19. 4. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 108/5 COMMISSION DECISION of 21 March 1989 concerning applications for refund of antl-dumpmg duties collected on certain imports of hydraulic excavators originating in Japan (Boeg-Thomsen A/S) (Only the Danish text is authentic) (89/259/EEC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the EuropeanA‘ Economic Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports - from. countries not members .of the European Economic Community ('), and in pamcular Article 16 thereof, Whereas: A. PROCEDURE (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1877/85 (2) imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain hydraulic excavators exceeding six tonnes but not exceeding 35 tonnes originating in Japan. The rate of duty applied to Kobelco-Kobesteel Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Kobelco) was 31,9 %. (2)  Between October 1985 and September 1986 the Danish .company Boeg-Thomsen of Vippered, an independent importer, made four applications for the refund of definitive anti-dumping duties paid -on the - importation of six hydraulic excavators manufactured and exported by Kobelco. The total amount requested was Dkr . . . (3). The applications were sent to the Danish customs authorities and forwarded to the Commission. For each application, the applicant was asked to provide the information needed to calculate the normal value of the products for the six months preceding each  importation, as laid down in point I.B (a) of the -Commission notice concerning the reimbursement of anti-dumping duties (4). (3) Having fequested and received the additional information and documents it considered necessary, . the Commission visited Kobelco’s premises in Japan to - (1) OJ No L 209,2. 8. 1988, p. 1. (2) OJ No L'176, 6. 7. 1985, p. 1. (3} In accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, which deals with the non-disclosure of business secrets, certain figures have been omitted from the published version of this Decision. (*) O] No C 266, 22. 10. 1986, p. 2. check the information on normal value which Kobelco had sent to the Commission at-the request of the - applicant. (4)  The applicant was informed of the preliminary results of this examination and given an opportunity to comment. (5)  The Commission informed the Member States and gave its opinion on the matter. No Member State raised any objection. B. ARGUMENT OF THE APPLICANT (6)  Essentially, the applicant argued that the export price paid was significantly higher than the normal - value. C. ADMISSIBILITY (7)  The applications are admissible in that they were introduced in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Community’s- anti-dumping legislation, in particular with regard to time limits. D. MERITS OF THE CLAIM (8)  The applications are founded in part.. Pursuant to Article 16 (1) of Council Regulation - (EEC) No 2176/845) {and under Regulation- (EEC) No 2423/88) an importer who has paid anti-dumping duties and who applies for reimbursement must show that the dumping, margin changed over the.relevant reference period for the imports for which the duty was collected. Calculation of the actual dumping margin must normally be based on the same method as that applied during the original "investigation, in particular with regard to any application of weighted - averages (). (*) OJ No L 201, 30. 7. 1984, p. 1. (¢) Point II.2 (b) of the Commission notice concerning the reimbursement of anti-dumping duties.