(1)

The Commission has received an application for a ‘new exporter’ review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation. The application was lodged by Yingkou Dalmond Refractories Co., Ltd (the applicant), an exporting producer in the People’s Republic of China (the country concerned).

(2)

The product under review is chemically bonded, unfired magnesia bricks, whose magnesia component contains at least 80 % MgO, whether or not containing magnesite originating in the People’s Republic of China (the product concerned), currently classifiable within CN codes ex 6815 91 00, ex 6815 99 10 and ex 6815 99 90 (TARIC codes 6815910010, 6815991020 and 6815999020). These CN codes are given only for information.

(3)

The measures currently in force are a definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 (2) under which imports into the Community of the product concerned originating in the People’s Republic of China, including the product concerned produced by the applicant, are subject to a definitive anti-dumping duty of 39,9 % with the exception of several companies specially mentioned which are subject to individual duty rates.

(4)

The applicant alleges that it operates under market economy conditions as defined in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation or alternatively claims individual treatment in conformity with Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation, that it did not export the product concerned to the Community during the period of investigation on which the anti-dumping measures were based, i.e. the period from 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 (the original investigation period) and that it is not related to any of the exporting producers of the product which are subject to the above mentioned anti-dumping measures.

(5)

The applicant further alleges that it has begun exporting the product concerned to the Community after the end of the original investigation period.

(6)

Community producers known to be concerned have been informed of the above mentioned application and have been given an opportunity to comment.

(7)

Having examined the evidence available, the Commission concludes that there is sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of a ‘new exporter’ review, pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation, with a view to determining whether the applicant operates under market economy conditions as defined in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation or alternatively whether the applicant fulfils the requirements to have an individual duty established in accordance with Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation and, if so, the applicant’s individual margin of dumping and, should dumping be found, the level of the duty to which their imports of the product concerned into the Community should be subject.

(8)

If it is determined that the applicant fulfils the requirements to have an individual duty established, it may be necessary to amend the rate of duty currently applicable to imports of the product concerned from companies not individually mentioned in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005.

(9)

Pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping duty in force should be repealed with regard to imports of the product concerned which are produced and sold for export to the Community by the applicant. At the same time, such imports should be made subject to registration in accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, in order to ensure that, should the review result in a finding of dumping in respect of the applicants, anti-dumping duties can be levied retroactively from the date of the initiation of this review. The amount of the applicant’s possible future liabilities cannot be estimated at this stage of the proceeding.

(10)

In the interest of sound administration, time limits should be stated within which:

(11)

In cases in which any interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, findings, affirmative or negative, may be made in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the facts available.

(12)

Where it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information shall be disregarded and use may be made, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, of the facts available. If an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially, and use of facts available is made, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.

(13)

It is noted that 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 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 (3).

(14)

It is also noted that if interested parties consider that they are encountering difficulties in the exercise of their rights of defence, they may request the intervention of the Hearing Officer of DG Trade. He acts as an interface between the interested parties and the Commission services, offering, where necessary, mediation on procedural matters affecting the protection of their interests in this proceeding, in particular with regard to issues concerning access to the file, confidentiality, extension of time limits and the treatment of written and/or oral submission of views. For further information and contact details, interested parties may consult the Hearing Officer’s web pages on the website of DG Trade (http://ec.europa.eu/trade),