11.6.2003 Official Journal of the European Union L 143/5 COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 986/2003 of 5 June 2003 amending the anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 360/2000 on imports of dead-burned (sintered) magnesia originating in the People's Republic of China THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 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 (') (basic Regulation), and in particular Article 11(3) thereof, Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: A. PROCEDURE 1. Measures in force (1) In February 2000, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 360/2000 (3, imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of dead-burned (sintered) magnesia (DBM) origi- nating in the People's Republic of China (PRC). The duties took the form of a minimum import price (MIP). 2. Initiation (20 On 13 June 2002, the Commission announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (’) (Notice of Initiation), the initiation of a partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports into the Community of DBM origi- nating in the PRC pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation. (3)  The review was initiated on the initiative of the Commis- sion in order to examine the appropriateness of the form of the measures in force. The current measures in the form of an MIP do not differentiate between sales made to related parties and sales made to unrelated parties, or between direct sales to the Community and indirect sales, i.e. sales not made directly from an exporter in the country concerned to an importer in the Community. This lack of differentiation between different types of sales possibly leads to circumvention problems. Indeed, parties could set the import price at an artificially high level when entering the Community, in order to avoid the payment of anti-dumping duties. This artificially high level may be attained through an agreement between related parties or because the price was inflated due to successive sales before customs clearance. L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation ) No 1972/2002 (O] L 305, 7.11.2002, p. 1). L 46, 18.2.2000, p. 1. C 140, 13.6.2002, p. 4. (4) (10) Consequently, the existing measures do not appear suffi- cient to counteract the dumping which is causing injury. Furthermore, the current measures do not cater for situa- tions in which imported goods have been damaged before entry into free circulation into the Community. In this respect it should be noted that, since the measures should not go beyond what is necessary for the removal of injury, due account should be taken of the possible value reduction in cases of damage before the goods enter into free circulation into the Community. 3. Investigation The Commission officially advised exporting producers, the importers, the users known to be concerned and their associations, the representatives of the exporting country concerned and the Community producers about the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the Notice of Initiation. One chamber of commerce in the country concerned, as well as Community producers and Community impor- ters/traders made their views known in writing. All parties who so requested within the time limit, and who demonstrated that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted the opportunity to be heard. The Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for the purpose of a determination of the appropriateness of the measures in force. B. SALES MADE TO RELATED AND UNRELATED PARTIES When they export to related companies in the Commu- nity, exporters subject to measures are in a position to invoice at a price above the MIP, and to subsequently compensate such a price after customs declaration. This may render the MIP ineffective, as it may mean that the product concerned is effectively still exported below the MIP to the Community. Accordingly, this could lead to subsequent resale prices in the Community which prevent that the intended effects of the measure, i.e. to remove the injurious effects of dumping, are achieved.