25.7.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities L196/11 COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1339/2002 of 22 July 2002 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of sulphanilic acid originating in the People's Republic of China and India 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 Article 9 thereof, Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES (1)  The Commission by Regulation (EC) No 575/2002 (3 (‘provisional Regulation’) imposed a provisional anti- dumping duty on imports of sulphanilic acid originating in the People's Republic of China (PRC) and India. The Commission by Regulation (EC) No 573/2002 (%) (‘provi- sional anti-subsidy Regulation’) also imposed a provi- sional countervailing duty on imports of sulphanilic acid originating in India. B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE (2)  Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping measures, a number of interested parties submitted comments in writing. All interested parties who requested a hearing were granted an opportunity to be heard by the Commission. (3)  The Commission continued to seek and verify all infor- mation deemed necessary for the definitive findings. @  All parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties and the definitive collection of amounts secured by way of provisional duties. They were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure. (5)  The oral and written arguments submitted by the parties were taken into account. () OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regula- tion (EC) No 22382000 (Of L 257, 11.10.2000, p. 2). () O] L 87, 4.4.2002, p. 28. () O] L 87, 4.4.2002, p. 5. (6) Having reviewed the provisional findings on the basis of the information gathered since then, it is concluded that the main findings as set out in the provisional Regula- tion are confirmed. C. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 1. Product concerned Subsequent to the publication of the provisional Regula- tion, a number of interested parties claimed that the definition of the product concerned was incorrect. They argued that the technical and purified grades of sulpha- nilic acid were substantially different in terms of their purity and had different properties and applications. It was claimed that the two grades of sulphanilic acid could not be considered as a homogeneous product and should therefore have been treated as distinct products for the purposes of the investigation. In support of this assertion, it was argued that there was insufficient inter- changeability between the two grades of sulphanilic acid. Whilst it was accepted that the purified grade could be used in all applications, the same could not be said of technical grade sulphanilic acid because of the level of impurities it contained, most notably aniline residues. These impurities consequently made technical grade acid unsuitable for use in the production of optical bright- eners and food dyes. It is recalled that purified grade sulphanilic acid results from the purification of technical grade sulphanilic acid in a process which removes certain impurities. This puri- fication process does not alter the molecular properties of the compound or the way in which it reacts with other chemicals. Therefore, technical and purified grades share the same basic chemical characteristics. The fact that interchangeability may only be in one direction in certain applications because of concerns about impuri- ties is therefore not considered to be sufficient justifica- tion that purified and technical grades constitute different products which should be treated separately in two different investigations. Whilst accepting that the purification process adds certain additional costs to the production process, it is recalled that these were taken into account when making a fair comparison between the different grades produced by the Community industry and those imported from the countries concerned for the purposes of calculating the level of price undercutting and the injury elimination level.