L 87/24 Official Journal of the European Communities 21.3.98 COMMISSION DECISION of 20 March 1998 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of tungstic oxide and tungstic acid originating in the People’s Republic of China (98/230/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 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 ("), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2331/ 96 (%), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof, After consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: A. PREVIOUS PROCEDURE (1) By Regulation (EEC) No 2736/90 (}), the Council imposed a 35 % definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tungstic oxide and tungstic acid origin- ating in the People’s Republic of China. By Decision 90/479/EEC (), the Commission accepted undertakings given by two major Chinese exporters concerning the product subject to measures. )] Following the withdrawal of the undertakings by the two exporters concerned, the Commission imposed, by Regulation (EC) No 2286/94 (%), provi- sional anti-dumping duties on the product concerned. (3 By Regulation (EC) No 610/95 (%), the Council amended Regulation (EEC) No 2736/90 and imposed a definitive duty of 35 % on imports of tungstic oxide and tungstic acid in respect of those two exporters. B. REVIEW INVESTIGATION (4) Following the publication in February 1995 of a notice of the impending expiry of the measures (’) in force, Eurométaux, representing the totality of Community producers of the product concerned, requested a review of the measures. The request contained evidence of dumping of the product originating in the People’s Republic of China and of renewed material injury likely to result in the event of expiry of the existing measures. That () OJ L 56, 6. 3. 1996, p. 1. () OJ L 317, 6. 12. 1996, p. 1. () OJ L 264, 27. 9. 1990, p. 4. () OJ L 264, 27. 9. 1990, p. 57. () OJ L 248, 23. 9. 1994, p. 8. () OJ L 64, 22. 3. 1995, p. 1. () OJ C 48, 25. 2. 1995, p. 3. evidence was considered sufficient to justify the opening of a review. (5) On 21 September 1995, the Commission announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities(®), the initiation of a review of Regulation (EEC) No 2736/ 90. That review was initiated under Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 3283/94 (°), which was replaced during the investigation by Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Basic Regulation’) . (6)  The Commission officially advised the producers/ exporters and importers known to be concerned, the representatives of the exporting country and the Community producers of the initiation of the review, and gave the parties directly concerned the opportunity to make known their views in writing and to request a hearing within the time-limit set in the above notice. (7y  The Community producers, exporters/producers and some importers which were also users of the product concerned made their views known in writing and were granted a hearing. (8)  The Commission sought and verified all informa- tion it deemed necessary for the purpose of the investigation and carried out verification visits at the premises of the following companies: (a) Community producers — Wolfram Bergbau und Hiittengesellschaft m.b.H., St Peter, Austria, — H.C. Starck GmbH & Co KG, Goslar, Germany, — Eurotungstéene Poudres, Grenoble, France, (b) Importers/users in the Community — AB Sandvik Hard Materials, Sweden, — Seco Tools AB, Sweden, — Cerametal, Luxembourg, (c) Related importer — Minmetals North-Europe AB, Sweden, (d) Producer in the analogue country — Metek Metal Technology Ltd, Israel. () OJ C 244, 21. 9. 1995, p. 7. () OJ L 349, 31. 12. 1994, p. 1.