3.3.94 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 59/21 COMMISSION DECISION of 8 February 1994 concerning an application for the refund of anti-dumping duties collected on certain imports of certain polyester yarns (man-made staple fibres) ongmatmg in Indonesia (Ottoman Pacific Ltd) (Only the English text is authentic) (94/133/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or sub- sidized imports from countries not members of the Euro- pean Community ('), and in particular Article 16 thereof, Whereas : A. PROCEDURE (1) On 31 March 1992 by Council Regulation (EEC) No 830/92 (%), a definitive anti-dumping duty of 11,9 % was imposed on imports of certain poly- ester yarns (man-made staple fibres) originating in Taiwan, Indonesia, India, the People’s Republic of China and Turkey. ) Ottoman Pacific Ltd, 3 Hawksworth Street, Ilkley, UK-West Yorkshire LS29 9DU, importer of poly- ester yarns produced and exported by PT Indo Rama Synthetics, an Indonesian exporter (herei- nafter referred to as ‘the exporter’), subject to the “anti-dumping duty of 11,9 %, claimed on 19 June 1992 a refund of anti-dumping duties paid in the period 3 October 1991 to 30 April 1992. In accor- dance with the Commission notice concerning the reimbursement of anti-dumping duties () (herei- nafter referred to as ‘the notice’), the Commission considered that as the refund request related to more than three consignments in a period of at least six months, it should be treated as a recurring application in the context of point 1.4 of the notice. The total refund claimed by Ottoman Pacific Ltd, for anti-dumping duties paid between 3 October 1991 and 30 April 1992, amounts to (£ ...)(%). 3 Folléwing submissions by the applicant with regard to the margin of dumping during the above () OJ No L 209, 2. 8. 1988, p. 1. () OJ No L 88, 3. 4. 1992, p. 1. () OJ No C 266, 22. 10. 1986, p. 2. (*) In the pubhshed version of the Decision, some figures have been omitted pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of Regu- lation (EEC) No 2423/88 concerning non-disclosure of busi- ness secrets. ) ) ) reference period, the Commission sought and veri- fied all information deemed to be necessary for the purposes of a determination and carried out inves- tigations at the premises of the exporter in Indo- nesia. Subsequently, the applicant was informed of the preliminary results of this examination and given an opportunity to comment. Its observations were taken into account where considered necessary. The Commission informed the Member States and gave its opinion on the matter. No Member State disagreed with this opinion. B. ARGUMENTS OF THE APPLICANT The applicant based its claim on the allegation, supported by data concerning normal value and export prices to the Community, that the export prices from the exporter were such that dumping did not exist. C. ADMISSIBILITY The application is admissible since it was intro- duced in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Community’s anti-dumping legislation, in particular that concerning time limits. D. MERITS OF THE CLAIM Pursuant to Article 16 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 and point II of the notice, the applicant showed, and the verifications carried out confirmed, that the export prices were, with the exception of a small number of transactions, not lower than the normal value for sales of the like product in Indo- nesia.