Judgment_paragraph 7 · „Linas Agro“ AB v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (C-117/19)

7Recitals 1, 2 and 44 to 48 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 999/2014 of 23 September 2014 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (OJ 2014 L 280, p. 19) are worded as follows:(1) By [Council] Regulation (EC) No 2022/95 [of 16 August 1995 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia (OJ 1995 L 198, p. 1)], the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate currently falling within CN codes 31023090 and 31024090 and originating in Russia. Pursuant to a further investigation, which established that the duty was being absorbed, the measures were amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 663/98 [of 23 March 1998 amending Regulation No 2022/95 (OJ 1998 L 93, p. 1)]. Following a first expiry review and a first interim review pursuant to Articles 11(2) and 11(3) of [Regulation No 1225/2009] the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 658/2002 [of 15 April 2002 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia (OJ 2002 L 102, p. 1)], imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty of EUR 47.07 per tonne on imports of ammonium nitrate falling within CN codes 31023090 and 31024090 and originating in Russia. Subsequently, a product scope interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of [Regulation No 1225/2009] was carried out and, by [Regulation No 945/2005], a definitive anti-dumping duty ranging between EUR 41.42 per tonne and EUR 47.07 per tonne was imposed on imports of solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80% by weight, currently falling within CN codes 31023090, 31024090, ex31022900, ex31026000, ex31029000, ex31051000, ex31052010, ex31055100, ex31055900 and ex31059020 originating in Russia.(2) Following a second expiry review and a second partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(2) and (3) of [Regulation No 1225/2009], the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 [of 8 July 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) and a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2008 L 185, p. 1)], maintained the measures in force. ……(44) The product concerned by this review is the same as the product defined in Regulation [No 661/2008], i.e. solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80% by weight, currently falling within CN codes 31023090, 31024090, ex31022900, ex31026000, ex31029000, ex31051000, ex31052010, ex31055100, ex31055900 and ex31059020 and originating in Russia (hereinafter “AN” or “the product concerned”). …(45) The main raw material used in the production of AN is gas, which accounts for 70% to 80% of the total costs of production. The product scope extension in 2005 aimed to cover also ammonium nitrate to which were added phosphorus and/or potassium nutrients, since it was found out that these mixtures had essentially the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and the same agronomic properties.(46) It should be noted that the CN codes 31023090 and 31024090 (respectively, “ammonium nitrate other than in aqueous solutions” and “mixtures of ammonium nitrate with calcium carbonate or other inorganic non-fertilising substances, with a nitrogen content exceeding 28% by weight”) can include AN used for industrial purposes (such as the production of explosives) as well as AN used for agricultural purposes. Both types have the same technical and chemical characteristics, can easily be interchangeable and are considered as the product concerned.(47) Following disclosure, the representatives of the Russian authorities claimed that the product scope extension made in 2005 is inconsistent with the [World Trade Organisation (WTO)] Anti-Dumping Agreement because no determination of dumping, injury and causal link would have been made with respect to the additional products covered by the 2005 extension.(48) This claim is unfounded for the reasons already mentioned in recital 22 and therefore rejected.’