Regulation 2008/1187 - Definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of monosodium glutamate from China - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
Contents
official title
Council Regulation (EC) No 1187/2008 of 27 November 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of monosodium glutamate originating in the People’s Republic of China| Legal instrument | Regulation |
|---|---|
| Number legal act | Regulation 2008/1187 |
| Original proposal | COM(2008)702  |
| CELEX number i | 32008R1187 |
| Document | 27-11-2008 |
|---|---|
| Publication in Official Journal | 02-12-2008; OJ L 322, 2.12.2008,Special edition in Croatian: Chapter 11 Volume 120 |
| Effect | 03-12-2008; Entry into force Date pub. + 1 See Art 3 |
| End of validity | 31-12-9999 |
2.12.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 322/1 |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1187/2008
of 27 November 2008
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of monosodium glutamate originating in the People’s Republic of China
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 9 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
-
1.PROCEDURE
1.1. Provisional measures
(1) |
The Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 492/2008 (2) (the provisional Regulation) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of monosodium glutamate (MSG) originating in the People’s Republic of China (PRC). |
1.2. Subsequent procedure
(2) |
Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping measures (provisional disclosure), several interested parties made written submissions making their views known on the provisional findings. The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard. The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings. |
(3) |
The Commission continued its investigation with regard to Community interest aspects and carried out an analysis of information provided by some users and suppliers in the Community after the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping measures. |
(4) |
The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and, where appropriate, the provisional findings were modified accordingly. |
(5) |
All parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of MSG originating in the PRC and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty. They were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure. |
(6) |
It is recalled that the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007 (‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’). With respect to the trends relevant for the injury assessment, the Commission analysed data covering the period from April 2004 to the end of the IP (‘period considered’). |
-
2.PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
(7) |
In the absence of any comments concerning the product concerned and the like product, recitals 12 to 14 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. |
-
3.DUMPING
3.1. Application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation
(8) |
In the absence of any comments concerning the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation to one exporting producer in the PRC, recitals 15 to 18 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. |
3.2. Market economy treatment (MET)
(9) |
Following the provisional disclosure, the two Chinese exporting producers which were not granted MET contested the provisional findings. |
(10) |
In the case of the first company it was submitted that, in its opinion, International Accounting Standard (IAS) only required the preparation of consolidated accounts and did not require the consolidated accounts to be audited in line with IAS. |
(11) |
In this regard, it should be recalled that, despite several requests, this company did not provide... |
More
This text has been adopted from EUR-Lex.
This dossier is compiled each night drawing from aforementioned sources through automated processes. We have invested a great deal in optimising the programming underlying these processes. However, we cannot guarantee the sources we draw our information from nor the resulting dossier are without fault.
This page is also available in a full version containing the legal context, de Europese rechtsgrond, other dossiers related to the dossier at hand and the related cases of the European Court of Justice.
The full version is available for registered users of the EU Monitor by ANP and PDC Informatie Architectuur.
The EU Monitor enables its users to keep track of the European process of lawmaking, focusing on the relevant dossiers. It automatically signals developments in your chosen topics of interest. Apologies to unregistered users, we can no longer add new users.This service will discontinue in the near future.