6.11.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 288/1

(1)

The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 (2) as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1424/2006 (3) imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating, inter alia, in India. The measures, subject to the present reviews, consisted of an ad valorem anti-dumping duty ranging between 0 % and 18 % imposed on imports from individually named exporters, with a residual duty rate of 17,3 % imposed on imports from all other companies. The investigation that led to Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 as modified will be referred to as ‘the original investigation’.

(2)

The measures imposed on imports from India in the original investigation were extended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1975/2004 (4) to imports of PET film consigned from Brazil and from Israel, whether declared as originating in Brazil or Israel.

(3)

The Commission, by Decision 2001/645/EC (5) accepted undertakings offered by five Indian producers in connection with the original investigation. These undertakings were repealed by Decision 2006/173/EC (6).

(4)

The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1124/2007 (7) imposed a definitive countervailing duty on imports of PET film originating in India. The measures took the form of ad valorem duties ranging between 7 % and 19,1 % imposed on imports from individually named exporters, with a residual duty rate of 19,1 % imposed on imports from all other companies. The investigation that led to Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 as amended will be referred to as ‘the previous anti-subsidy investigation’.

(5)

On 23 May 2006 and 3 July 2006 respectively, a request for an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation and a request for a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, limited to the examination of dumping by Jindal Poly Films Limited (Jindal), were lodged by the following Community producers: Du Pont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film GmbH and Nuroll SpA (the applicants). The applicants represent a major proportion of the Community production of PET film.

(6)

The applicants alleged and provided sufficient prima facie evidence that: (a) there is a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the Community industry, and (b) the circumstances with regard to dumping on the basis of which measures were established for Jindal have changed and these changes are of a lasting nature.

(7)

Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed to justify the initiation of an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation and a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, the Commission announced on 22 August 2006 (8) and 25 August 2006 (9) respectively, by notices of initiation published in the Official Journal of the European Union, the initiation of such reviews.

(8)

The partial interim review was limited in scope to the examination of dumping in respect of Jindal. The review investigation period (RIP) was set for both reviews from 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006. The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of a likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 2003 to the end of the RIP (period considered).

(9)

The Commission officially advised the exporting producers, the representatives of the exporting country, the Community producers, the importers and users known to be concerned of the initiation of the expiry review. For both reviews, 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 notices of initiation.

(10)

All interested parties who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.

(11)

With respect to the expiry review, in view of the apparently large number of exporting producers of PET film in India which were named in the request, the use of sampling techniques was envisaged in the notice of initiation in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all exporting producers were asked to make themselves known and to provide, as specified in the notice of initiation, basic information on their activities related to PET film during the RIP. Six exporting producers in India indicated their willingness to cooperate. From these six exporting producers, three companies (Ester Industries Limited, Garware Polyester Limited and Jindal), were selected for the sample and received a questionnaire. These companies were found to constitute the largest representative volume of exports to the Community of PET film which could reasonably be investigated within the time available, pursuant to Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation.

(12)

In addition, the Commission sent questionnaires to all other parties known to be concerned or who made themselves known within the deadlines set in the notice of initiation. Complete replies were received from four Community producers, the three sampled exporting producers, one importer/user and four users.

(13)

The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the determination of dumping and injury as well as to determine whether there is a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury and whether maintaining the measures would be in the Community interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following interested parties:

(14)

The product concerned is the same as in the original investigation, i.e. polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India, normally declared under CN codes ex 3920 62 19 and ex 3920 62 90.

(15)

As in the original investigation, it was found that PET film produced and sold on the domestic market in India and PET film exported to the Community from India and PET film produced and sold by the Community producers have the same basic physical and technical characteristics and uses. Therefore, they are like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

(16)

In order to establish normal value, it was first verified that the total domestic sales of Jindal were representative in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, i.e. that they accounted for 5 % or more of the total sales volume of the product concerned exported to the Community.

(17)

It was then ascertained whether total domestic sales of each product type constituted 5 % or more of the sales volume of the same type exported to the Community.

(18)

For those product types where domestic sales constituted 5 % or more of the sales volume of the same type exported to the Community, it was then examined whether sufficient sales had been made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. For each product type where the volume of domestic sales made above the cost of production represented more than 80 % of sales, normal value was established on the basis of the weighted average price actually paid for all domestic sales. For those product types where the volume of profitable transactions was equal to or lower than 80 %, but not lower than 10 % of sales, normal value was based on the weighted average price actually paid for the profitable domestic sales only. For those product types where less than 10 %, by volume, was sold on the domestic market at a price not below unit cost, it was considered that the product type concerned was not sold in the ordinary course of trade and therefore, normal value had to be constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.

(19)

For the product types where domestic prices of the exporting producer could not be used to establish normal value owing to insufficient representativity or to a lack of sales in the ordinary course of trade, normal value was constructed on the basis of the manufacturing costs incurred by the exporting producer concerned plus a reasonable amount for selling, general and administrative costs (SG&A costs) and for profits, in accordance with Article 2(3) and (6) of the basic Regulation.

(20)

The SG&A costs were based on such costs incurred by the exporting producer with regard to its domestic sales of the product concerned, which were found to be representative. The profit margin was calculated on the basis of the weighted average profit margin of the company for those product types sold on the domestic market in sufficient quantities in the ordinary course of trade.

(21)

The vast majority of export sales of the product concerned to the Community during the RIP have been made to independent customers. Therefore, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation on the basis of export price actually paid or payable.

(22)

Some of the export sales have been made to a related company in the Community. The related company did not resell the goods directly but substantially transformed them, to the extent that constructing the export price of the exported product on the basis of the resale price of the transformed product pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation was found to be unworkable. The prices charged by Jindal to this related company were compared to the prices made by Jindal to its unrelated customers in the Community for the same product types during the RIP. Since it was found that these two sets of prices were in line for each product type, it was concluded that the prices charged by Jindal to its related party in the Community were reliable and could be used for calculating the export price.

(23)

The normal value and export price were compared on an ex-works basis. For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Accordingly, adjustments were made for differences in discounts, rebates, transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing, credit and commissions, where applicable and supported by verified evidence.

(24)

Jindal claimed an adjustment to the normal value for the import duty not collected under the Advance Licence Scheme (ALS) on imports of raw material used in the manufacture of goods for export. The ALS permits the importation of raw materials free of duty, provided that the company exports a corresponding quantity and value of finished product determined in accordance with officially set standard input-output norms. Imports under the ALS can either be used for the production of export goods or for the replenishment of domestic inputs used to produce such goods. The company claimed that exports of the product concerned to the EC were used to satisfy the requirements under the ALS in respect of raw materials imported. No conclusion was made as to whether or not an adjustment was warranted for this claim, given that the company was, in any event, found not to be dumping in the RIP it would have no impact on the final outcome of the review investigation.

(25)

The dumping margin was established on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value with a weighted average export price, in accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation.

(26)

This comparison showed a negative dumping margin.

(27)

In accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation it was also examined whether the findings established in the course of this investigation could reasonably be said to be of a lasting nature.

(28)

In this respect, it is recalled that Jindal was found not to be dumping in two consecutive investigations concluded by Council Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 and Council Regulation (EC) No 390/2005 (10). These findings of no dumping have been confirmed by the current investigation, and there are no elements indicating that this situation of no dumping would not be of a lasting nature.

(29)

It is therefore considered that the current measures in respect of Jindal are achieving the intended results and should remain unchanged.

(30)

According to Eurostat, the volume of the product concerned imported in the Community from India amounted to 23 472 tonnes during the RIP. From this quantity, the three sampled exporting producers accounted for around 97 % during the RIP and Jindal alone accounted for around 90 % of the total export volume from India to the EC during the RIP.

(31)

During the investigation period (IP) of the original investigation (1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000), the volume of imports from India was 50 590 tonnes. During the IP of the previous anti-subsidy investigation (1 October 2003 to 30 September 2004), the volume of imports from India was 12 679 tonnes.

(32)

As mentioned in recital (11) above, three exporting producers were sampled. For Jindal, the findings presented in recitals (16) to (26) apply.

(33)

In order to establish normal value for Garware and Ester, it was first verified that the reported domestic sales of each exporting producer were representative in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, i.e. that they accounted for 5 % or more of the reported sales volume of the product concerned exported to the Community.

(34)

It was then ascertained whether total domestic sales of each product type constituted 5 % or more of the sales volume of the same type exported to the Community.

(35)

For those product types where domestic sales constituted 5 % or more of the sales volume of the same type exported to the Community, it was then examined whether sufficient sales had been made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. For each product type where the volume of domestic sales made above the cost of production represented more than 80 % of sales, normal value was established on the basis of the weighted average price actually paid for all domestic sales. For those product types where the volume of profitable transactions was equal to or lower than 80 %, but not lower than 10 % of sales, normal value was based on the weighted average price actually paid for the profitable domestic sales only. For those product types where less than 10 %, by volume, was sold on the domestic market at a price not below unit cost, it was considered that the product type concerned was not sold in the ordinary course of trade and therefore, normal value had to be constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.

(36)

For the product types where domestic prices of the exporting producer could not be used to establish normal value owing to insufficient representativity or to a lack of sales in the ordinary course of trade, normal value was constructed on the basis of the manufacturing costs incurred by the exporting producer concerned plus a reasonable amount for selling, general and administrative costs (SG&A costs) and for profits, in accordance with Article 2(3) and (6) of the basic Regulation.

(37)

The SG&A costs were based on such costs incurred by the exporting producer with regard to its domestic sales of the product concerned, which were found to be representative. The profit margin was calculated on the basis of the weighted average profit margin of the company for those product types sold on the domestic market in sufficient quantities in the ordinary course of trade.

(38)

As regards the determination of export prices, it should be recalled that the present investigation seeks to establish whether, should protective measures be repealed, dumping would continue or recur. In that context, the determination of the export prices used in the dumping calculation cannot be limited to an examination of exporters’ past behaviour, but has to examine also the likely development of export prices in the future. In other words, it has to be determined whether past export prices are reliable as an indication of future likely export prices.

(39)

Given the existence of price undertakings during part of the RIP, it was examined in particular whether the existence of such undertakings has influenced the past export prices, so as to make them unreliable for the establishment of future export behaviour. It is further noted that the price undertakings of Garware and Ester have been withdrawn on 9 March 2006, whilst the RIP covers the period from 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006. For both Garware and Ester, it was found that export transactions that took place during the RIP when the price undertaking was in place were made at prices sufficiently close to the MIP to cast a doubt as to whether these prices could be regarded as of a lasting nature and set independently from the MIP. A similar reasoning has already been described under recital (28) of Council Regulation (EC) No 366/2006 (11).

(40)

As far as Garware is concerned, transactions made during the RIP after the withdrawal of the undertakings cover around 20 % of the total volume of exports and have been made with continuity after the withdrawal of the undertaking. In view of the volumes exported after the undertaking expired on 8 March 2006, the prices made for these transactions are considered as a meaningful representation of what the pricing policy of Garware would have been in the absence of the undertakings. Accordingly, the prices made for these transactions were used in calculating the export price for all quantities exported by Garware during the whole RIP.

(41)

As far as Ester is concerned, transactions made during the period after the withdrawal of the undertakings only cover 5 % of the total volumes and were limited to a very short period immediately following the withdrawal of the undertaking. Therefore, the prices of these transactions cannot be considered as representative of the export prices that the company would have practiced in the absence of the undertaking. As already indicated under recital 39, the export prices to the Community practiced by Ester before the withdrawal of the undertaking were very close to the MIPs. Moreover, it was also found that the export prices of Ester to other third countries were, both when considered on a weighted average basis and on a type by type basis, considerably below the prices to the Community, thus making it likely that, in the absence of undertakings such prices to the Community would be aligned to the prices made for the same types to other third countries. It was therefore concluded that the export prices of Ester to the Community when the undertaking was in force could not be used to establish reliable export prices in the meaning of Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, in the context of the present expiry review. Given that Ester was selling the product concerned in substantial quantities during the RIP on the world market, it was decided to establish the export price on the basis of prices actually paid or payable to all third countries for those models sold to the Community during the part of the RIP when the undertaking was in force. For the part of the RIP after the withdrawal of the undertaking, the export price was established on the basis of prices actually paid or payable to the Community.

(42)

The normal value and export price were compared on an ex-works basis. For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Accordingly, adjustments were made for differences in transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, commissions, packing and credit, where applicable and supported by verified evidence.

(43)

The exporting producers claimed, for a limited number of exports, an adjustment on the export price pursuant to Article 2(10)(k) of the basic Regulation, based on the amount of the benefits received on exportation under the Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPB) on a post-export basis. Under this scheme, the credits received when exporting the product concerned could be used to offset customs duties due on imports of any goods or could be freely sold to other companies. In addition, there is no constraint that the imported goods should only be used in the production of the exported product. The producers did not demonstrate that the benefit under the DEPB scheme on a post-export basis affected price comparability and, in particular, that the customers consistently paid different prices on the domestic market because of the DEPB benefits. Therefore, the claim was rejected.

(44)

The dumping margin was established on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value with a weighted average export price, in accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation. Where export prices were based on prices to third countries, appropriate cif values were calculated by increasing the ex-works price to third countries by the weighted average difference, by product type, between the ex-works and CIF level prices to the Community.

(45)

This comparison showed a dumping margin in the range of 15 % to 25 %. It is reminded that a negative dumping margin had been found for Jindal (see recital 26).

(46)

During the RIP, the spare capacity of all known Indian exporters was estimated at 32 000 tonnes. However, it should be noted that from this total, about 25 000 tonnes are attributed to Indian exporters with a 0 % anti-dumping duty. The eventual repeal of anti-dumping measures is likely to have little impact on the export policy of these companies. Therefore, only around 7 000 tonnes are attributed to Indian exporters with an anti-dumping duty different from 0 %. The latter spare capacity, which represented during the RIP approximately 30 % of the total import volume of the product concerned from India into the Community and 3 % of Community consumption, could be directed to the Community should measures be repealed.

(47)

Based on a model to model comparison, the export prices to third countries of sampled Indian exporters with a dumping margin different from 0 % were, during the RIP, 20 % to 30 % lower than the export prices to the Community of the same exporting producers. The sales of these two exporters to third countries were made in significant quantities, accounting for 80 to 90 % of their total export sales. Therefore, it was considered that the export price level to other third countries can be seen as an indicator as to the likely price level for export sales to the Community should measures be repealed.

(48)

Some of the largest export markets for PET film in the world are protected by high tariffs. In particular, imports of PET film from India into the USA are subject to anti-dumping duties ranging between 2,32 and 24,11 % and countervailing duties ranging between 9 and 25,27 % depending on the Indian exporter concerned.

(49)

It is therefore concluded that, given the relative levels of prices, the spare capacities and the incentives observed above, there is a likelihood: (i) of a continuation of dumping, (ii) of an increase of the quantities exported to the Community, should anti-dumping measures in force be lifted.

(50)

Four community producers (Dupont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film GmbH, Nuroll SpA and Toray Plastics Europe) fully cooperated in the investigation. During the RIP they represented around 95 % of the Community production. Thereby they constitute the Community industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation.

(51)

It is noted that the situation regarding Community production of PET film has changed since the original investigation. Indeed, Kodak Industrie (France) no longer produces PET film in the Community and 3M has transferred its activity to I.T.P. SpA, (Italy) which is reconverting its site into new and different productions. It also has to be pointed out that, since the Czech Republic is, as from 1 May 2004 a member of the European Union, company Fatra a.s. (established in the Czech Republic) is part of the Community production.

(52)

The determination of total Community consumption was based on the import statistics from Eurostat, the sales to the Community by the Community industry and the sales of other Community producers.

Table 1

(53)

Compared to the year 2003, consumption during the RIP increased by 1 % (more than 3 000 tonnes).

(54)

The volume of imports into the Community from India, increased by 86 % between 2003 and the RIP and the market share rose from 5 % to 9 % whereas prices decreased by 12 %. The data are based on Eurostat statistics.

Table 2

(55)

Imports from Brazil and Israel which were found to be circumventing as mentioned in recital (2) above sharply decreased following the extension to these imports of the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports from India. Prices of PET film originating in these countries increased by 219 % after the anti-circumvention measures were imposed.

Table 3

(56)

However, account should be taken of the fact that it was found that Jindal was not dumping in the present investigation, and that other companies (notably Flex Industries Limited and Polyplex Corporation Limited) had not been found to be dumping in earlier investigations. Accordingly, for the present investigation only dumped imports from India and imports which were found to be circumventing will be taken into consideration. Dumped imports from India and imports subject to anti-circumvention duties have decreased by 70 % between 2003 and the RIP — see Table 4 below. The sharp decline of these imports is, to a large extent, due to the imposition of anti-circumvention measures on imports from Brazil and Israel.

Table 4

(57)

Imports from other third countries rose by 24 % during the period considered (from around 62 000 tonnes in 2003 to around 77 000 tonnes during the RIP) and the market share in the Community corresponding to these imports increased by five percentage points (from 25 % to 30 %). The main imports were made from South Korea, the USA, Thailand and the UA Emirates. The average price per tonne decreased by 11 % between 2003 and the RIP. The figures are based on Eurostat data.

Table 5

(58)

Pursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Community industry.

(59)

Over the period considered capacity remained stable (around 190 000 tonnes) and production and capacity utilisation decreased by 4 %.

Table 6

(60)

Stocks of the product concerned decreased between 2003 and 2004 from 23 929 tonnes to 22 241 tonnes, slightly increased in 2005 and decreased to 21 272 tonnes during the RIP. The decrease was mainly due to a reduction in production.

Table 7

(61)

The volume sold by the Community industry to unrelated customers in the Community market decreased by 5 % between 2003 and 2005 from 142 755 tonnes to 135 956 tonnes, it increased slightly between 2005 and the RIP but just reached 98 % of the level of sales in 2003. Sales to related companies were negligible (they ranged between 200 and 300 tonnes each year of the period considered). Moreover, the market share of the Community industry decreased by 2 percentage points between 2003 and the RIP.

Table 8

(62)

The unit sales prices decreased by 2 % during the period considered (from 2 891 EUR/tonne in 2003 to 2 819 EUR/tonne during the RIP) as well as the average cost per Tonne which went from 3 216 EUR/tonne in 2003 to 3 137 EUR/tonne during the RIP. This decrease in costs took place in spite of the fact that the average cost of most of the raw materials (due to the surge of oil prices) increased substantially. These figures show that, in order to avoid losing too much market share, the Community industry was not in a position to fully cover its cost of production with its sales prices.

Table 9

(63)

The Community industry lost market share in a slightly growing market over the period considered.

(64)

The level of employment by the Community industry decreased by 13 % between 2003 and the RIP. Although the average wage per employee increased by 5 %, a rationalisation effort was carried out and productivity per employee increased by 9 %. Thus the level of the labour costs per Tonne produced decreased by 4 %.

Table 10

(65)

Profitability on sales represents the profit generated by the sales of the product concerned in the Community. Return on investment has been calculated on the basis of return on total assets.

(66)

The profitability and return on investment on sales of the product concerned to unrelated customers in the Community has, despite small improvements in 2004 and 2005, remained negative during the whole period considered. During the RIP, both profitability and return on investment were particularly low (profitability – 11 % and return on investment – 3,1 %) having again fallen after 2005.

Table 11

(67)

The trend for cash flow deteriorated in particular during the RIP.

Table 12

(68)

Between 2003 and the RIP, investments for the production of PET film diminished by 18 %. During the RIP, the value of the investments increased by 6 % compared to the situation in 2005 but in comparison to 2003, they remained at a lower level. During the investigation it was found that investments were mainly made to improve the quality of the product and to maintain the production capacity.

(69)

The low level of investments is explained to a large extent by the fact that the parent companies of the Community industry did not seem interested in investing or providing guarantees for investments in non profitable activities such as the production of PET film in Europe.

(70)

The analysis with regard to the magnitude of dumping takes into account the fact that there are measures in force in order to eliminate injurious dumping. As indicated above, the information available indicates that one of the sampled exporting producers continues to sell to the Community at dumped prices. Although the margin of dumping found is significant, its impact on the situation of the Community industry during the RIP has not been significant given that the market share of dumped imports from India and imports which were found to be circumventing constituted 1 % of total Community consumption. Jindal certainly contributed to the aggravation of the situation of the Community industry. However, it should also be taken into account that, even if imports from Jindal are excluded from the analysis, the Community industry would not have been able to recover from past dumping after the imposition of anti-dumping measures in 2001 because of circumvention (against which measures were adopted only by the end of 2004) and inappropriateness of the undertakings which were only repealed last year. It must not be forgotten that before the imposition of anti-circumvention duties and the repeal of the undertakings the level of imports from Indian companies found to be dumping was more than three times higher than during the RIP.

(71)

The volume of PET film consumed in the Community market expanded by 1 %, while the volume of sales by the Community industry decreased by 2 %.

(72)

The economic situation in the Community industry worsened with respect of most injury factors: production, production capacity and capacity utilisation (– 4 %), sales volume (– 2 %) and value (– 5 %), market share (– 2 percentage points), cash flow and profitability, investment activity and return on investment.

(73)

The restructuring efforts made by the Community industry in terms of employment, cost cutting and the increase of productivity per employee could not counterbalance the impact of the increase of raw material prices over the period considered. The cost of production was higher than the sales price. This coincided with the low price level of dumped imports from India and other countries found to be circumventing. However, it is noted that the price pressure on the Community industry was partly caused by imports from Jindal, which was found not to be dumping in the RIP, which accounted for around 90 % of total imports of PET film from India.

(74)

Having regard to the above, the situation of the Community industry is still precarious and any increase of dumped imports would in all likelihood aggravate this situation.

(75)

As stated before, the situation of the Community industry is still precarious. There will be a significant increase of dumped imports if anti-dumping measures were to be removed. As previously indicated in recital 46, Indian exporters subject to an anti-dumping duty have the potential to increase their export volumes to a significant extent and, as indicated in recital (48) some of the largest export markets for PET film in the world are protected by high tariffs, in particular, the market for PET film in the USA.

(76)

In the absence of anti-dumping duties, Indian dumped imports could exercise a significant price pressure on the Community market. Therefore, there is a clear indication for a likelihood of a recurrence of injury.

(77)

Having regard to the above, if the Community industry was exposed to increased volumes of imports from India at dumped prices, this would cause a further deterioration of its financial situation. On this basis, it is therefore concluded that the repeal of the measures against India would, in all likelihood, result in a recurrence of injury to the Community industry.

(78)

In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was considered whether the maintenance of the existing anti-dumping measures would be against the interest of the Community as a whole.

(79)

According to Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the determination of the Community interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, i.e. those of the Community industry, the importers and the users of the product concerned.

(80)

It should be recalled that, in the original investigation, the adoption of measures was considered not to be contrary to the interest of the Community. Furthermore, the fact that the present investigation is a review, thus an analysis of a situation in which anti-dumping measures have already been in place, allows the assessment of any undue negative impact on the parties concerned by the current anti-dumping measures.

(81)

On this basis, it was examined whether, despite the conclusions on the likelihood of recurrence of injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed which would lead to the conclusion that it is not in the Community interest to maintain measures in this particular case.

(82)

In order to assess the likely impact of the imposition or non-imposition of measures information was requested from all interested parties which were either known to be concerned or which made themselves known. On this basis, the Commission sent questionnaires to the Community industry, nine unrelated importers and 23 users. In addition, the Commission contacted also all other known Community producers which did not provide the information requested to cooperate in the investigation in order to obtain basic information on their production and sales.

(83)

It is recalled that the Community industry is still in a vulnerable situation as set out in recitals 58 to 74.

(84)

The continuation of measures is expected to alleviate a distortion of the market and suppression of prices. Measures would enable the Community industry to at least maintain its sales and benefit from economies of scale.

(85)

Otherwise, should anti-dumping measures be terminated, it is likely that the negative trend of the financial situation of the Community industry will continue if not worsen. The Community industry is particularly marked by a loss of revenue due to depressed prices and falling market share.

(86)

Accordingly, the continuation of anti-dumping measures would be in the interest of the Community industry.

(87)

Only one importer/user and four users have cooperated in the investigation and supplied complete answers. They represent 16,3 % of total Community consumption of PET film and they have indicated that, the prolongation of anti-dumping duties would have no major impact on their companies.

(88)

Taking into account all of the above factors, it is concluded that the imposition of measures would not have a significantly negative effect, if any at all, on the situation of the users and importers of the product concerned.

(89)

On this basis, it is concluded that there are no compelling reasons not to continue the anti-dumping measures on grounds of Community interest.

(90)

All parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it is intended to recommend that the existing measures be maintained. They were also granted a period to make representations subsequent to this disclosure.

(91)

On the basis of the above facts and considerations, it is concluded that, in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, the partial interim review limited to Jindal should be terminated and the anti-dumping duty of 0 % imposed in the original investigation on imports of PET film produced and exported to the European Community by Jindal should be maintained.

(92)

With respect to the expiry review, as provided for by Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation and on the basis of the above findings, the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of PET film from India should be maintained,

—

that it did not export the goods described in Paragraph 1 during the periods from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000 and from 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006,

—

that it is not related to any exporter or producer subject to the measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 366/2006, and,

—

that it has exported the goods concerned after the period from 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006, or that it has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Community,

Terphane Ltda BR 101, km 101, City of Cabo de Santo Agostinho, State of Pernambuco, Brazil (TARIC additional code A569);

Jolybar Filmtechnic Converting Ltd (1987), Hacharutsim str. 7, Ind. Park Siim 2000, Natania South, 42504, POB 8380, Israel (TARIC additional code A570);

Hanita Coatings Rural Cooperative Association Ltd., Kibbutz Hanita, 22885, Israel (TARIC additional code A691).

6.11.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 288/17

(1)

Definitive anti-dumping duties applicable to imports of recordable compact discs originating in Taiwan were imposed on 18 June 2002 by Council Regulation (EC) No 1050/2002 of 13 June 2002 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of recordable compact discs originating in Taiwan (3) (the original anti-dumping proceeding). They ranged from 17,7 % to 38,5 %. These measures lapsed ipso iure on 18 June 2007 in accordance with the Commission Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures (4).

(2)

Definitive countervailing duties on imports of recordable compact discs (CD-Rs) from India were imposed on 5 June 2003 by Council Regulation (EC) No 960/2003 of 2 June 2003 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of recordable compact discs originating in India (5) (the original anti-subsidy proceeding). They amounted to 7,3 %.

(3)

By Decision 2006/753/EC (6), the Commission terminated an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of CD-Rs originating in the People's Republic of China (PRC), Hong Kong, and Malaysia on grounds of lack of Community interest in the imposition of measures (the termination Decision). It was concluded that due to its low market share the Community industry was not likely to obtain any significant benefits from the imposition of measures. The imposition of measures was thus considered disproportionate in view of the substantial negative effects on importers, distributors, retailers and consumers.

(4)

The initiation of a partial interim review of the antidumping measures applicable to imports of recordable compact discs originating in Taiwan and of a partial interim review of the countervailing measures applicable to imports of recordable compact discs originating in India was announced on 22 March 2007 in the Official Journal of the European Union (the notice of initiation) (7).

(5)

The reviews, initiated on the Commission’s own initiative, were both limited in scope to the examination of the Community interest, with the decision thereon possibly having retroactive effect as of 5 November 2006, i.e. the date of entering into force of the termination Decision. For the purposes of procedural efficiency, the reviews of both anti-dumping duties applicable to imports of CD-Rs from Taiwan and of countervailing duties applicable to imports of CD-Rs from India were combined in one investigation.

(6)

As mentioned above, the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports originating in Taiwan lapsed on 18 June 2007. As a consequence, the review concerning Taiwan has been discontinued. However, it was formally conducted until that date and the Commission considered most notably the question of retroactive repealing of duties paid between 5 November 2006 and 18 June 2007.

(7)

Due to the need for procedural efficiency and in order to ensure overall consistency of its actions, the Commission combined the conclusions of both reviews in the present Regulation.

(8)

The Commission officially advised the Community producers, importers and users as well as exporters and representatives of India and Taiwan of the initiation of the proceeding. All 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. Due to the fact that the reviews have been limited to aspects of Community interest, the Commission invited only parties located in the Community, i.e. Community producers, importers and users, to fill in the questionnaires. Questionnaire replies were received from one producer, 14 importers, and 10 users.

(9)

The Commission also received a letter from the Committee of European CD-R Manufacturers (CECMA), which represented the complainant in the original anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings and in the proceedings concluded by the termination Decision — as well as a letter from the former representative of the company D as identified in the termination Decision.

(10)

Further, the Commission's services received submissions from other interested parties, most notably distributors and suppliers of an Indian exporter.

(11)

The Commission's services duly analysed all submissions and arguments put forward by the interested parties. Given the state of Community production, however, the conclusions of the present review will be limited to the identification of the Community industry.

(12)

The investigation of aspects of Community interest covered the period from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006 (investigation period or IP). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of Community interest covered the period from 1 January 2003 to the end of the investigation period (period considered).

(13)

The product under review is recordable compact discs (CD-Rs) originating in India (the product concerned), currently classifiable within CN code ex 8523 40 11. This CN code is given only for information.

(14)

The same product originating in Taiwan was under review between 22 March 2007 when the notice of initiation was published and 18 June 2007 when the anti-dumping duties applicable to imports of CD-Rs from Taiwan lapsed.

(15)

The product concerned is polycarbonate disc, which is coated with a layer of dye, a layer of reflective material and a protective layer. Although recording on such discs can be done in several steps, the recorded information cannot be erased. The disc is an optical storage medium for digital data or sound.

(16)

CD-Rs can be distinguished according to the type of data stored (data CD-Rs versus music CD-Rs), the storage capacity, the reflective metal layer and whether or not the CD-Rs are printed upon. All types of CD-Rs share the same physical and technical characteristics and are used for the same purposes. Therefore they are considered to constitute a single product.

(17)

In the framework of the present proceedings no comments were made challenging the comparability of the CD-Rs imported to or produced in the Community. On these grounds all types of CD-Rs originating in India or Taiwan and produced in the Community are considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 1(5) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.

(18)

In these proceedings (see recital 28, and 58 et seq. of the termination Decision), the Commissions services established that Community production within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation was constituted by 10 producers. Only one of them was considered to constitute the Community industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation (Manufacturing Advanced Media (MAM-E)).

(19)

None of the producers deemed to constitute the Community production in the termination Decision cooperated in the current proceeding.

(20)

Further, the Commission received evidence that the sole company constituting the Community industry in the proceeding which led to the termination Decision underwent liquidation proceedings. This was confirmed in the letter sent by its former representative. The Commission also received a copy of a court decision commencing the liquidation proceedings, whereby the activities of the company ceased. The questionnaire sent out by the Commission was returned with the annotation — liquidation judiciaire.

(21)

In addition, although CECMA stated that it supported the continued imposition of measures, it did not submit any questionnaire or evidence on behalf of any Community producer — member of the association.

(22)

Another company (Company A, as identified in the termination Decision) informed the Commission that it had ceased production in the Community.

(23)

Finally, the Commission received also a reply from Company B (as identified in the termination Decision). No evidence was presented that would contradict the findings set out in the termination Decision, i.e. that company B should not be included in the definition of the Community industry and that its production should be excluded from the definition of Community production (see recital 40 of the termination Decision).

(24)

On these grounds it is concluded that there is no remaining Community industry, and consequently no Community interest.

(25)

In view of the above findings, the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of CD-Rs originating in Taiwan and the countervailing measures applicable to imports of CD-Rs originating in India should be repealed with a retroactive effect to the date of entering into force of the termination Decision.

(26)

Consequently, the definitive anti-dumping duties paid or entered in the accounts pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1050/2002 on imports of CD-Rs originating in Taiwan and the definitive countervailing duties paid or entered into account pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 960/2003 on imports of CD-Rs originating in India, and released for free circulation as from 5 November 2006 should be repaid or remitted.

(27)

Repayment or remission must be requested from national customs authorities in accordance with applicable customs legislation,

6.11.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 288/20

(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,

6.11.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 288/22

(1)

The product concerned by this registration is prepared or preserved mandarins (including tangerines and satsumas), clementines, wilkings and other similar citrus hybrids, not containing added spirit, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter, and as defined under CN heading 2008, originating in the People’s Republic of China (the product concerned), falling within CN codes 2008 30 55, 2008 30 75 and ex 2008 30 90.

(2)

Having received a complaint from the Spanish National Federation of Associations of Processed Fruit and Vegetables (FNACV) (hereinafter ‘the applicant’), the Commission determined that there is sufficient evidence to justify initiation of a proceeding and therefore, pursuant to Article 5 of the basic Regulation, announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (the ‘Notice of Initiation’) the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China (2).

(3)

The applicant also requests that imports of the product concerned are made subject to registration pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation so that measures may subsequently be applied against those imports from the date of such registration.

(4)

The product concerned is to a great extent currently subject to definitive safeguard measures imposed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 658/2004 (3). These measures will expire on 8 November 2007.

(5)

According to Article 7(1) of the basic Regulation, provisional measures may not be imposed earlier than 60 days from initiation. However, according to Article 10(4) of the basic Regulation, a definitive anti-dumping duty may be levied on products which were entered for consumption not more than 90 days prior to the date of application of provisional measures, provided that the conditions set out in that paragraph are fulfilled, and imports have been registered in accordance with Article 14(5). According to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission may, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, direct the customs authorities to take the appropriate steps to register imports, so that measures may subsequently be applied against those imports from the date of such registration. Imports may be made subject to registration following a request from the Community industry which contains sufficient evidence to justify such action.

(6)

The request contains sufficient evidence to justify registration. This is further supported by evidence from other sources.

(7)

As regards dumping, the Commission has at its disposal sufficient prima facie evidence that imports of the product concerned originating in the People’s Republic of China are being dumped, and that the exporters practice dumping. The anti-dumping complaint and request for registration contains evidence with regard to export prices relating to the 2006/2007 season. This is further supported by information emanating from Eurostat data and from several offers or statements of export prices emanating from a number of sources and addressed to a number of importers. The evidence regarding normal value, contained in the anti-dumping complaint and request for registration, at this stage and subject to further data becoming available during the investigation, consists of detailed data concerning domestic prices and costs of production from all or almost all of the producers in an analogue country. At this stage, this data, appropriately adjusted for estimated transport and other costs, would, on its face, appear to relate to the same product and time period and the same level of trade, and therefore would appear to be broadly comparable. As a whole, and given the extent of the dumping margin alleged, this evidence provides sufficient support at this stage that the exporters in question practice dumping.

(8)

As regards injury, the Commission has at its disposal sufficient prima facie evidence that the exporters’ dumping practices are causing injury or would cause injury. This evidence consists of detailed data, contained in the anti-dumping complaint and request for registration and supported by information from other sources, concerning the key injury factors set out in Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation. Furthermore, the evidence relating to the previous safeguard investigation supports the view that, absent the safeguard measure, the volume of imports would increase significantly, and that the Community industry would suffer further injury.

(9)

The Commission also has at its disposal sufficient prima facie evidence, contained in the anti-dumping complaint and request for registration and supported by information from other sources, that the importers were aware, or should have been aware, that the exporters practice dumping injurious to or likely to be injurious to the Community industry. A notice initiating an investigation into alleged injurious dumping has been published. Furthermore, several articles in the specialist press over an extended period of time suggest that the Community industry may suffer injury as a result of low priced imports from China. Finally, given the extent of the dumping that it would appear may be occurring, it is reasonable to conclude that the importers would be aware, or should be aware, of the situation.

(10)

Furthermore, the Commission has at its disposal sufficient prima facie evidence that such injury is being caused or would be caused by massive dumped imports in a relatively short time which in light of the timing and the volume of the dumped imports and other circumstances (such as the rapid build-up of inventories) would be likely to seriously undermine the remedial effect of any definitive anti-dumping duties, unless such duties would be applied retroactively. This evidence, contained in the anti-dumping complaint and request for registration and supported by information from other sources, consists of information about the nature of the product, including its fungible and seasonal nature, and the fact that it is canned and may be easily stored for extended periods, and easily transported. This also makes it possible to rapidly build-up inventories. Furthermore, evidence from the safeguard investigation confirms the view that, absent any measure, the volume of imports is again likely to increase dramatically. This is particularly so, given that the expiry of the safeguard measure occurs shortly after the beginning of the canning season.

(11)

Accordingly, the conditions for registration in this case are met.

(12)

In the light of the above, the Commission has concluded that the applicant’s request contains sufficient evidence to make imports of the product concerned subject to registration, in accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation.

(13)

All interested parties are invited to make their views known in writing and to provide supporting evidence. Furthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request in writing and show that there are particular reasons why they should be heard.

(14)

Pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, imports of the product concerned should be made subject to registration in order to ensure that, should the investigation result in findings leading to the imposition of anti-dumping duties, those duties, can, if the necessary conditions are fulfilled, be levied retroactively in accordance with applicable legal provisions.

(15)

Any future liability would emanate from the findings of the anti-dumping investigation. The allegations in the complaint requesting the initiation of an investigation exceed 50 % for dumping and 30 % for injury.

(16)

Any personal data collected in this investigation will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (4),

6.11.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 288/25

(1)

Council Regulation (EC) No 41/2007 of 21 December 2006 fixing for 2007 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in Community waters and for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (3), lays down quotas for 2007.

(2)

According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2007.

(3)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing for that stock and its retention on board, transhipment and landing,

6.11.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 288/27

(1)

Floods have the potential to cause fatalities, displacement of people and damage to the environment, to severely compromise economic development and to undermine the economic activities of the Community.

(2)

Floods are natural phenomena which cannot be prevented. However, some human activities (such as increasing human settlements and economic assets in floodplains and the reduction of the natural water retention by land use) and climate change contribute to an increase in the likelihood and adverse impacts of flood events.

(3)

It is feasible and desirable to reduce the risk of adverse consequences, especially for human health and life, the environment, cultural heritage, economic activity and infrastructure associated with floods. However, measures to reduce these risks should, as far as possible, be coordinated throughout a river basin if they are to be effective.

(4)

Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (3) requires river basin management plans to be developed for each river basin district in order to achieve good ecological and chemical status, and it will contribute to mitigating the effects of floods. However, reducing the risk of floods is not one of the principal objectives of that Directive, nor does it take into account the future changes in the risk of flooding as a result of climate change.

(5)

The Commission Communication of 12 July 2004 to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘Flood risk management — Flood prevention, protection and mitigation’ sets out its analysis and approach to managing flood risks at Community level, and states that concerted and coordinated action at Community level would bring considerable added value and improve the overall level of flood protection.

(6)

Effective flood prevention and mitigation requires, in addition to coordination between Member States, cooperation with third countries. This is in line with Directive 2000/60/EC and international principles of flood risk management as developed notably under the United Nations Convention on the protection and use of transboundary water courses and international lakes, approved by Council Decision 95/308/EC (4), and any succeeding agreements on its application.

(7)

Council Decision 2001/792/EC, Euratom of 23 October 2001 establishing a Community mechanism to facilitate reinforced cooperation in civil protection assistance interventions (5) mobilises support and assistance from Member States in the event of major emergencies, including floods. Civil protection can provide adequate response to affected populations and improve preparedness and resilience.

(8)

Under Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (6) it is possible to grant rapid financial assistance in the event of a major disaster to help the people, natural zones, regions and countries concerned to return to conditions that are as normal as possible. However the Fund may only intervene for emergency operations, and not for the phases preceding an emergency.

(9)

In developing policies referring to water and land uses Member States and the Community should consider the potential impacts that such policies might have on flood risks and the management of flood risks.

(10)

Throughout the Community different types of floods occur, such as river floods, flash floods, urban floods and floods from the sea in coastal areas. The damage caused by flood events may also vary across the countries and regions of the Community. Hence, objectives regarding the management of flood risks should be determined by the Member States themselves and should be based on local and regional circumstances.

(11)

Flood risks in certain areas within the Community could be considered not to be significant, for example in thinly populated or unpopulated areas or in areas with limited economic assets or ecological value. In each river basin district or unit of management the flood risks and need for further action — such as the evaluation of flood mitigation potential — should be assessed.

(12)

In order to have available an effective tool for information, as well as a valuable basis for priority setting and further technical, financial and political decisions regarding flood risk management, it is necessary to provide for the establishing of flood hazard maps and flood risk maps showing the potential adverse consequences associated with different flood scenarios, including information on potential sources of environmental pollution as a consequence of floods. In this context, Member States should assess activities that have the effect of increasing flood risks.

(13)

With a view to avoiding and reducing the adverse impacts of floods in the area concerned it is appropriate to provide for flood risk management plans. The causes and consequences of flood events vary across the countries and regions of the Community. Flood risk management plans should therefore take into account the particular characteristics of the areas they cover and provide for tailored solutions according to the needs and priorities of those areas, whilst ensuring relevant coordination within river basin districts and promoting the achievement of environmental objectives laid down in Community legislation. In particular, Member States should refrain from taking measures or engaging in actions which significantly increase the risk of flooding in other Member States, unless these measures have been coordinated and an agreed solution has been found among the Member States concerned.

(14)

Flood risk management plans should focus on prevention, protection and preparedness. With a view to giving rivers more space, they should consider where possible the maintenance and/or restoration of floodplains, as well as measures to prevent and reduce damage to human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. The elements of flood risk management plans should be periodically reviewed and if necessary updated, taking into account the likely impacts of climate change on the occurrence of floods.

(15)

The solidarity principle is very important in the context of flood risk management. In the light of it Member States should be encouraged to seek a fair sharing of responsibilities, when measures are jointly decided for the common benefit, as regards flood risk management along water courses.

(16)

To prevent duplication of work, Member States should be entitled to use existing preliminary flood risk assessments, flood hazard and risk maps and flood risk management plans for the purposes of achieving the objectives and satisfying the requirements of this Directive.

(17)

Development of river basin management plans under Directive 2000/60/EC and of flood risk management plans under this Directive are elements of integrated river basin management. The two processes should therefore use the mutual potential for common synergies and benefits, having regard to the environmental objectives of Directive 2000/60/EC, ensuring efficiency and wise use of resources while recognising that the competent authorities and management units might be different under this Directive and Directive 2000/60/EC.

(18)

Member States should base their assessments, maps and plans on appropriate ‘best practice’ and ‘best available technologies’ not entailing excessive costs in the field of flood risk management.

(19)

In cases of multi-purpose use of bodies of water for different forms of sustainable human activities (e.g. flood risk management, ecology, inland navigation or hydropower) and the impacts of such use on the bodies of water, Directive 2000/60/EC provides for a clear and transparent process for addressing such uses and impacts, including possible exemptions from the objectives of ‘good status’ or of ‘non-deterioration’ in Article 4 thereof. Directive 2000/60/EC provides for cost recovery in Article 9.

(20)

The measures necessary for the implementation of this Directive should be adopted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (7).

(21)

In particular, the Commission should be empowered to adapt the Annex to scientific and technical progress. Since those measures are of general scope and are designed to amend non-essential elements of this Directive, they must be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny provided for in Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC.

(22)

This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In particular, it seeks to promote the integration into Community policies of a high level of environmental protection in accordance with the principle of sustainable development as laid down in Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(23)

Since the objective of this Directive, namely the establishment of a framework for measures to reduce the risks of flood damage, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can by reason of scale and effects of actions be better achieved at Community level, the Community may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

(24)

In accordance with the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity and the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality attached to the Treaty, and in view of existing capabilities of Member States, considerable flexibility should be left to the local and regional levels, in particular as regards organisation and responsibility of authorities.

(25)

In accordance with point 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making (8), Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interest of the Community, their own tables illustrating, as far as possible, the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public,

1.

‘flood’ means the temporary covering by water of land not normally covered by water. This shall include floods from rivers, mountain torrents, Mediterranean ephemeral water courses, and floods from the sea in coastal areas, and may exclude floods from sewerage systems;

2.

‘flood risk’ means the combination of the probability of a flood event and of the potential adverse consequences for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity associated with a flood event.

(a)

appoint competent authorities different from those identified pursuant to Article 3(2) of Directive 2000/60/EC;

(b)

identify certain coastal areas or individual river basins and assign them to a unit of management different from those assigned pursuant to Article 3(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC.

(a)

maps of the river basin district at the appropriate scale including the borders of the river basins, sub-basins and, where existing, coastal areas, showing topography and land use;

(b)

a description of the floods which have occurred in the past and which had significant adverse impacts on human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity and for which the likelihood of similar future events is still relevant, including their flood extent and conveyance routes and an assessment of the adverse impacts they have entailed;

(c)

a description of the significant floods which have occurred in the past, where significant adverse consequences of similar future events might be envisaged;

and, depending on the specific needs of Member States, it shall include:

(d)

an assessment of the potential adverse consequences of future floods for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity, taking into account as far as possible issues such as the topography, the position of watercourses and their general hydrological and geo-morphological characteristics, including floodplains as natural retention areas, the effectiveness of existing man-made flood defence infrastructures, the position of populated areas, areas of economic activity and long-term developments including impacts of climate change on the occurrence of floods.

(a)

floods with a low probability, or extreme event scenarios;

(b)

floods with a medium probability (likely return period ≥ 100 years);

(c)

floods with a high probability, where appropriate.

(a)

the flood extent;

(b)

water depths or water level, as appropriate;

(c)

where appropriate, the flow velocity or the relevant water flow.

(a)

the indicative number of inhabitants potentially affected;

(b)

type of economic activity of the area potentially affected;

(c)

installations as referred to in Annex I to Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (9) which might cause accidental pollution in case of flooding and potentially affected protected areas identified in Annex IV(1)(i), (iii) and (v) to Directive 2000/60/EC;

(d)

other information which the Member State considers useful such as the indication of areas where floods with a high content of transported sediments and debris floods can occur and information on other significant sources of pollution.

1.

the development of the first flood hazard maps and flood risk maps and their subsequent reviews as referred to in Articles 6 and 14 of this Directive shall be carried out in such a way that the information they contain is consistent with relevant information presented according to Directive 2000/60/EC. They shall be coordinated with, and may be integrated into, the reviews provided for in Article 5(2) of Directive 2000/60/EC;

2.

the development of the first flood risk management plans and their subsequent reviews as referred to in Articles 7 and 14 of this Directive shall be carried out in coordination with, and may be integrated into, the reviews of the river basin management plans provided for in Article 13(7) of Directive 2000/60/EC;

3.

the active involvement of all interested parties under Article 10 of this Directive shall be coordinated, as appropriate, with the active involvement of interested parties under Article 14 of Directive 2000/60/EC.

(a)

already undertaken a risk assessment to conclude, before 22 December 2010, that a potential significant flood risk exists or might be considered likely to occur leading to the identification of the area among those referred to in Article 5(1) or

(b)

decided, before 22 December 2010, to prepare flood hazard maps and flood risk maps and to establish flood risk management plans in accordance with the relevant provisions of this Directive.

6.11.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 288/35

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (1) and Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2) provide for certain structural requirements for establishments falling within the scope of those Regulations.

(2)

Annex VII, Chapter 5, Section B, Subsection I, paragraph (a) to the Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania provides that certain structural requirements laid down in those Regulations are not to apply to the establishments in Romania listed in Appendix B of Annex VII to the Act of Accession (the list of establishments) until 31 December 2009, subject to certain conditions.

(3)

The list of establishments has been updated by Commission Decision 2007/23/EC of 22 December 2006 amending Appendix B of Annex VII to the 2005 Act of Accession as regards certain establishments in the meat, milk and fish sectors in Romania (3).

(4)

In Romania certain establishments in the meat, poultrymeat, fish and milk and milk products sectors have completed their upgrading process and are now in full compliance with Community legislation. In addition, certain establishments have ceased their activities. Accordingly the list of establishments should be amended to take account of such changes.

(5)

Furthermore, in Romania certain meat, poultrymeat, fish and milk and milk products establishments have difficulties in complying with the relevant structural requirements laid down in Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004 due to technical constraints. Those establishments need more time to finalise their upgrading process in order to be in full compliance with the relevant structural requirements laid down in those Regulations. Those establishments should be added to the list of establishments in transition.

(6)

Those establishments have provided guarantees that they have the necessary funds to remedy their outstanding shortcomings within the transitional period. The detailed information regarding the shortcomings for each establishment is available.

(7)

In the interests of clarity of Community legislations, it is appropriate to replace the list of establishment set out in Appendix B of Annex VII to the Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania by the list set out in the Annex to this Decision.

(8)

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