2. 3. 85 Official Journal of the European Communities "No L 63/29 COMMISSION DECISION of 11 February 1985 concerning an application for refund of anti-dumping duties collected on certain imports of glass textile fibres (rovings) originating in Czechoslovakia (Only the German text is authentic) (85/166/EEC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84 of 23 July 1984 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (*), and in particular Article 16 thereof, Whereas : A. Procedure (1) On 18 June 1983 the Commission, by Regulation (EEC) No 1631/83 (), imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of glass textile fibres (rovings) originating in Czechoslovakia. The amount of the duty was equal to the amount by which the free-at-Community-frontier net price, before duty, was less than 0,97 ECU per kilogram. On 16 December 1983, by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3540/83 (%), a definitive anti-dumping duty was imposed. The amount of the duty is equal to the amount by which the free-at- Community-frontier net price ‘before duty is less than 1,07 ECU per kilogram. The amounts secured by way of provisional duty from 18 June 1983 pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 1631/83 were definitively collected up to the amount of the provisional duty. (2) On 18 November 1983 MBG GmbH and Co, Frankfurt/Main, on 25 October 1983 Fibron Wolfgang Mellert GmbH, Bretten/Baden, and on S March 1984 Menzolit-Werke, Albert Schmidt GmbH and Co. KG, Menzingen, importers of rovings from Czechoslovakia, applied to the German authorities for a refund of the amounts of DM 85473,71, DM 92220,75§ and DM 66 010,36 respectively, in connection with their imports of rovings from Czechoslovakia. These () OJ No L 201, 30. 7. 1984, p. 1. () O] No L 160, 18. 6. 1983, p. 18. () OJ No L 354, 16. 12. 1983, p. 15. sums were provisional anti-dumping duties which were collected. The German authorities forwarded the applications to the Commission. Following the submission by the applicants of further supporting evidence the claims were examined by the Commission. The applicants were informed of the preliminary results of this examination and given an opportunity to comment on them. The comments made were taken into consideration prior to this Decision. The Commission informed the Member States and gave its opinion on the matter. All Member States agreed with this opinion. B. Arguments of the applicants The applicants have based their claims on the allegation that because the Commission used more up-to-date rates of exchange when discus- sing a possible undertaking, before the imposition of the provisional duty, the official rate of exchange should not have been used when calcu- lating the amount of the duty to be paid in national currency. The difference between the two rates is requested as a refund by the applicants. C. Admissibility The applications are admissible since they were introduced in conformity with the relevant provi-. sions of the Community’s anti-dumping legisla- tion, in particular those concerning time limits. D. Merits of the claim The applications would be justified if the impor- ters had shown that the amounts of duty collected exceeded the actual dumping margin. In the case in question, the dumping margin amounts to 56,03 %. However, as a lower amount was con- sidered sufficient to eliminate the injury, the pro- visional duty was fixed at a lower level, i.e. the amount by which the free-at-Community-frontier net price, before duty, was less than 0,97 ECU per kilogram. This, based on the exchange rates valid during the investigation period, corresponded to a duty of approximately 13 %.