L87/28 Official Journal of the European Communities 4.4.2002 COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 575/2002 of 3 March 2002 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of sulphanilic acid originating in the People's Republic of China and in India THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 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 (), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2238/2000 (?) and in partic- ular Article 7 thereof, After consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: A. PROCEDURE On 6 July 2001, the Commission announced, by a notice (notice of initiation’) published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (%), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Community of sulphanilic acid originating in the People's Republic of China (PRC) and India. A parallel anti-subsidy investigation concerning imports of the same product originating in India was initiated on the same date (%). The anti-dumping proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged in May 2001 by Sorochimie Chimie Fine, representing a major proportion, in the current case more than 65 %, of the Community production of sulphanilic acid. The complaint contained evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding. The Commission officially advised the exporting produ- cers and importers(traders known to be concerned as well their associations, the representatives of the exporting countries concerned, users, suppliers and Community producers. Interested parties were given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation. A number of exporting producers in the countries concerned, as well as Community producers, Community users and a trader made their views known in writing. All parties who so requested within the above time limit and showed that there were particular reasons 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. 257, 11.10.2000, p. 2. 190, 6.7.2001, p. 2. 190, 6.7.2001, p. 5. eoleolnln why they should be heard were granted the opportunity to be heard. In view of the apparent large number of exporting producers of the product concerned in the countries subject to the investigation, known from the complaint, the application of sampling for the investigation of dumping was envisaged in the notice of initiation. However, only a limited number of exporting producers from the PRC and India made themselves known and provided the information requested in the notice of initiation. Therefore, sampling was not considered neces- sary for either of the countries concerned. The Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned and to all other companies who made themselves known within the deadlines set in the notice of initiation. Replies were received from two Community producers, one Indian exporting producer and its related importer in the Community, one Chinese exporting producer, one Chinese trading company and one producer in a market economy third country. The Commission also received replies from seven users, one supplier and one trader providing information which was sufficiently complete and representative to use in the assessment of Community interest. Several compa- nies chose to submit only comments in preference to completing the Commission's questionnaires. These comments have been taken into account where appro- priate. In order to allow exporting producers in the PRC to submit a claim for market economy treatment (MET) or individual treatment, if they so wished, the Commission sent to the Chinese companies known to be concerned a market economy status and an individual treatment claim form. One company requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (‘the basic Regulation’) or individual treatment should the invest- igation establish that it did not meet the conditions for MET. The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the purpose of a determination of dumping, injury and Community interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies: (a) Community producers — Sorochimie Chimie Fine, Givet, France, — Quimigal SA, Estarreja, Portugal;