25.7.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities L 185/1 (Acts whose publication is obligatory) COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1603/2000 of 20 July 2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ethanolamines 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 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (!), and in particular Articles 11(2) and 11(3) thereof, Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after having consulted the Advisory Committee, Whereas: A. PROCEDURE 1. Measures in force (1)  In February 1994, the Council imposed definitive anti- dumping duties on imports of ethanolamines originating in the United States (Regulation (EC) No 229/94 (%). The duties took the form of minimum-price-based variable duties for the three types of ethanolamines, i.e. monoe- thanolamine (MEA), diethanolamine (DEA) and trietha- nolamine (TEA). 2. Request for a review (2)  Following the publication on 23 July 1998 (%) of a notice of impending expiry of the anti-dumping measures in force with regard to imports of ethanolamines origin- ating in the USA, the Commission received a request to review these measures pursuant to Article 11(2) and 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (the ‘Basic Regula- tion’), i.e. a request for an expiry and interim review. (") OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation ] (EC) No 905/98 (O] L 128, 30.4.98, p.18). () O] L 28, 2.2.1994, p. 40. 0] C 231, 23.7.1998, p. 3. (3)  The request was lodged on 30 October 1998 by the Conseil européen des fédérations de l'industrie chimique (CEFIC) on behalf of Community producers whose collective output constituted a major proportion of the total Community production of ethanolamines. (4 The CEFIC argued that expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of increased dumping and injury to the Community industry and that there were reasons to review the meas- ures because they lacked effectiveness. Having deter- mined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that the evidence was sufficient, the Commission initiated an investigation (¥ pursuant to Articles 11(2) and 11(3) of the Basic Regulation. The investigation therefore covered not only the question of what would happen if the measures were allowed to lapse (see Article 11(2)), but also whether a modification of the existing anti-dumping measures (minimum-price-based variable duties) was warranted (see Article 11(3)). 3. Investigation (5)  The Commission officially advised the Community producers supporting the request for review (the ‘appli- cant Community producers’), the exporting producers and their related importers, as well as the users known to be concerned, and gave them the opportunity to make their views known in writing and/or to request a hearing. (6)  The Commission sent questionnaires to the parties known to be concerned and received replies from the four applicant Community producers, four US exporting producers and five of their related importers. Question- naires were also sent to a large number of users of the product; two of their replies were considered complete. () O] C 27, 2.2.1999, p. 3.