2. 10. 93 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 246/1 (Acts whose publication is obligatory) COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2717/93 of 28 September 1993 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ferro-chrome with a carbon content by weight of maximum 0,5 % (low carbon ferro-chrome), originating in Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or subsi- dized imports from countries not members of the Euro- pean Economic Community(), and in particular Article 12 thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the Commission submitted after consultation within the Advisory Committee as provided for under the abovementioned Regulation, Whereas : A. Provisional measures (1), The Commission, by Regulation (EEC) No 797/93 (3), imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports into the Community of ferro- chrome with a carbon content by weight of maximum 0,5 % (low carbon ferro-chrome), origi- nating in Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine. The Council, by Regulation (EEC) No 2078/93 (%), extended this duty for a period not exceeding two months. B. Subsequent procedure (2  Following the imposition of the provisional anti- dumping duty, a number of the interested parties made submissions to the Commission making known their views of the findings which were taken account of as considered appropriate. Those who so requested were also granted an opportunity to be heard by the Commission. () OJ No L 209, 2. 8. 1988, p. 1. () OJ No L 80, 2. 4. 1993, p. 8. () OJ No L 187, 29. 7. 1993, p. S1. &) ) ©) 6) Parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of the defi- nitive duties and the definitive collection of amounts secured by way of a provisional duty. They were also granted a period within which to make representations subsequent to the disclosure. The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were considered and, where appropriate, the Commission’s findings were modified to take account of them. C. Product under investigation and like product 1. Origin of the imported product The Russian exporter which accounted for more than 80 % of Community imports of the product concerned claimed to be unable to determine the origin of the product exported since it was sold from a central stock of the former USSR. It was not disputed that most of these stocks originated in the three countries concerned. As to the remainder the exporter alleged that this merchandise may have been supplied by a producer located in Georgia. Since, however, no evidence has been submitted to substantiate this allegation and in view of the fact that no imports originating in Georgia appear in Eurostat statistics since the date where statistical information is provided for each of the new republics, it can be safely assumed that the quanti- ties exported by this exporter do not include mate- rials from Georgia. 2. Like product In its Regulation (EEC) No 797/93 (see recitals 8 to 11) the Commission had established that the diffe- rent grades of low carbon ferro-chrome were suffi- ciently alike to constitute one like product within the meaning of Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88.