29.4.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 116/1

(1)

Following an expiry review, by Regulation (EC) No 964/2003 (2) (the original Regulation), the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duties of 58,6 % on imports of tube or pipe fittings (other than cast fittings, flanges and threaded fittings) of iron or steel (not including stainless steel) with a greatest external diameter not exceeding 609,6 mm, of a kind used for butt-welding or other purposes (tube or pipe fittings or the product concerned), originating, inter alia, in the People's Republic of China (the PRC) and extended the measures to imports of the same fittings consigned from Taiwan, with the exception of those produced by three specific Taiwanese companies.

(2)

In December 2004, by Regulations (EC) No 2052/2004 and No 2053/2004, the Council extended the above-mentioned definitive anti-dumping duties to imports of the same tube or pipe fittings consigned from Indonesia (3) and Sri Lanka (4) respectively.

(3)

On 23 June 2005, the Commission received a request pursuant to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation to investigate the alleged circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of tube or pipe fittings originating in the PRC by means of the transhipment and incorrect declaration of origin via the Philippines. The request was submitted by the Defence Committee of the Steel Butt-Welding Fittings Industry of the European Union on behalf of four Community producers, representing a major proportion of the Community production of certain tube and pipe fittings.

(4)

The request alleged and submitted sufficient prima facie evidence that there had been a change in the pattern of trade following the imposition of the anti-dumping measures on imports of tube or pipe fittings originating in the PRC, as shown by a significant increase in imports of the same product from the Philippines.

(5)

This change in the pattern of trade was alleged to stem from the transhipment of tube or pipe fittings originating in the PRC via the Philippines. It was further alleged that there was insufficient due cause or economic justification for these practices other than the existence of the anti-dumping duties on tube or pipe fittings originating in the PRC.

(6)

Finally, the applicant alleged and submitted prima facie evidence showing that the remedial effects of the existing anti-dumping duties on tube or pipe fittings originating in the PRC were being undermined both in terms of quantities and prices and that dumping was taking place in relation to the normal values previously established for the tube or pipe fittings originating in the PRC.

(7)

By Regulation (EC) No 1288/2005 (5) (the initiating Regulation), the Commission initiated an investigation into the alleged circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of tube or pipe fittings originating in the PRC by imports of tube or pipe fittings consigned from the Philippines, whether declared as originating in the Philippines or not and, pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, directed the customs authorities to register imports into the Community of tube or pipe fittings consigned from the Philippines, whether declared as originating in the Philippines or not, as from 6 August 2005.

(8)

The Commission officially advised the authorities of the PRC and of the Philippines, the producers/exporters and the importers in the Community known to be concerned as well as the Community industry of the initiation of the investigation. Questionnaires were sent to producers/exporters in the PRC and in the Philippines as well as to importers in the Community named in the request or known to the Commission from the investigation which lead to the imposition of the existing measures on imports of tube or pipe fittings originating in the PRC (the original investigation). Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the initiating Regulation. All parties were informed that non-cooperation might lead to the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation and to findings being made on the basis of facts available.

(9)

No questionnaire replies were received from exporters/producers in the Philippines, even though the authorities of the Philippines had contacted several companies possibly involved in producing tube or pipe fittings. Moreover, no questionnaire replies were received from exporters/producers in the PRC.

(10)

Two importers in the Community cooperated and submitted replies to the questionnaire.

(11)

Verification visits took place at the premises of the following companies:

Importers

(12)

The investigation period covered the period from 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005 (the IP). Data were collected from 2001 up to the end of the IP to investigate the alleged change in the pattern of trade.

(13)

As mentioned in recital 9, no producer/exporter in the PRC or the Philippines cooperated in the investigation. Three Philippine companies came forward and stated that they did not produce nor export the tube or pipe fittings as defined in the original Regulation, but only stainless steel fittings, a product which is not covered by the current investigation. Accordingly, findings in respect of tube or pipe fittings consigned from the Philippines to the Community had partially to be based on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.

(14)

The product concerned by the alleged circumvention is, as defined in the original investigation, tube or pipe fittings (other than cast fittings, flanges and threaded fittings) of iron or steel (not including stainless steel), with a greatest external diameter not exceeding 609,6 mm, of a kind used for butt-welding or other purposes, currently classifiable within CN codes ex 7307 93 11 (TARIC code 7307931195), ex 7307 93 19 (TARIC code 7307931995), ex 7307 99 30 (TARIC code 7307993095) and ex 7307 99 90 (TARIC code 7307999095), originating in the PRC.

(15)

On the basis of the information available and the data supplied by the Philippine authorities and considering the change in the pattern of trade as described in the following section, it must be inferred, in the absence of any contrary evidence, that the tube or pipe fittings exported to the Community from the PRC and those consigned from the Philippines to the Community have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and have the same uses. They are therefore to be considered as like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

(16)

Due to the non-cooperation of any Philippine company, the volume and the value of exports of the like product from the Philippines to the Community had to be established on the basis of the facts available pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation. Eurostat data were the most appropriate information available and were therefore used to establish the export quantities and prices from the Philippines to the Community.

Imports into the Community

(17)

As this table shows, imports of tube or pipe fittings from the Philippines into the Community increased from 0 tonnes in 2001 to almost 3 000 tonnes during the IP. The imports from the Philippines commenced in 2002, at a time when the original investigation was ongoing. In 2003, however the imports from the Philippines increased significantly to 700 tonnes. In 2004, imports from the Philippines to the Community more than tripled to 2 445 tonnes. It should be noted that following the extension of the original anti-dumping measures to imports of the like product consigned from Indonesia and Sri Lanka in December 2004, imports from these countries came to a complete stop. This complete halt of imports from Indonesia and Sri Lanka to the Community in 2004 coincided with the most substantial increase of imports from the Philippines.

(18)

At the same time, exports from the PRC to the Philippines remained at a low but stable level.

Exports from the PRC to the Philippines

(19)

It must be noted, however, that the data used to establish the change in the pattern of trade, with special regard to those relating to exports from the PRC to the Philippines, should be seen in the light of the likelihood of false declarations of origin (see recital 22) and might therefore not give a complete picture of the situation.

(20)

From the figures shown above, it is concluded that there has been a clear change in the pattern of trade which started after the conclusion of the original investigation and became apparent after the extension of the measures to imports of the like product from Indonesia and Sri Lanka. The pattern consisted of a sharp increase of imports of tube or pipe fittings from the Philippines into the Community, especially in 2004 and the IP, coinciding with a stop of imports from the two countries to which the original measures were extended.

(21)

It is clear from the above that due to the coincidence in time the Chinese exports transhipped via Indonesia and Sri Lanka have been redirected at least partly via the Philippines when the original anti-dumping measures were extended to imports from Indonesia and Sri Lanka. This was the case in particular during the year 2004 and during the IP.

(22)

As already mentioned in recital 9, no Philippine producer/exporter cooperated in the investigation. Indeed, no evidence has been found during the investigation that any such producer would actually exist. Moreover, evidence collected during the investigation shows that tubes or pipe fittings have been in some cases declared as produced by Philippine companies that have submitted never having been involved in the manufacturing of the like product. This is corroborated by the information contained in the request for the initiation of anti-circumvention investigation, e.g. offers to potential importers containing the proposal of falsifying the documents of origin.

(23)

From the information referred to in recitals 17 and 20, it can be concluded that exports of tubes or pipes fittings produced in the PRC and channelled to the Community through Indonesia and Sri Lanka during the years 2002 until 2004 have been redirected to a large extent via the Philippines, starting in the year 2003 and continuing until the end of IP.

(24)

Moreover, although the volume of imports of the product concerned from the PRC to the Philippines did by far not reach the increase of imports consigned from the Philippines to the Community (see recital 18), the steep increase of exports from the Philippines to the Community also has to be seen in the light of the evidence found concerning false declarations or falsification of certificates of origin (see recital 22), the lack of genuine Philippine producers of tube or pipe fittings and the decrease of exports from Sri Lanka and Indonesia to the Community. It is the totality of these elements which explain the absence of an economic justification for the change in the pattern of trade observed.

(25)

In the absence of cooperation by any exporting producer in the Philippines and the PRC and of any contrary evidence, it is therefore concluded that, given the coincidence in time with the investigations which lead to the extension of the original measures to imports from Indonesia and Sri Lanka, the change in the pattern of trade stemmed from the existence of the anti-dumping duty rather than from any other sufficient due cause or economic justification within the meaning of Article 13(1), third sentence of the basic Regulation.

(26)

Based on the trade flow analysis made in recital 17, a clear quantitative change in the pattern of Community imports of tube or pipe fittings occurred. Imports declared as originating in the Philippines were negligible on the Community market until June 2003. After the said date imports declared as originating in the Philippines suddenly emerged and increased rapidly to 2 941 tonnes during the IP. This volume represents 3 % of the Community consumption calculated on production figures submitted by the applicants and imports based on Eurostat data. It is therefore clear that the marked change in trade flows undermined the remedial effects of the anti-dumping measures in terms of the quantities imported into the Community market.

(27)

With regard to prices of the products consigned from the Philippines and in the absence of cooperation and of any contrary evidence, Eurostat data show that average export prices of imports from the Philippines during the IP were lower than the average export prices established for the PRC in the original investigation. It has been established that prices of imports from the Philippines are around one third lower than those of imports originating in the PRC both during 2004 and the IP. Moreover, it was found that the average export prices of the Philippine exports to the Community were below the injury elimination level of Community prices as established in the original investigation. Hence, the remedial effects of the anti-dumping duty imposed are undermined in terms of prices. Detailed information can be found in the table below:

(28)

On the basis of the above, it is concluded that the change in trade flows, together with the substantial increase in imports made at very low prices from the Philippines have undermined the remedial effects of the anti-dumping measures in terms of both quantities and prices of the like product.

(29)

In order to determine whether evidence of dumping could be found with respect to the product concerned exported to the Community from the Philippines during the IP, export prices established on the basis of Eurostat data were used pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation.

(30)

In accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, these export prices were compared with the normal value previously established for the like product. In the original investigation, Thailand was found to be an appropriate market economy analogue country for the PRC for the purpose of establishing normal value.

(31)

For the purpose of a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance, in the form of adjustments, was made for differences which affect prices and price comparability. These adjustments were made in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation in respect of transport costs, on the basis of the information contained in the request.

(32)

In accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the comparison of a weighted average normal value as established in the original investigation and the weighted average of export prices during this investigation’s IP, expressed as a percentage of the cif price at the Community frontier, duty unpaid, showed dumping for the imports of tube or pipe fittings consigned from the Philippines. The dumping margin found, expressed as a percentage of the cif price at the Community frontier, duty unpaid, was in excess of 60 %.

(33)

In view of the above finding of circumvention within the meaning of Article 13(1), third sentence of the basic Regulation and in accordance with Article 13(1), first sentence of the basic Regulation, the existing anti-dumping measures on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC should be extended to imports of the same product consigned from the Philippines, whether declared as originating in the Philippines or not.

(34)

The duty extended should be the one established in Article 1(2) of the original Regulation.

(35)

In accordance with Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, which provides that any extended measures shall be applied on registered imports from the date of registration, the anti-dumping duty should be collected on imports of tube or pipe fittings consigned from the Philippines which entered the Community under registration imposed by the initiating Regulation.

(36)

Although during this investigation no genuine exporting producer of tube or pipe fittings was found to exist in the Philippines or made itself known to the Commission, new exporting producers which would consider lodging a request for an exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty pursuant to Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation will be required to complete a questionnaire in order to enable the Commission to determine whether an exemption may be warranted. Such exemption may be granted after the assessment of, for instance, the market situation of the product concerned, production capacity and capacity utilisation, procurement and sales, the likelihood of continuation of practices for which there is insufficient due cause or economic justification and the evidence of dumping. The Commission would normally also carry out an on-the-spot verification visit. The request would have to be addressed to the Commission forthwith, with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company's activities linked to production and sales.

(37)

Importers could still benefit from exemption for registration or measures to the extent that their imports are from exporting producers, which are granted such an exemption, and in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation.

(38)

Where an exemption is warranted, the Commission will, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, propose the amendment of this Regulation accordingly. Subsequently, any exemptions granted will be monitored to ensure compliance with the conditions set therein.

(39)

Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the Council intended to extend the definitive anti-dumping duty in force and were given the opportunity to comment. No comments which were of a nature to change the above-mentioned conclusions were received,

European Commission

Directorate-General for Trade

Directorate B

J-79 5/16

B-1049 Brussels

Fax (32 2) 295 65 05

29.4.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 116/7

(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,

29.4.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 116/9

(1)

Decision 98/256/EC is preserved as a transitional measure by Annex XI to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001.

(2)

Decision 98/256/EC prohibits the export from the United Kingdom of live cattle and of products derived from cattle slaughtered in the United Kingdom which are liable to enter the food or feed chain or which are destined for use in cosmetics or medical or pharmaceutical products. Some derogation is provided, notably for the export of beef and beef products under the date-based export scheme (DBES).

(3)

The two conditions to be met before the possible lifting of the United Kingdom embargo could be envisaged, were an incidence of less than 200 BSE cases per million adult bovine animals and a positive conclusion from the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) inspection as to the enforcement of BSE controls in the United Kingdom, and its state of preparedness to comply with Community legislation particularly in relation to identification and registration of bovine animals and testing.

(4)

At its General Session in May 2003, the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) altered the criteria defining the limit between moderate risk (category 4) and high risk (category 5) countries. The limit was set at 200 BSE cases per million adult animals in the population, for countries carrying out active surveillance.

(5)

In June 2003, on the basis that BSE incidence in the United Kingdom was now approaching the figure of 200, and that for this reason it should no longer be considered an OIE high risk country, the United Kingdom asked to be allowed to trade under the same rules as other Member States. In support of this claim, the United Kingdom submitted documentation including estimates of an absolute incidence based on the results of the partial testing regime in force in the United Kingdom.

(6)

The opinion of the Scientific Panel on biological hazards of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of 21 April 2004 on the scientific justification for proposing amendments to the United Kingdom date-based export scheme (DBES) and to the Over Thirty Months (OTM) rule concludes that cattle born or reared in the United Kingdom before 1 August 1996 should be kept out of the food and feed chains, because of the higher BSE incidence in that group. For cattle born after that date, the opinion concludes that the BSE risk to consumers is in a range comparable with that in other Member States. From 1 August 1996, all mammalian meat and bone meal was banned from feed to all farmed animals in the United Kingdom.

(7)

On 12 May 2004, the EFSA published its opinion on the moderate risk status. That opinion indicates that the incidence in the United Kingdom should fall below 200 between July and December 2004. At its plenary meeting on 9 and 10 March 2005, the EFSA concluded that the surveillance data from the second half of 2004 confirmed the conclusions of its opinion of May 2004 and that according to the OIE classification the United Kingdom can be considered a country with a moderate risk status in terms of BSE for its whole cattle population.

(8)

On 19 July 2004, the FVO published the report of a mission to Great Britain and Northern Ireland from 26 April to 7 May 2004 concerning a general review as regards protective measures against BSE. The report concluded that the system in place in Northern Ireland was largely satisfactory but shortcomings were noted in various areas in Great Britain which would require further improvements.

(9)

On 28 September 2005, the FVO published the report of a mission to Great Britain from 6 to 15 June 2005 concerning protective measures against BSE. The follow-up mission concluded that satisfactory progress was noted in most areas.

(10)

On 7 November 2005, the United Kingdom replaced the OTM rule by the pre-1996 rule. Bovine animals born before 1 August 1996 will be permanently excluded from the food and feed chain. Since October 2004, the United Kingdom applies the same monitoring programme as the other Member States for the bovine population born after 31 July 1996. The current monitoring programme applicable to the animals under the previous destruction scheme provided for pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 716/96 of 19 April 1996 adopting exceptional support measures for the beef market in the United Kingdom (5) should be amended.

(11)

In view of the moderate risk status of the cattle population and the favourable FVO mission reports, the BSE related restrictions on the trade of bovine animals and their products may be lifted.

(12)

The conditions for the lifting of the embargo were fully fulfilled on 15 June 2005, the date of the end of the FVO mission to Great Britain. Therefore the effect of this Regulation on meat and other products derived from slaughtered animals should be limited to meat and products derived from animals slaughtered after that date.

(13)

Decision 98/256/EC should, therefore, be repealed and the rules as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 should become fully applicable.

(14)

Pursuant to Commission Decision 2005/598/EC (6), the United Kingdom is prohibited from placing on the market products derived from bovine animals born or reared within the United Kingdom before 1 August 1996. Similarly, the United Kingdom should ensure that bovine animals born or reared in the United Kingdom before 1 August 1996 are not dispatched from its territory to other Member States or third countries.

(15)

Under Regulation (EC) No 999/2001, the vertebral column of bovine animals over the age of 24 months is considered as specified risk material. The United Kingdom benefits from a derogation allowing the use of vertebral column derived from bovine animals under the age of 30 months. In addition, that Regulation establishes for the United Kingdom an extended list of specified risk material.

(16)

Following the lifting of the current restrictions, the age limit for the removal of the vertebral column of bovine animals and the list of specified risk materials applicable in the other Member States should also apply in the United Kingdom. Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 should be amended accordingly.

(17)

In view of the current difference of the age limit for the removal of vertebral column as specified risk material in the United Kingdom and the other Member States, for control reasons the immediate effects of this Regulation should not apply to vertebral column from bovine animals born or reared in the United Kingdom after 31 July 1996 and slaughtered before the coming into force of this Regulation. Such vertebral column and products derived from such vertebral column should not be dispatched from the United Kingdom to other Member States or third countries.

(18)

In the interest of clarity and the coherence of Community legislation, Commission Decision 98/351/EC of 29 May 1998 setting the date on which dispatch from Northern Ireland of bovine products under the Export Certified Herds Scheme may commence by virtue of Article 6(5) of Council Decision 98/256/EC (7) and Commission Decision 1999/514/EC of 23 July 1999 setting the date on which dispatch from the United Kingdom of bovine products under the date-based export scheme may commence by virtue of Article 6(5) of Council Decision 98/256/EC (8) should be repealed.

(19)

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

29.4.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 116/14

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (2) introduces the implementing rules for the single payment scheme as from 2005.

(2)

Experience of the administrative and operational implementation of that scheme at national level has shown that in certain respects further detailed rules are needed and in other respects the existing rules need to be clarified and adapted.

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 as amended by Regulation (EC) No 319/2006 defines the rules for the de-coupled support and the integration of the support for sugar beet, cane and chicory into the single payment scheme. The related detailed rules should therefore be adopted. Those detailed rules should follow the same lines as those already laid down in Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 with regard to olive oil, tobacco, cotton and hops.

(4)

The application of Article 42 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 to all sectors included in the single payment scheme after the first year of application may lead to the situation that the amounts that remain in the national reserve after allocation of reference amounts from that national reserve in the cases provided for in that Article are not needed anymore to cover any further cases. In that case the Member States should be authorised to increase proportionally the unit value of all payment entitlements.

(5)

Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 provides for the detailed rules for farmers who made investments in production capacity or who leased parcels on a long-term basis. Those provisions need to be adapted in order to take into account the special situation of farmers in the sugar sector who made such investments or entered into such long-term lease-contracts before the entry into force of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (3).

(6)

Experience shows that there is a need for clarification of the dates at which a farmer applying for aid under the single payment scheme has to hold the payment entitlements.

(7)

The rules in case of transfers of payment entitlements should be clarified in order to enable a transfer to take place on the date foreseen in the communication of the transfer to the competent authority, unless the competent authority objects to the transfer and notifies the transferor thereof within the time period established by the Member State.

(8)

Article 48c of Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 needs to be adapted in respect of Member States which already started to apply the single payment scheme in 2005.

(9)

The integration of the sugar reference amounts into the single payment scheme was decided by Council Regulation (EC) No 319/2006 of 20 February 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers. Member States therefore only have very short time-limits to take the necessary steps to comply with that integration. Measures should be taken to ensure a smooth transition from the old sugar-related schemes to the integration into the single payment scheme. In particular, it should be ensured that farmers may make use of their rights within reasonable time-limits. Where that possibility is at jeopardy, Member States should have to provide for a prolongation of the application time-limits fixed in Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003.

(10)

In order to avoid that the sugar sector is submitted to a second linear percentage reduction of the reference amounts in case of overshoot of the national ceilings referred to in Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, it is appropriate to clarify the application of Article 41(2) of that Regulation.

(11)

In accordance with Article 42(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, the national reserve has to be replenished by a linear reduction of all the reference amounts. Rules need to be established to clarify how Member States who already applied the single payment scheme in 2005 have to proceed with regard to the integration of the reference amount for sugar beet, cane and chicory into the replenishment of the national reserve.

(12)

The specific rules provided for in Article 48d of Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 need to be extended to include sugar beet, cane and chicory support.

(13)

A further time-limit concerning the dates provided for in Article 49a of Regulation (EC) No 795/2004, by which Member States have to communicate certain information to the Commission, needs to be granted with regard to the integration of sugar beet, cane and chicory support.

(14)

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 fixes the date from which the growing of secondary crops may be temporarily allowed in regions where cereals are usually harvested sooner for climatic reasons as referred to in Article 51(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. At the request of Greece, that date should be fixed for that Member State.

(15)

Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 fixed the average number of hectares referred to in Article 60(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 on the basis of the data communicated to the Commission by the Member States concerned. Finland has communicated the relevant data. It is therefore appropriate to fix also the number of hectares for that Member State.

(16)

Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(17)

Due to the fact that the transfer of entitlements may start as from 1 January 2006, it is appropriate to provide that this Regulation applies retroactively from that date.

(18)

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

1.

in Article 4, the following paragraph is added:

‘3.   In the case where the amounts contained in the national reserve show to be higher than what is needed to cover the cases referred to in Article 42 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, the Member States may increase proportionally the unit value of all payment entitlements. The total amount used for this increase shall not be higher than the total amount resulting from the linear reduction applied in accordance with Article 42(1) and (7) of that Regulation.’;

2.

Article 21 is amended as follows:

3.

in Article 24, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

‘1.   Payment entitlements may only be declared for payment once per year by the farmer who holds them at the latest date for lodging the single application in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004.

However, where a farmer makes use of the possibility to amend the single application in accordance with Article 15 of that Regulation, he may also declare payment entitlements which he holds at the date of his notification of the amendments to the competent authority provided that the payment entitlements concerned are not declared by another farmer in respect of the same year.

Where the farmer acquires the payment entitlements concerned by way of a transfer from another farmer and where that other farmer had already declared those payment entitlements, the additional declaration of those payment entitlements shall only be admissible if the transferor has already informed the competent authority of the transfer in accordance with Article 25(2) of this Regulation and withdraws those payment entitlements from his own single application, within the time-limits set out in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004.’;

4.

in Article 25, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

‘3.   A Member State may require that the transferor shall communicate the transfer to the competent authority of the Member State where the transfer will operate, within a time period to be established by that Member State but not earlier than six weeks before the transfer takes place and taking into account the last date for lodging an application under the single payment scheme. The transfer shall take place as foreseen in the communication unless the competent authority objects to the transfer and notifies the transferor thereof within that time period. The competent authority may only object to a transfer where the latter is not in accordance with provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and of this Regulation.’;

5.

the title of Chapter 6b is replaced by the following:

6.

Article 48c is amended as follows:

7.

Article 48d is amended as follows:

8.

Article 48e is amended as follows:

9.

Article 49a is amended as follows:

10.

Annexes I and II are replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.

29.4.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 116/20

(1)

Following the introduction of the support scheme for sugar into the single payment scheme, Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 (2) needs to be amended in several respects, in particular with regard to the application procedure and the control measures to be carried out with regard to that aid scheme. Moreover, the provisions of that Regulation need to be clarified with regard to certain aspects.

(2)

The application of certain provisions of the detailed rules of the integrated system set out in Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 to the schemes established in Article 143b and Article 143c of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 is provided for in Articles 136 and 140(1) respectively of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 of 29 October 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 as regards the support schemes provided for in Titles IV and IVa of that Regulation and the use of land set aside for the production of raw materials (3). Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 should be clarified to that extent.

(3)

A number of references to other Regulations are obsolete and should be updated with the relevant reference.

(4)

Any specific information relating to the production of sugar should be requested as part of the single application.

(5)

In accordance with Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 the Member States may derogate from certain provisions concerning the single application during the first year of application of the single payment scheme or when a new element is introduced to the single application scheme. That derogation should also include the possibility to change the use or aid scheme in respect of individual parcels.

(6)

The integration of the sugar reference amounts into the single payment scheme following the reform in the sugar sector, as provided for by Council Regulation (EC) No 319/2006 of 20 February 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (4), requires flexibility concerning possible additions and amendments to the single application in the case where a Member State applies Article 48c(8) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (5) during the year 2006. Such additions and amendments should therefore be allowed until 15 June 2006. However, the dates for the submission of the single application as provided for in Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 should be maintained in order to allow the Member States to organise their respective control programmes in due time.

(7)

Chapter 10e of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 provides for a transitional sugar payment in the Member States applying Article 71 of that Regulation. Article 143ba of that Regulation provides for a separate sugar payment in Member States applying the single area payment scheme provided for in Article 143b of that Regulation. Both the transitional sugar payment and the separate sugar payment are, due to their nature, not related to agricultural area, which is why the provisions concerning the single application pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 do not apply to these payment schemes. Provision should therefore be made for an appropriate application procedure.

(8)

In the case where new sectors are being included in the single payment scheme, it should be provided for that the rules in Article 21a of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 concerning late submissions of applications to the single payment scheme should also apply in the case of applications of farmers concerning such new sectors.

(9)

The cross-checks to be carried out on the single application should be extended to certain particular checks with regard to various conditions concerning the information provided by the sugar manufacturers.

(10)

Given the particularities of the aid scheme for sugar provided for in Chapters 10f of Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, special control provisions should be established.

(11)

In the case where the competent authority increases the number of on-the-spot checks, it should also be possible to increase the percentage of farmers randomly selected for those checks.

(12)

In the case where a farmer declared more area than payment entitlements, Article 50(2) of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 provides that the basis for the calculation for the aid is the amount of hectares accompanied by payment entitlements. In cases where the area declared fulfils all other eligibility requirements, there is no need for the application of reductions or exclusions in accordance with Articles 51 or 53 of that Regulation. These provisions should therefore be clarified to that extent.

(13)

The rules concerning reductions to be applied by way of off-setting against payments the following three years are only possible, in the case of livestock payments, within the same aid scheme as where the irregularity has occurred. This is contrary to the area-related schemes where the off-set can be made to any payment covered by Titles III and IV of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. The rules for the different aid schemes should be harmonised.

(14)

Transitional rules concerning cases where reductions to be applied by way of off-setting against payments the following three years do only cover decisions taken concerning applications for the year 2004. Given that the livestock payments, after the introduction of the single payment scheme, are incorporated in that scheme, an off-set should be possible against that aid scheme.

(15)

The introduction of new aid schemes into the single payment scheme requires an updating of the references to the budgetary ceilings referred to in Article 71a of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004.

(16)

When the single payment scheme and the single application were introduced, the latest date for area-based payments and animal-based payments was harmonised. Therefore it is appropriate to also harmonise the latest date for the Member States to communicate information concerning those payments.

(17)

Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(18)

The amendments provided for in this Reglulation concern aid applications relating to years or premium periods starting as of 1 January 2006. This Regulation should therefore apply as of 1 January 2006.

(19)

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

1.

Article 2 is amended as follows:

2.

Article 13 is amended as follows:

3.

Article 14 is amended as follows:

4.

Article 15 is amended as follows:

5.

in Article 16(1), point (f) is replaced by the following:

6.

the following Chapter is inserted after Article 17:

‘CHAPTER IIIA

SUGAR PAYMENT AND SEPARATE SUGAR PAYMENT

Article 17a

Requirements pertaining to aid applications for the sugar payment and the separate sugar payment

1.   Farmers applying for the sugar payment provided for in Chapter 10e of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and farmers applying for the separate sugar payment provided for in Article 143ba of that Regulation shall submit an aid application containing all information necessary to establish eligibility for the aid, and in particular:

2.   The aid application for the sugar payment or the separate sugar payment respectively shall be submitted by a date to be determined by the Member States which shall not be later than 15 May and, in the case of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, 15 June.

However, in respect of the year 2006, the date referred to in the first subparagraph shall not be later than 30 June 2006 for the submission of aid applications for the separate sugar payment in accordance with Article 143ba of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003.’;

7.

in Article 21a, the following paragraph is added:

‘3.   Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall also apply in the first year of the inclusion of new sectors into the single payment scheme in respect of applications of farmers concerning their participation in such sectors.’;

8.

in Article 24(1), the following point is added:

9.

Article 26 is amended as follows:

10.

in Article 27(1) the following subparagraph is added:

‘However, if the number of farmers to be subjected to on-the-spot checks exceeds the minimum number of farmers to be subjected to on-the-spot checks as provided for in Article 26(1) and (2), the percentage of randomly selected farmers in the additional sample should not exceed 25 %.’;

11.

the following Article is inserted after Article 31a:

‘Article 31b

On-the-spot checks on sugar manufacturers

On-the-spot checks on sugar manufacturers in the framework of applications for sugar beet aid for sugar beet and cane producers provided for in Chapter 10f of Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 shall verify:

12.

Article 32 is amended as follows:

13.

in Article 36(1), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:

‘The on-the-spot checks in slaughterhouses shall comprise a posteriori scrutiny of documents, a comparison with the entries in the computerised database for bovine animals and checks of summaries relating to the slaughter certificates or information in place thereof, which were sent to other Member States in accordance with Article 121(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004.’;

14.

in Article 45(3), the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:

‘By way of derogation from paragraph 2, the competent authority may, with regard to the requirements or standards for which it is responsible, select a control sample of 1 % of all farmers submitting aid applications under support schemes established in Titles III, IV and IVa of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and who are under the obligation to respect at least one of the requirements or standards.’;

15.

in Article 50, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

‘(2)   With regard to an application for aid under the single payment scheme, if there is a discrepancy between the payment entitlements declared and the area declared, the calculation of the payment shall be based on the lower size.’;

16.

Article 51 is amended as follows:

17.

Article 53 is amended as follows:

18.

Article 59 is amended as follows:

19.

Article 60 is amended as follows:

20.

in Article 62, the first sentence is replaced by the following:

‘As regards the declarations or certificates issued by slaughterhouses in connection with the slaughter premium provided for in Article 121 of Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004, if it is found that the slaughterhouse made a false certification or declaration as a result of serious negligence or intentionally, the Member State concerned shall apply appropriate national sanctions.’;

21.

in the second paragraph of Article 64, the third sentence is replaced by the following:

‘An amount equal to the amount covered by the refused application shall be off-set against aid payments under any of the aid schemes established in Titles III, IV and IVa of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 to which the person is entitled in the context of applications he lodges in the course of the calendar year following the calendar year of the finding.’;

22.

in Article 71a(2)(d), the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:

‘With regard to aid schemes listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 for which a budgetary ceiling is fixed in accordance with Articles 64(2), 70(2), 71(2), 110p(1), 143b(7) and 143ba(2) of that Regulation, the Member State shall sum up the amounts resulting from the application of points (a), (b) and (c).’;

23.

in Article 73(2), the first sentence is replaced by the following:

‘Member States may decide that recovery of an undue payment is to be made by deduction of the corresponding amount from any advances or payments under aid schemes referred to in Titles III, IV and IVa of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 made to the farmer concerned following the date of the decision to recover.’;

24.

Article 76(1) is amended as follows:

25.

in Article 80(1), the following subparagraph is added:

‘When a Member State introduces the single payment scheme after 2005, in cases where reductions to be applied by way of off-setting in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 59(2) and the second subparagraph of Article 59(4) could not yet fully be off-set before the date of application of the single payment scheme, the outstanding balance shall be off-set against payments under any of the aid schemes falling under this Regulation, provided the time-limits for the off-setting stipulated in those provisions have not yet expired.’

29.4.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 116/27

(1)

Member States should provide the Commission with the available data related to the application of the aid for starch potato provided for in Article 93 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and the aid for sugar beet and cane producers provided for in Chapter 10f of Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. Article 3(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 (2) should be amended accordingly.

(2)

Article 90 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 as amended by Regulation (EC) No 319/2006, provides for the possibility to grant aid for energy crops in respect of areas whose production is covered by a contract between the farmer and the collector. Implementing rules on the aid for energy crops set out in Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 should be adapted accordingly.

(3)

Article 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 provides that energy products have to be obtained at the most by a second successive processor. However, as far as the non-food on the set-aside scheme is concerned, Article 156 of that Regulation provides that non-food products shall be produced at the most by a third successive processor. Experience after two years of implementation of the energy crops scheme shows that it is appropriate to align the two schemes introducing the third successive processor also in the energy crops scheme. Articles 33, 37 and 38 of Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 should, therefore, be adapted accordingly.

(4)

Provision should be made to determine the detailed rules of the integrated administration and control system set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (3) to be applied as regards the separate sugar payment scheme established under Article 143ba of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003.

(5)

One of the aims of the reform in the sugar sector, as provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (4), is to enhance the market-orientation of the Community sugar sector. Therefore, in order to increase the outlets for the products in this sector, it is appropriate to consider sugar beet, Jerusalem artichokes and chicory roots eligible for the aid for energy crops scheme and to accept the cultivation of those crops, for purposes other than sugar production, on land eligible to receive set-aside entitlements.

(6)

Article 171cm(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 prevents the farmers from lodging an application for an advance on tobacco aid once they have begun making deliveries. That provision does not allow for applications to be lodged in the case of producers of early tobacco varieties. It is therefore appropriate to remove that provision.

(7)

In application of Article 71(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, Slovenia decided to apply the single payment scheme in 2007. The third subparagraph of Article 71(1) of that Regulation provides that the transitional period shall apply only until 31 December 2005 in respect of hops. Slovenia would therefore be obliged to implement the single payment scheme only for that sector and integrate all the other sectors in 2007. In order to facilitate the transition towards the single payment scheme, Article 48a(11) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (5), provides for the continuation of the applicability of the previous hops regime in Slovenia until 31 December 2006 and therefore to proceed to the implementation of the single payment scheme for all sectors concerned in 2007. It is, therefore, appropriate to align the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 with those contained in Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 and, thus, to provide for the applicability, in Slovenia until 31 December 2006, of the implementing rules provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 609/1999 of 19 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for granting aid to hop producers (6).

(8)

Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 71 of Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004, Spain has proposed an amendment of Annex X to that Regulation with a view to adding the less-favoured areas in the provinces of Coruña and Lugo situated in the Autonomous Region of Galicia and provided the Commission with a detailed justification of this proposal which indicates that the criteria referred to in Article 113(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 are fulfilled. Taking account of this justification, Annex X to Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 should be amended in order to insert the areas in question.

(9)

Annex II to Commission Decision C(2004) 1439/3 of 29 April 2004 concerning the minimum size of eligible area per holding, the agricultural area under the single area payment scheme and the annual financial envelope in respect of the year 2004 for the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, sets out the agricultural area under the single area payment scheme referred to in Article 143b(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. The respective figure concerning Poland has been amended by Commission Decision C(2005) 4553 of 25 November 2005. That amount should also be reflected in Annex XXI to Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004.

(10)

Annex XXI to Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 sets the agricultural area under the single area payment scheme for Slovakia at 1 976 thousand hectares. However, the correct area to be taken into account amounts to 1 955 thousand hectares as it has been established in Annex II to Decision C(2004) 1439/3. That amount needs to be reflected in Annex XXI to Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004.

(11)

Following a further review in Lithuania of the estimation of the agricultural area under the single area payment scheme in accordance with Article 143b(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, Commission Decision C(2006) 1691 of 26 April 2006 increased the overall agricultural area from currently 2 288 thousand hectares to 2 574 thousand hectares. Annex XXI to Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 should be adapted accordingly.

(12)

New tobacco varieties have been introduced to the Community market, which should be included in Annex XXV to Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004.

(13)

Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(14)

Since the amendments provided for in this Regulation relate to the marketing years starting as from the year 2006, this Regulation should apply as of 1 January 2006. However, as regards the amendment of the agricultural area under the single area payment scheme in relation to Poland, this Regulation should take effect as from the year 2005 as it leads to higher payments to the applicants under that scheme.

(15)

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

1.

Article 3(c) is replaced by the following:

2.

in Article 23, the following point is added:

3.

Article 24 is amended as follows:

4.

Article 26 is amended as follows:

5.

Article 29 is amended as follows:

6.

in Article 31(2), the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:

‘The actual quantities to be delivered by the applicants to the collectors or first processors shall at least correspond to the representative yield.’;

7.

in Article 32, paragraph 1 is amended as follows:

8.

in Chapter 8, the heading of Section 6 is replaced by the following:

9.

Article 33 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 33

Number of processors

Energy products shall be obtained at the most by a third successive processor’;

10.

Article 34 is amended as follows:

11.

Article 35 is amended as follows:

12.

in Article 36(2), the introductory terms are replaced by the following:

‘The following obligations, incumbent on collectors or first processors, shall constitute subordinate requirements within the meaning of Article 20 of Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85:’;

13.

in Article 37, the first paragraph is replaced by the following:

‘Where first processors sell or transfer to second or third processors in other Member States intermediate products covered by contracts as provided for in Article 26, the products shall be accompanied by T5 control copies issued in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.

Where collectors sell or transfer to first processors established in other Member States raw materials covered by contracts, the first paragraph shall apply.’;

14.

Article 38 is amended as follows:

15.

Article 39 is amended as follows:

16.

Article 40(1) is replaced by the following:

‘1.   The competent authorities of the Member States in which collectors are located shall carry out checks on the premises of at least 25 % of the collectors established in their territory, selected on the basis of a risk analysis. Such checks shall comprise physical checks and inspections of commercial documents, with a view to verifying consistency between the purchases of raw materials and the corresponding deliveries.

1a.   The competent authorities of the Member States in which processing takes place shall check compliance with Article 24(1) at the premises of at least 25 % of the processors located in their territory, selected on the basis of a risk analysis. Such checks shall involve at least:

For the purpose of the checks referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph, the competent authorities shall base themselves in particular on the technical processing coefficients for the raw materials concerned. Where such coefficients exist for exports in Community legislation, they shall be applied. Where they do not, but other coefficients do exist in Community legislation, they shall be applied. In all other cases, inspection shall rely mainly on the coefficients generally accepted by the processing industry.’;

17.

the following Chapter is inserted after Article 142:

‘CHAPTER 15a

SEPARATE SUGAR PAYMENT

Article 142a

Application of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004

As regards the separate sugar payment established in Article 143ba of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, Articles 5, 10, 18 to 22, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71a, 72 and 73 of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 shall apply.’;

18.

in Article 143, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

‘2.   Sugarbeet, Jerusalem artichokes or chicory roots may be grown on set-aside land provided that:

19.

in Article 171cm(5), the last sentence is deleted;

20.

in Article 172(3), the following sentence is added:

‘It shall also continue to apply in Slovenia to applications for payments in respect of the 2006 harvest with regard to Regulation (EEC) No 1696/71 and until 31 December 2006 with regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/98 (8).

21.

Annex IX is amended as follows:

22.

in Annex X, point 3 is replaced by the following text:

23.

Annex XXI is amended as follows:

24.

in Annex XXIII, the last indent is replaced by the following text:

25.

Annex XXV is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.

29.4.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 116/36

(1)

Article 1(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 312/2001 (3) lays down a monthly limit for the quantity of olive oil for which import licences may be issued under the quota provided for in paragraph 1 of that Article.

(2)

The 2005/06 marketing year in the Community is marked by a low level of olive oil production, which is causing supply problems. In order to facilitate supply to the Community olive oil market, authorisation should be granted, by way of derogation from Regulation (EC) No 312/2001, for licences to be issued without a monthly limit from 1 May 2006.

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Olive Oil and Table Olives,

29.4.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 116/37

(1)

In accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1898/2005 of 9 November 2005 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/99 as regards measures for the disposal of cream, butter and concentrated butter on the Community market (2), the intervention agencies may sell by standing invitation to tender certain quantities of butter from intervention stocks that they hold and may grant aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter. Article 25 of that Regulation lays down that in the light of the tenders received in response to each individual invitation to tender a minimum selling price shall be fixed for butter and maximum aid shall be fixed for cream, butter and concentrated butter. It is further laid down that the price or aid may vary according to the intended use of the butter, its fat content and the incorporation procedure. The amount of the processing security as referred to in Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1898/2005 should be fixed accordingly.

(2)

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

29.4.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 116/39

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 343/2006 (3) establishes the list of Member States in which buying-in for butter is open, as provided for in Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999.

(2)

On the basis of most recent communications by Latvia, pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999, the Commission has observed that butter market prices have been below 92 % of the intervention price for two consecutive weeks. Intervention buying-in should therefore be opened in those Member States. Latvia should therefore be added to the list established in Regulation (EC) No 343/2006.

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 343/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly,

29.4.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 116/40

(1)

Pursuant to Article 21 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 214/2001 of 12 January 2001 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards intervention on the market in skimmed milk (2), intervention agencies have put up for sale by standing invitation to tender certain quantities of skimmed-milk powder held by them.

(2)

In the light of the tenders received in response to each individual invitation to tender a minimum selling price shall be fixed or a decision shall be taken to make no award, in accordance with Article 24a of Regulation (EC) No 214/2001.

(3)

In the light of the tenders received, a minimum selling price should be fixed.

(4)

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

29.4.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 116/41

(1)

Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 provides that the rates of duty in the Common Customs Tariff are to be charged on import of the products referred to in Article 1 of that Regulation. However, in the case of the products referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article, the import duty is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation and increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.

(2)

Pursuant to Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003, the cif import prices are calculated on the basis of the representative prices for the product in question on the world market.

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 lays down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 as regards import duties in the cereals sector.

(4)

The import duties are applicable until new duties are fixed and enter into force.

(5)

In order to allow the import duty system to function normally, the representative market rates recorded during a reference period should be used for calculating the duties.

(6)

Application of Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 results in import duties being fixed as set out in Annex I to this Regulation,

29.4.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 116/44

(1)

Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 provides that the export refund applicable to cereals on the day on which an application for an export licence is made must be applied on request to exports to be effected during the period of validity of the export licence. In this case, a corrective amount may be applied to the refund.

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules under Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (2), allows for the fixing of a corrective amount for the products listed in Article 1(a), (b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003. That corrective amount must be calculated taking account of the factors referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95.

(3)

The world market situation or the specific requirements of certain markets may make it necessary to vary the corrective amount according to destination.

(4)

The corrective amount must be fixed at the same time as the refund and according to the same procedure; it may be altered in the period between fixings.

(5)

It follows from applying the provisions set out above that the corrective amount must be as set out in the Annex hereto.

(6)

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

29.4.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 116/46

(1)

Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 provides that the difference between quotations or prices on the world market 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.

(2)

The refunds must be fixed taking into account the factors referred to in Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules under 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 (2).

(3)

The refund applicable in the case of malts must be calculated with amount taken of the quantity of cereals required to manufacture the products in question. The said quantities are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1501/95.

(4)

The world market situation or the specific requirements of certain markets may make it necessary to vary the refund for certain products according to destination.

(5)

The refund must be fixed once a month. It may be altered in the intervening period.

(6)

It follows from applying these rules to the present situation on markets in cereals, and in particular to quotations or prices for these products within the Community and on the world market, that the refunds should be as set out in the Annex hereto.

(7)

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

29.4.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 116/48

(1)

Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 provides that the export refund applicable to cereals on the day on which application for an export licence is made must be applied on request to exports to be effected during the period of validity of the export licence. In this case, a corrective amount may be applied to the refund.

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules under 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 (2) allows for the fixing of a corrective amount for the malt referred to in Article 1(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003. That corrective amount must be calculated taking account of the factors referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95.

(3)

It follows from applying the provisions set out above that the corrective amount must be as set out in the Annex hereto.

(4)

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

29.4.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 116/50

(1)

Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2681/74 of 21 October 1974 on Community financing of expenditure incurred in respect of the supply of agricultural products as food aid (3) lays down that the portion of the expenditure corresponding to the export refunds on the products in question fixed under Community rules is to be charged to the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guarantee Section.

(2)

In order to make it easier to draw up and manage the budget for Community food aid actions and to enable the Member States to know the extent of Community participation in the financing of national food aid actions, the level of the refunds granted for these actions should be determined.

(3)

The general and implementing rules provided for in Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 and in Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 on export refunds are applicable mutatis mutandis to the abovementioned operations.

(4)

The specific criteria to be used for calculating the export refund on rice are set out in Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95.

(5)

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

29.4.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 116/52

(1)

Pursuant to Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001, production refunds may be granted on the products listed in Article 1(1)(a) and (f) of that Regulation, on syrups listed in Article 1(1)(d) thereof and on chemically pure fructose covered by CN code 1702 50 00 as an intermediate product, that are in one of the situations referred to in Article 23(2) of the Treaty and are used in the manufacture of certain products of the chemical industry.

(2)

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 (2) provides that these refunds shall be determined according to the refund fixed for white sugar.

(3)

Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1265/2001 provides that the production refund on white sugar is to be fixed at monthly intervals commencing on the first day of each month.

(4)

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