8.8.2001 Official Journal of the European Communities L214/3 COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1612/2001 of 3 August 2001 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of ferro molybdenum originating in the People's Republic of China 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 last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2238/2000 (3, and in partic- ular Article 7 thereof, After consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: A. PROCEDURE 1. Initiation On 9 November 2000, the Commission announced by a notice (the ‘notice of initiation’) published in the Official Journal of the European Communities () the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Community of ferro molybdenum originating in the People's Republic of China (the PRC). The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged in September 2000 by Euroalliages, Le Comite de liaison des industries de Ferro-alliages (the ‘complainant’) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion of the Community production of ferro molybdenum (FeMo). The complaint contained evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding. 2. Investigation The Commission officially advised the exporting produ- cers, the importers and the users known to be concerned and their associations, the representatives of the exporting country concerned, the complainant Community producers and other Community operators about the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation. A number of exporting producers in the country concerned, as well as Community producers, Community users and their associations and importers| 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. o L 0] L 257, 11.10.2000, p. 2. 0] C 320, 9.11.2000, p. 3. traders made their views known in writing. All parties who so requested within the set above time limit and who demonstrated that there were particular reasons why they should be heard were granted the opportunity to be heard. In view of the large number of exporting producers in the exporting country concerned, and in conformity with Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (the ‘basic Regulation’), it was considered appropriate to examine whether sampling should be used. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would indeed be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, exporting producers were requested, pursuant to Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, to make themselves known within two weeks of the initiation of the proceeding and to provide information on their production, turnover and exports to the Community during the investigation period as well as the names and the activities of all related companies. 14 Chinese companies provided this basic information. One of the 14 companies decided to withdraw its cooperation immediately after the submission of the reply to the sampling questions. In order to allow exporting producers to submit a claim for market economy treatment (MET’) and/or individual treatment (1T") if they so wished, the Commission sent to all exporting producers known to be concerned or which made themselves known, a MET/IT claim form. 10 companies requested MET andfor IT pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation. In view of the fact that only one exporting producer was granted MET (see recital 19), it was decided that sampling was not necessary. The Commission sent questionnaires to all other parties known to be concerned and to all the other companies that made themselves known within the deadlines set out in the notice of initiation. Replies were received from 11 Chinese companies, two Community produ- cers, two Community operators, one unrelated importer and five users of FeMo. One exporting producer made itself known and submitted a reply to the questionnaire one month after the time limit set in paragraph 6(a)(ii) of the notice of initiation. Consequently, this information was not accepted because it was submitted substantially after the deadline.