L 126/36 Official Journal of the European Communities 28.4.98 COMMISSION DECISION of 16 April 1998 under the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 of 22 December 1994 concerning the failure of the United States of America to repeal its Antidumping Act of 1916 (98/277/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 of 22 December 1994 laying down Community procedures in the field of the common commercial policy in order to ensure the exercise of the Community’s right under inter- national trade rules, in particular those established under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation ('), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 356/95 (3, and in par- ticular Articles 13 and 14 thereof, After consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: A. PROCEDURE (1)  On 10 January 1997 the Commission received a complaint pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 (hereafter the ‘Regulation’). The complaint was lodged by Eurofer, the European Confederation of Iron and Steel Industries, on behalf of its members. (20 The complainant alleged that the so-called US Antidumping Act of 1916 (%) (hereafter the ‘1916 Act) is inconsistent with several provisions of the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisa- tion (hereafter “WTO Agreement’) and its annexes and that the United States’ failure to repeal this legislation is causing adverse trade effects to its member companies and threatening further adverse trade effects. On that basis the complainant asked the Commission to take the necessary actions to convince the Untied States to repeal the 1916 Act. (3  The complaint contained sufficient prima facie evidence to justify the initiation of a Community examination procedure pursuant to Article 8 of the Regulation.  Consequently, an  examination procedure was initiated on 25 February 1997 (%). () OJ L 349, 31. 12. 1994, p. 71. () OJ L 41, 23. 2. 1995, p. 3. () ‘Act of September 8, 1996, 39 Stat. 756". Title VIII of that Act is codified at United States Code 71-74. () OJ C 58, 25. 2. 1997, p. 14. ) Following the initiation of the Community exam- ination procedure the Commission conducted an in-depth legal and factual investigation. Based on the findings of this investigation the Commission reached the conclusions which are indicated below. B. FINDINGS REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF AN OBSTACLE TO TRADE The US Antidumping Act of 1916 is still in force and is applicable to the import and internal sale of any foreign product irrespective of its origin, including products originating in countries which are WTO members. The 1916 Act exists in the US statute books in parallel with the Tariff Act of 1930 which includes the US implementing legislation of multilateral antidumping provisions. The 1916 Act prohibits both the importation of goods and their sale in the US market when the price is lower than the one in the country of origin or in other foreign countries where the goods are exported. The wording of the Act is as follows: ‘It shall be unlawful for any person importing or assisting in importing any articles from any foreign country into the United States, commonly and systematically to import, sell or cause to be imported or sold such articles within the United States at a price substantially less than the actual market value or wholesale price of such articles, at the time of exportation to the United States, in the principal markets of the country of their produc- tion, or of other foreign countries to which they are commonly exported after adding to such market value or wholesale price, freight, duty, and other charges and expenses necessarily incident to the importation and sale thereof in the United States: provided, that such act or acts be done with the intent of destroying or injuring an industry in the United States, or of preventing the establishment of an industry in the United States, or of restraining or monopolising any part of trade and commerce in such articles in the United States.” Any violation of the law leads to the granting of treble damages, upon application of an injured party, as well as to the imposition of criminal sanctions (fines and/or imprisonment) on the responsible persons.