it is considered that the dumping margins for these companies, calculated on the basis of the data provided in this investigation are reliable.

(54)

For the producer which cooperated but which did not export to the Community during the IP of the current investigation, there is no evidence to suggest that a revision of its current anti-dumping duties is warranted. It is, therefore considered appropriate to leave its current margin unchanged. As with the situation for Korea, there are no data available that would allow a revised individual margin to be calculated for this company. Again, following disclosure, the party concerned made no comments nor provided any additional information.

(55)

In view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping and the lasting nature of changed circumstances, the present anti-dumping measures against imports of the product concerned originating in the Republic of Korea and Taiwan should be amended to reflect the new dumping margins found.

(56)

The fact that PET prices can fluctuate in line with fluctuations in crude oil prices, should not entail a higher duty. It was therefore considered appropriate that the amended duties should be expressed in the form of a specific amount per tonne. This approach was followed in the original investigation.

(57)

The individual company anti-dumping duty rates were established on the basis of the findings of the present review. They, therefore, reflect the situation found during this review with respect to these companies. These duty rates, as opposed to the duty applicable to ‘all other companies’, are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the country concerned and produced by the companies specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of the Regulation, including by entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and will be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’.

(58)

The proposed anti-dumping duties for those companies which exported to the Community during the IP are as follows:

(59)

In line with the revised residual dumping margin outlined in recital (45), the residual anti-dumping duty for Taiwan should be increased to EUR 143,4/tonne.

(60)

Interested parties were informed of all the facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to propose an amendment to the Regulation in force. No comments were received,

21.1.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/9

(1)

The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1015/94 (2), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of television camera systems (‘TCS’) originating in Japan.

(2)

In Article 1(3)(e) of Regulation No 1015/94, the Council specifically excluded from the scope of the anti-dumping duty camera systems listed in the Annex to that Regulation (‘the Annex’), representing high-end professional camera systems technically falling within the product definition under Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1015/94, but which cannot be regarded as television camera systems.

(3)

In October 1995, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 2474/95 (3), amended Regulation (EC) No 1015/94, in particular as regards the definition of the like product and certain models of professional camera systems which were explicitly exempted from the definitive anti-dumping duty.

(4)

In October 1997, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1952/97 (4), amended the rates of the definitive anti-dumping duty for two companies concerned, namely for Sony Corporation and Ikegami Tsushinki Co. Ltd pursuant to Article 12 of the basic Regulation. Furthermore, the Council specifically excluded from the scope of the anti-dumping duty certain new models of professional camera systems by adding them to the Annex.

(5)

In January 1999 and January 2000, the Council, by Regulations (EC) No 193/1999 (5) and (EC) No 176/2000 (6), amended Regulation (EC) No 1015/94 by adding certain successor models of professional camera systems to the Annex and thus excluding those from the application of the definitive anti-dumping duty. In October 2004, the Council, by Regulation (EC) 1754/2004 (7), amended Regulation (EC) No 176/2000.

(6)

In September 2000, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000 (8), confirmed the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1015/94 pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

(7)

In January 2001 and in May 2001, the Council, by Regulations (EC) No 198/2001 (9) and (EC) No 951/2001 (10), amended Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000 by adding certain successor models of professional camera systems to the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000 and thus excluding them from the application of the definitive anti-dumping duty.

(8)

In September 2001, further to an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1900/2001 (11) confirmed the level of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000 on imports of TCS from the exporting producer Hitachi Denshi Ltd.

(9)

In September 2002, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1696/2002 (12), amended Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000 by adding certain successor models of professional camera systems to the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000 and thus excluding them from the application of the definitive anti-dumping duty.

(10)

In April 2004, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 825/2004, amended Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000 by adding certain successor models of professional camera systems to the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000 and thus excluding them from the application of the definitive anti-dumping duty.

(11)

Two Japanese exporting producers, namely Sony Corporation (‘Sony’) and Victor Company of Japan Limited (‘JVC’) informed the Commission that they intended to introduce new models of professional camera systems into the Community market and requested the Commission to add these new models of professional camera systems, including their accessories, to the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000 and thus exempt them from the scope of the anti-dumping duties.

(12)

The Commission informed the Community industry accordingly and commenced an investigation limited to the determination of whether the products under consideration fall within the scope of the anti-dumping duties and whether the operational part of Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000 should be amended accordingly.

(13)

The requests for exemption were received for the following models of camera systems, supplied with the relevant technical information:

The Sony viewfinder was presented as a model which can only be used with camcorders, cameras that are outside the scope of Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000. The JVC model was presented as a successor to a professional camera model already excluded from the anti-dumping measure in force.

(14)

It was found that viewfinder HDVF-C30W falls under the product description of Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000. However, it can only be used with camera heads that do not fall under the product description of Article 1(2)(a) of that Regulation. In particular, the signal-to-noise ratio of these camera heads is 54 dB, whereas the description in Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000 for the camera heads requires ‘55 dB or more at normal gain’. Therefore, it was concluded that this viewfinder should be regarded as a professional camera system falling within the definition of Article 1(3)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000. As a result, this viewfinder should be excluded from the scope of the existing anti-dumping measures and added to the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000.

(15)

In accordance with the established Community Institutions' practice, this model should be exempted from the duty from the date of receipt by the Commission services of the relevant request for exemption. Therefore, all imports of Sony-Viewfinder HDVF-C30W imported on or after 1 April 2003 should be exempted from the duty from this date.

(16)

It was found that camera head KY-F560E, although falling within the product description of Article 1(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000, is mainly used in technical and medical applications. It was therefore concluded that this model was to be regarded as a professional camera system falling within the definition of Article 1(3)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000. It should therefore be excluded from the scope of the existing anti-dumping measures and added to the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000.

(17)

In accordance with the established Community Institutions’ practice, this model should be exempted from the duty from the date of receipt by the Commission services of the relevant request for exemption. Therefore, all imports of JVC-Camera head KY-F560E imported on or after 15 April 2004 should be exempted from the duty from this date.

(18)

The Commission informed the Community industry and the exporters of the TCS of its findings and provided them with an opportunity to present their views. None of the parties objected to the Commission's findings.

(19)

On the basis of the foregoing, Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000 should be amended accordingly,

(a)

Sony from 1 April 2003:

(b)

JVC from 15 April 2004:

21.1.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/15

(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,

21.1.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/17

(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,

21.1.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/19

(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,

21.1.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/21

(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)(d) of that Regulation and prices for those products within the Community may be covered by an export refund.

(2)

Article 3 of 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), provides that the export refund on 100 kilograms of the products listed in Article 1(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 is equal to the basic amount multiplied by the sucrose content, including, where appropriate, other sugars expressed as sucrose; the sucrose content of the product in question is determined in accordance with Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2135/95.

(3)

Article 30(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 provides that the basic amount of the refund on sorbose exported in the natural state must be equal to the basic amount of the refund less one hundredth of the production refund applicable, pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1265/2001 of 27 June 2001 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 as regards granting the production refund on certain sugar products used in the chemical industry (3), to the products listed in the Annex to the last mentioned Regulation.

(4)

According to the terms of Article 30(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001, the basic amount of the refund on the other products listed in Article 1(1)(d) of the said Regulation exported in the natural state must be equal to one-hundredth of an amount which takes account, on the one hand, of the difference between the intervention price for white sugar for the Community areas without deficit for the month for which the basic amount is fixed and quotations or prices for white sugar on the world market and, on the other, of the need to establish a balance between the use of Community basic products in the manufacture of processed goods for export to third countries and the use of third country products brought in under inward-processing arrangements.

(5)

According to the terms of Article 30(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001, the application of the basic amount may be limited to some of the products listed in Article 1(1)(d) of the said Regulation.

(6)

Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 makes provision for setting refunds for export in the natural state of products referred to in Article 1(1)(f) and (g) and (h) of that Regulation; the refund must be fixed per 100 kilograms of dry matter, taking account of the export refund for products falling within CN code 1702 30 91 and for products referred to in Article 1(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 and of the economic aspects of the intended exports; in the case of the products referred to in the said Article (1)(f) and (g), the refund is to be granted only for products complying with the conditions in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2135/95; for the products referred to in Article 1(1)(h), the refund shall be granted only for products complying with the conditions in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 2135/95.

(7)

The abovementioned refunds must be fixed every month; they may be altered in the intervening period.

(8)

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.

(9)

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 in nature.

(10)

In order to prevent any abuses associated with the reimportation into the Community of sugar sector products that have qualified for export refunds, refunds for the products covered by this Regulation should not be fixed for all the countries of the western Balkans.

(11)

In view of the above, refunds for the products in question should be fixed at the appropriate amounts.

(12)

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

21.1.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/24

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004 of 19 July 2004 on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar (2), for the 2004/2005 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 1327/2004 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,

21.1.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/25

(1)

In accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001, a world market price for unginned cotton is to be determined periodically from the price for ginned cotton recorded on the world market and by reference to the historical relationship between the price recorded for ginned cotton and that calculated for unginned cotton. That historical relationship has been established in Article 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1591/2001 of 2 August 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the cotton aid scheme (3). Where the world market price cannot be determined in this way, it is to be based on the most recent price determined.

(2)

In accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001, the world market price for unginned cotton is to be determined in respect of a product of specific characteristics and by reference to the most favourable offers and quotations on the world market among those considered representative of the real market trend. To that end, an average is to be calculated of offers and quotations recorded on one or more European exchanges for a product delivered cif to a port in the Community and coming from the various supplier countries considered the most representative in terms of international trade. However, there is provision for adjusting the criteria for determining the world market price for ginned cotton to reflect differences justified by the quality of the product delivered and the offers and quotations concerned. Those adjustments are specified in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1591/2001.

(3)

The application of the above criteria gives the world market price for unginned cotton determined hereinafter,

21.1.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/26

(1)

Member States' notifications pursuant to Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000 indicate that the total amount of applications received reaches EUR 220 145 448 while the available amount for the tranche of refund certificates as referred to in Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000 is EUR 71 047 745.

(2)

A reduction coefficient shall be calculated on the basis of Article 8(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000. Such coefficient should therefore be applied to amounts requested in the form of refund certificates for use from 1 February 2005 as established in Article 8(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000,

21.1.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/27

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 provides for rules concerning the means of disposal and uses of animal by-products. It also provides for the possibility for additional means of disposal and uses of animal by-products to be approved following consultation of the appropriate scientific committee.

(2)

The Scientific Steering Committee (SSC) issued an opinion on 10 and 11 April 2003 on six alternative processing methods for safe treatment and disposal of animal by-products. According to that opinion five processes are considered as safe for the disposal of and/or uses of Categories 2 and 3 material under certain conditions.

(3)

The SSC issued a final opinion and report on 10 and 11 April 2003 on a treatment of animal waste by means of high temperature and high pressure alkaline hydrolysis, providing guidance on the possibilities to use alkaline hydrolysis and on its risks for the disposal of Categories 1, 2 and 3 material.

(4)

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) issued an opinion on 26 and 27 November 2003 on the process of High Pressure Hydrolysis Biogas (HPHB) providing guidance on the possibilities to use this process and on its risks for the disposal of Category 1 material.

(5)

Five processes may, therefore, be approved as alternative means for the disposal and/or uses of animal by-products in line with the SSC opinions, in addition to those processing methods already provided for by Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002. It is also appropriate to lay down the conditions for the use of those processes.

(6)

The Commission has asked some of the applicants for approval of the processes to submit further information regarding the safety of their processes for the treatment and disposal of Category 1 material. That information is to be forwarded to the European Food Safety Authority for evaluation in due course.

(7)

Pending that evaluation, and considering current SSC opinions that tallow is safe as regards TSE, especially if it is pressure-cooked and filtered to remove insoluble impurities, it is appropriate to approve one of the processes, which processes animal fat into biodiesel, also for treatment and disposal, under strict conditions, of most Category 1 material, except for the most risky. In that case, it should be made clear that the treatment and disposal may include the recovery of bioenergy.

(8)

The approval and the operation of such alternative means should be without prejudice to other applicable EU legislation, in particular environmental legislation, and therefore the operating conditions established in this Regulation should, where applicable, be implemented according to Article 6 paragraph 4 of Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 (2) on the incineration of waste.

(9)

For processes approved for the treatment of Category 1 animal by-products, and as a surveillance measure complementary to the regular monitoring of processing parameters, the efficacy of the process, together with its safety with regard to animal and public health, should be demonstrated to the competent authorities by testing in a pilot plant during the first two years following the implementation of the process within each Member State concerned.

(10)

It is appropriate to amend Annex VI, Chapters II and III of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 as a consequence of approving the transformation of Category 1 animal by-products.

(11)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

(a)

the animals were below 24 months of age at the time they were killed; or

(b)

the animals were subjected to laboratory testing for the presence of a TSE pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) and the result of the testing was negative.

(a)

incineration or co-incineration in accordance with the provisions of Directive 2000/76/EC on the incineration of waste;

(b)

burial in a landfill approved under Council Directive 1999/31/EC (4) on the landfill of waste; or

(c)

further transformation in a biogas plant and disposal of the digestion residues as provided for in points (a) or (b).

(a)

disposed of as waste as provided for in paragraph 2;

(b)

further processed into fat derivatives for the uses mentioned in Article 5(2)(b)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002, without the prior use of processing methods 1 to 5; or

(c)

used, transformed or disposed of directly as provided for in Article 5(2)(c)(i), (ii) and (iii) of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002, without the prior use of processing method 1.

(a)

alkaline hydrolysis as defined in Annex I;

(b)

high pressure hydrolysis biogas as defined in Annex III; and

(c)

biodiesel production as defined in Annex IV.

(a)

suitable tests are applied in the pilot plant to the materials derived from the treatment steps, such as the liquid and solid residues, and any gas generated during the process; and

(b)

the official control of the pilot plant include a monthly inspection of the plant and a verification of the processing parameters and conditions applied.

1.

In Chapter II, point B, at the end of number 4, the following sentence is added:

‘However, resulting materials from the processing of Category 1 material may be transformed in a biogas plant, provided that the processing was done pursuant to an alternative method approved in accordance with Article 4(2)(e) and, except as otherwise specified, the biogas production is part of that alternative method and the resulting material is disposed of in accordance with the conditions laid down for the alternative method.’

2.

At the end of Chapter III, the following sentence is added:

‘However, other processes may be used for further processing of animal fats derived from Category 1 material, provided these processes are approved as alternative method in accordance with Article 4(2)(e).’

21.1.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/34

(1)

Annex V, Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 sets out the processing methods for animal by-products. For animal by-products of fish origin processing method 6 is provided for in that Chapter but the processing parameters are not specified.

(2)

The Scientific Steering Committee has issued a number of opinions addressing the safety of animal by-products including fish. According to those opinions the risk of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) arising from animal by-products of fish origin is negligible.

(3)

The Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare adopted a report on the use of fish by-products in aquaculture at its meeting of 26 February 2003.

(4)

It is appropriate to lay down the requirements for the processing of animal by-products of fish origin in line with those opinions and reports.

(5)

It is appropriate to lay down different processing methods for materials likely to contain high or low numbers of pathogens, excluding bacterial spores.

(6)

Annex II, Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 provides for a commercial document to accompany animal by-products and processed products during transportation. It is appropriate to lay down a model for that commercial document.

(7)

Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(8)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

21.1.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/40

21.1.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/42

(1)

Article 27(1) and (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1260/2001 provides that the differences between the prices in international trade for the products listed in Article 1(1)(a), (c), (d), (f), (g) and (h) of that Regulation and prices within the Community may be covered by an export refund where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Annex V to that Regulation. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000 of 13 July 2000 laying down common implementing rules for granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (2) specifies the products for which a rate of refund should be fixed, to be applied where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001.

(2)

In accordance with Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000, the rate of the refund per 100 kg for each of the basic products in question must be fixed for each month.

(3)

Article 27(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 lays down that the export refund for a product contained in a good may not exceed the refund applicable to that product when exported without further processing.

(4)

The refunds fixed under this Regulation may be fixed in advance as the market situation over the next few months cannot be established at the moment.

(5)

The commitments entered into with regard to refunds which may be granted for the export of agricultural products contained in goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty may be jeopardised by the fixing in advance of high refund rates. It is therefore necessary to take precautionary measures in such situations without, however, preventing the conclusion of long-term contracts. The fixing of a specific refund rate for the advance fixing of refunds is a measure which enables these various objectives to be met.

(6)

In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1676/2004 of 24 September 2004 adopting autonomous and transitional measures concerning the importation of certain processed agricultural products originating in Bulgaria and the exportation of certain processed agricultural products to Bulgaria (3) with effect from 1 October 2004, processed agricultural products not listed in Annex I to the Treaty which are exported to Bulgaria are not eligible for export refunds.

(7)

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

21.1.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/45

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1757/2004 (2).

(2)

In accordance with Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), the Commission may, on the basis of the tenders notified, decide to fix a maximum export refund taking account of the criteria referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95. In that case a contract is awarded to any tenderer whose bid is equal to or lower than the maximum refund.

(3)

The application of the abovementioned criteria to the current market situation for the cereal in question results in the maximum export refund being fixed.

(4)

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

21.1.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/46

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of oats produced in Finland and Sweden for export from Finland and Sweden to all third countries, with the exception of Bulgaria, Norway, Romania and Switzerland was opened pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1565/2004.

(2)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed.

(3)

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

21.1.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/47

(1)

An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction from third countries in the duty on sorghum imported into Spain was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2275/2004 (2).

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 (3), allows the Commission to decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 and on the basis of the tenders notified to make no award.

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 a maximum reduction in the duty should not be fixed.

(4)

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

21.1.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/48

(1)

An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported into Spain from third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2277/2004 (2).

(2)

Pursuant to Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 (3) the Commission, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003, may decide to fix maximum reduction in the import duty. In fixing this maximum the criteria provided for in Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 must be taken into account. A contract is awarded to any tenderer whose tender is equal to or less than the maximum reduction in the duty.

(3)

The application of the abovementioned criteria to the current market situation for the cereal in question results in the maximum reduction in the import duty being fixed at the amount specified in Article 1.

(4)

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

21.1.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/49

(1)

An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported into Portugal from third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2276/2004 (2).

(2)

Pursuant to Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 (3), the Commission, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003, may decide to fix maximum reduction in the import duty. In fixing this maximum the criteria provided for in Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 must be taken into account. A contract is awarded to any tenderer whose tender is equal to or less than the maximum reduction in the duty.

(3)

The application of the abovementioned criteria to the current market situation for the cereal in question results in the maximum reduction in the import duty being fixed at the amount specified in Article 1.

(4)

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

21.1.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/50

(1)

Commission Directive 2001/22/EC of 8 March 2001 lays down the sampling methods and the methods of analysis for the official control of the levels of lead, cadmium, mercury and 3-MCPD in foodstuffs (2).

(2)

It is necessary to include updated standard information for contaminants in food, in particular to take into account the measurement uncertainty for analysis.

(3)

It is of major importance that analytical results are reported and interpreted in a uniform way in order to ensure a harmonised enforcement approach across the European Union.

(4)

Directive 2001/22/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(5)

The measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

21.1.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/53

(1)

On 16 October 2001, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate with the Principality of Monaco an agreement for securing the adoption by that State of measures equivalent to those to be applied within the Community to ensure effective taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments.

(2)

The text of the Agreement which is the result of the negotiations duly reflects the negotiating directives issued by the Council. It is accompanied by a Memorandum of Understanding between the European Community and the Principality of Monaco.

(3)

Subject to the adoption at a later date of a Decision on the conclusion of the Agreement, it is desirable to sign the two documents that were initialled on 1 July 2004 and have confirmation of the Council approval of the Memorandum of Understanding,