13.2.2014 Official Journal of the European Union L 43/1 II (Non-legislative acts) REGULATIONS COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 135/2014 of 11 February 2014 repealing the anti-dumping duty on imports of dicyandiamide originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (') (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Articles 11(2), 11(6) and 9 thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: 1. PROCEDURE 1.1. Measures in force (1)  The Council, following an anti-dumping investigation (‘the original investigation’), imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1331/2007 (?) a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of 1-cyanoguanidine (dicyandiamide) originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘China’ or ‘the country concerned’) (‘the definitive anti-dumping measures’). The measures took the form of an ad valorem duty at the level of 49,1 %. 1.2. Request for an expiry review (2)  Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry of the definitive anti-dumping measures in force (%), the Commission received on 14 August 2012 a request for the initiation of an expiry review of these measures pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic 0] L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. () O] L 296, 15.11.2007, p. 1. 0] C 116, 20.4.2012, p. 3. Regulation. The request was lodged by AlzChem AG (‘the applicant’), representing 100 % of the total Union production of dicyandiamide. (3)  The application submitted was based on the grounds that the expiry of the definitive anti-dumping measures would be likely to result in continuation of dumping and recurrence of injury to the Union industry. 1.3. Initiation of an expiry review (4)  Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, the Commission announced on 15 November 2012, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (*) (the Notice of initiation’), the initiation of an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. 1.4. Investigation 1.4.1. Review investigation period and period considered (5)  The investigation of a continuation of dumping covered the period from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012 (the review investigation period’ or RIP). The exam- ination of the trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2009 to the end of the review investi- gation period (‘the period considered). (6)  After final disclosure, the applicant argued that the period considered should have started in 2008 because 2009 would result in unrepresentative findings. It should firstly be noted that the Commission enjoys a broad discretion when determining the period to be taken into account for the purpose of verifying injury. Secondly, the applicant has made this claim at a stage too late to change the period. The period considered was announced early in the process, but the applicant did not contest it then. The period cannot be changed at such a (*) OJ C 349, 15.11.2012, p. 10.