31.1.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities L 30/9 COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 164/2002 of 28 January 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of stainless steel wire having a diameter of 1 mm or more, originating in India THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (!), and in particular Article 20 thereof, After consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: () ) 0] 0] A. PREVIOUS PROCEDURE By Regulation (EC) 1599/1999 (3), the Council imposed a definitive countervailing duty on imports of stainless steel wire having a diameter of 1 mm or more (herein- after referred to as ‘the product concerned) falling within CN code ex 7223 00 19 originating in India. The measures took the form of ad valorem duties of between 0 and 35,4 % on individual exporters with a residual duty of 48,8 %. B. CURRENT PROCEDURE 1. Request for review After the definitive measures had been imposed, the Commission received a request for the initiation of an accelerated review of Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999, pursuant to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the basic Regulation’), from two Indian producers of the product concerned, Sindia Steels Limited and Nevatia Steel & Alloys Private Limited (Nevatia’), both located in Mumbai. The companies concerned claimed that they were not related to any other exporting producers of the product concerned in India. Furthermore, they claimed that they had not exported the product concerned during the original period of investigation (1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998), but had exported the product concerned to the Community since then. 2. Initiation of an accelerated review The Commission examined the evidence submitted by the two Indian exporting producers concerned and considered it sufficient to justify the initiation of a review in accordance with the provisions of Article 20 of the basic Regulation. After consultation of the Advisory Committee and after the Community industry concerned had been given the opportunity to comment, the Commission initiated, by a notice in the Official L 288, 21.10.1997, p. 1. L 189, 22.7.1999, p. 1. Journal (), an accelerated review of Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999 with regard to the companies concerned and commenced its investigation. 3. Product concerned The product covered by the current review is the same product as that under consideration in Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999. 4. Parties concerned The Commission officially advised the two companies concerned and the Government of India (GOI). Further- more, it gave other parties directly concerned the oppor- tunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing. However, no such request was received by the Commission. The Commission sent a questionnaire to the companies concerned and received full replies within the deadline. The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the purpose of the investigation and carried out verification visits at the premises of the companies concerned. 5. Investigation period The investigation of subsidisation covered the period from 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the investigation period). 6. Methodology The same methodology as that used in the original investigation was applied in the current investigation. C. SCOPE OF THE REVIEW As no request for a review of the findings on injury was made in this investigation, this review was limited to subsidisation. The Commission examined the same subsidy schemes which were analysed in the original investigation. It was also examined whether the exporting producers had used any subsidy schemes which were alleged in the original complaint but not used during the original investigation. It was finally examined whether the exporting producers had made use of any subsidy schemes which were estab- lished after the end of the original investigation period, or had received ad hoc subsidies after this date. () O] C 288, 9.10.1999, p. 45.