Regulation 2009/598 - Definitive countervailing duty on imports of biodiesel from the USA - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
Contents
official title
Council Regulation (EC) No 598/2009 of 7 July 2009 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in the United States of America| Legal instrument | Regulation |
|---|---|
| Number legal act | Regulation 2009/598 |
| Original proposal | COM(2009)271  |
| CELEX number i | 32009R0598 |
| Document | 07-07-2009 |
|---|---|
| Publication in Official Journal | 10-07-2009; OJ L 179, 10.7.2009,Special edition in Croatian: Chapter 11 Volume 030 |
| Effect | 11-07-2009; Entry into force Date pub. + 1 See Art 3 |
| End of validity | 31-12-9999 |
10.7.2009 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 179/1 |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 598/2009
of 7 July 2009
imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in the United States of America
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on protection against subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the ‘basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 15 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 194/2009 (2) (the ‘provisional Regulation’) imposed a provisional countervailing duty on imports of biodiesel originating in the United States of America (‘USA’ or ‘country concerned’). |
(2) |
In the parallel anti-dumping proceeding, the Commission by Regulation (EC) No 193/2009 (3) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of biodiesel originating in the United States of America. |
1.2. Subsequent procedure
(3) |
Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional countervailing 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. The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and, where appropriate, the provisional findings were modified accordingly. |
(4) |
All parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive countervailing measures on imports of biodiesel originating in the USA and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty (‘final disclosure’). They were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure. |
(5) |
The US Government (USG) and other interested parties expressed their disappointment with the decision to grant only sixteen days to provide comments on the provisional disclosure and also with the decision to decline the requests of certain parties for a meaningful extension of time to file those comments. |
(6) |
Article 30(1) of the basic Regulation provides that interested parties may be provided with the details underlying the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which provisional measures have been imposed. In this regard, it is the Commission’s practice to provide disclosure to all interested parties to a proceeding upon publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of a regulation imposing provisional measures and to provide a period of time within which parties may provide comments thereon. This practice was followed in this proceeding. In regard to the time period within which parties were required to provide comments, the basic Regulation does not specify what period should be allowed. In this proceeding, it was considered that a period of sixteen days (subsequently extended to seventeen days) be granted given the complexity of the proceeding and the need to respect the requirement in Article 11(9) of the basic Regulation that the investigation be concluded within thirteen months of initiation. |
(7) |
In regard to the rate of duty established for US companies that did not make themselves known and cooperate in the... |
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.