31. 3. 94 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 87/3 COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 721/94 of 29 March 1994 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on isobutanol originating in the Russian Federation THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (') (hereinafter referred to as the ‘basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 12 thereof, Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commis- sion after consultations within the Advisory Committee as ‘provided for under the basic Regulation, Whereas : A. Previous action (1) By Regulation (EEC) No 2720/93 of 28 September 1993 (3, the Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of isobutanol origi- nating in the Russian Federation. B. Subsequent procedure (2  Following the imposition of the provisional anti- dumping duty, a major processor of isobutanol in the Community made a written submission making known its views on the findings. These arguments have been examined and taken account of where appropriate. C. Dumping (3) As the Russian Federation is a non-market economy country, the Commission based the deter- mination of normal value on domestic sales prices of a market economy country, in this case the United States, in accordance with Article 2 (5) (a) (i) of the basic Regulation. (4 The Community user company contested this determination and claimed that United States export prices should be used instead. () OJ No L 209, 2. 8. 1988, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 522/94 (O] No L 66, 10. 3. 1994, p. 10). (® OJ No L 246, 2. 10. 1993, p. 12. ©) (6) ® ®) In this case it was found that the United States domestic market was open and competitive, the domestic sales prices were found to be made in the ordinary course of trade and the quantities could be considered representative. Accordingly, in view of the clear preference in the basic Regulation for the use of domestic prices, there is no reason to use export prices in the present case. D. Injury In its preliminary findings, the Commission concluded that Community industry suffered mate- rial injury from the dumped imports. This view was founded mainly on the convergence of several economic indicators such as strong decline of production and sales volume, significant loss of market share, price depression and deterioration of financial results. During the same period, imports originating from Russia increased significantly in terms of volume as well as of market share. The processor company mentioned in recital 2 argued that the declining production of the Community industry was the consequence of the introduction, by the industry itself, of a new and more efficient production technology for oxoplants which altered the output radio of isobutanol to other products, thus making the Community industry incapable of producing volumes of isobu- tanol previously achieved. It is true that Community industry deliberately reduced its production capacity. However, the reduction of production capacity of 20 % was in line with the shrinking of the market of isobutanol. By contrast, production recorded a decrease rate twice as high, ie. 39,8 %. As a consequence, the utilization rate of production capacity dropped from 73,8 % in 1988 to 57,3 %. These figures show clearly that the Community industry conti- nued to have considerable potential for expanding its production, but was prevented from doing so by dumped imports. ' As far as the situation of the Community industry is concerned, no other arguments were put forward after the imposition of provisional duty. The Council therefore confirms the findings set out in recitals 21 to 35 of Regulation (EEC) No 2720/93.