13 May 2016
Commodity: Oxalic acid, whether in dihydrate (CUS number 0028635-1 and CAS number 6153-56-6) or anhydrous form (CUS number 0021238-4 and CAS number 144-62-7) and whether or not in aqueous solution, currently falling within CN code ex 2917 11 00 (TARIC code 2917110091).
Countries/Economies: The Chinese mainland, India.
Action: On 27 April 2016, the Official Journal published a notice concerning the judgment by the General Court of the European Union in case T-310/12 in relation to Council Implementing Regulation 325/2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of oxalic acid originating in India and the Chinese mainland. The notice explains that, in its judgment of 20 May 2015 in case T-310/12, Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co. Ltd v Council, the General Court annulled contested Council Implementing Regulation 325/2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of oxalic acid, as far as it concerns Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co. Ltd (‘the exporting producer concerned’). In the judgment, the General Court ruled that the contested Regulation did not contain an adequate statement of reasons in relation to the method of determining the injury margin in regard to the exporting producer concerned. As a consequence of the judgment, imports into the EU of oxalic acid produced by the exporting producer concerned are no longer subject to the anti-dumping duty imposed by the contested Regulation. In consequence, the Union’s institutions must take the necessary steps to comply with judgments. It is recognised that, in cases where proceedings consist of several administrative steps, the annulment of one of those steps does not annul the complete proceeding. The anti-dumping investigation is an example of such a multi-step proceeding. Consequently, the partial annulment of Council Implementing Regulation 325/2012 does not lead to the annulment of the entire contested Regulation. Accordingly, the Union’s institutions, in so complying with the General Court’s judgment of 20 May 2015, have the possibility to remedy the aspects of the contested Regulation which led to its partial annulment, while leaving unchanged those parts which are not affected by the judgment. Therefore, other findings reached in the contested Regulation which were not contested within the time-limits for a challenge or which were contested but rejected by the General Court’s judgment and therefore did not lead to the annulment of the contested Regulation, remain valid. Therefore, the Commission has decided to resume the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of oxalic acid originating in the Chinese mainland at the point at which the illegality occurred. This is limited in scope to the implementation of the judgment of the General Court as recalled above.
Rates: The rate of duty levied on the exporting producer concerned is mentioned in Regulation 325/2012 (see Article 1) as being 14.6%, while it is 52.2% for all other companies exporting from mainland China. The new notice states that the definitive anti-dumping duties paid pursuant to Regulation 325/2012 on imports into the EU of oxalic acid and originating in the Chinese mainland, produced by the exporting producer concerned (TARIC additional code B232), and the provisional duties definitively collected in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation 325/2012, should be repaid or remitted. The repayment or remission must be requested from national customs authorities in accordance with applicable customs legislation.
Dates: The notice was published on 27 April 2016.