4.4.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities L 87/5 COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 573/2002 of 3 April 2002 imposing a provisional countervailing duty on imports of sulphanilic acid originating in India THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (!), and in particular Article 12 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-subsidy proceeding concerning imports into the Community of sulphanilic acid originating in India. The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged in May 2001 by Sorochimie Chimie Fine, repre- senting a major proportion, in the current case more than 65 %, of the Community production of sulphanilic acid. The complaint contained evidence of subsidisation of the said product and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding. The initiation of a parallel anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of the same product originating in the People's Republic of China and India was announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the Euro- pean Communities (*) on the same date. Prior to the initiation of the proceeding and in accord- ance with Article 10(9) of Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 (basic Regulation’), the Commission notified the Government of India (‘GOI') that it had received a prop- erly documented complaint alleging that subsidised imports of sulphanilic acid originating in India are causing material injury to the Community industry. The GOI was invited for consultations with the aim of clari- fying the situation as regards the contents of the complaint and arriving at a mutually agreed solution. Consultations with the GOI were subsequently held with the Commission at its offices in Brussels, where no 288, 21.10.1997, p. 1. o L 0] C 190, 6.7.2001, p. 5. 0] C 190, 6.7.2001, p. 2. ) ®) ©) conclusive evidence was provided by the GOI which could refute the allegations made in the complaint. However, due note was taken of the comments made by the GOI in regard to the allegations contained in the complaint regarding subsidised imports and material injury being suffered by the Community industry. The Commission officially advised the exporting produ- cers and importers/traders known to be concerned, the representatives of the exporting country, users, suppliers and Community producers of sulphanilic acid of the initiation of the proceeding. 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. The GOI and the exporting producers, as well as Community producers, Community users and importers| traders made their views known in writing. All parties who so requested within the above time limit and showed that there were particular reasons 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 India, known from the complaint, the application of sampling tech- niques for the investigation of subsidisation was envis- aged in the notice of initiation. However, only a limited number of exporting producers made themselves known and provided the information requested in the notice of initiation. Therefore, the use of sampling techniques was not considered necessary. 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, the GOI and one Indian exporting producer and its related importer in the Community. The Commission also received replies from seven users, one supplier and one distributor providing information which was sufficiently complete and repres- entative to use in the assessment of Community interest. Several companies chose to submit only comments in preference to completing the Commission's question- naires. These comments have been taken into account where appropriate.