11.4.2013 Official Journal of the European Union L 102/13 COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 330/2013 of 10 April 2013 making imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia subject to registration THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (') (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Articles 16(4) and 24(5) thereof, After consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: 0] 0] On 10 November 2012, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (?) (notice of initi- ation’), the initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (the countries concerned) following a complaint lodged on 26 September 2012 by the European Biodiesel Board (‘the complainant’) on behalf of producers representing more than 25 % of the total Union production of biodiesel. A. PRODUCT CONCERNED The product concerned by this registration is the same as that defined in the notice of initiation, i.e. fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters andfor paraffinic gasoils obtained from synthesis andfor hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, in pure form or as included in a blend, currently falling within CN codes ex 1516 20 98, ex 1518 00 91, ex 1518 00 95, ex 1518 00 99, ex 2710 19 43, ex 2710 19 46, ex 271019 47, 27102011, 27102015, 27102017, ex 3824 90 97, 3826 00 10 and ex 3826 00 90, and originating in the countries concerned. B. REQUEST Following the publication of the notice of initiation, the complainant requested in December 2012 that imports of the product concerned are made subject to registration L 188, 18.7.2009, p. 93. C 342, 10.11.2012, p. 12. pursuant to Article 24(5) of the basic Regulation so that measures may subsequently be applied against those imports from the date of such registration. C. GROUNDS FOR THE REGISTRATION According to Article 24(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission may, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, direct the customs authorities to take the appropriate steps to register imports, so that measures may subsequently be applied against those imports from the date of such registration. Imports may be made subject to registration following a request from the Union industry which contains sufficient evidence to justify such action. The complainant claimed that registration is justified as the product concerned was being subsidised and injury to the Union industry, which is difficult to repair, was caused by the surge in subsidised imports in a relatively short period of time. The Commission has at its disposal sufficient prima facie evidence that imports of the product concerned from the countries concerned are being subsidised. In the anti- subsidy complaint the Union industry provided evidence that the product concerned is being subsidised in both countries concerned through a system of Differ- ential Export Taxation. In both countries concerned an export tax is charged on the raw material, at rates which are higher than those charged on the export of biodiesel. This approach effectively obliges the producers of the raw material to sell on the domestic market, thus depressing prices and artificially reducing the costs of the biodiesel producers. The evidence in the complaint provides sufficient support at this stage that the exporters in question are being subsidised in their exports of biodiesel. As regards injury, the Commission has at its disposal sufficient prima facie evidence that the exporting producers’ subsidisation is causing material injury to the Union industry, which is difficult to repair. This evidence consists of detailed data, contained in the anti-subsidy complaint and request for registration and supported by information from the industry and public sources, concerning the key injury factors set out in Article 8(5) of the basic Regulation. The request also provides sufficient evidence of critical circumstances where, for the subsidised product in question, injury, which is difficult to repair, is caused