19. 4. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 108/11 COMMISSION DECISION of 21 March 1989 concerning applications for refund of anti-dumping duties collected on certain imports- of hydraulic excavators originating in Japan (Hitachi Construction Machinery (Europe) BV) (Only the Dutch text is authentic) (89/262/EEC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European 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 particular Article 16 thereof, Whereas: 1) 2) A. PROCEDURE Council Regulation (EEC) No 1877/85 (2) imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain hydrauli¢ excavators exceeding six tonnes but not exceeding 35 tonnes originating in Japan. The rate of duty applied to Hitachi Construction Machinery Co. Ltd, Tokyo, was 12,4 %. Between October.1985 and September 1987 Hitachi- Construction Machinery: (Europe) BV (hereinafter referred to as ‘HCME’), Oosterhout, made: nine applications, following the normal procedure, for the refund ‘of definitive anti-dumping duties paid on the importation between March 1985 -and September 1987 of hydraulic excavators produced by Hitachi Construction Machinery Co. Ltd, Tokyo. The total amount requested was Fl . . . (3), representing part of the FI . . . paid altogether in anti-dumping duties on the imports. The applications were treated as the Commission notice concerning the reimbursement of anti-dumping duties (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commission notice’) {*). They were grouped by six-month periods for the presentation of the required information and the assessment of the actual dumping margin. (1) O] No L 209, 2. 8. 1988, p. 1. () 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. : (%) OJ No C 266, 22. 10. 1986, p. 2. recurring applications within the meaning of point 1.B.4 (a) of therefore : 4) (3) (6) 7) (8) The Commission asked the applicant for. further - details on certain calculations and for additional information ~ on trends in certain costs, the comparability of. certain new models with those covered by the original investigation, and certain reductions or sales facilities granted to the applicant’s customers. The applicant complied with the Commission’s request only in ‘respect of the applications for reimbursement relating to the period from March 1985 to March 1986 inclusive, i.e. the first two reference periods, and stated that it was withdrawing the subsequent applications and would not therefore be completing the case histories. The Commission visited the premises of HCME to carry out a check on export prices. Similarly, information regarding the normal value and freight costs was checked on the premises of Hitachi Construction Machinery Co. Ltd in Japan and with C. Itoh, the exporting company. Following these checks, which led to a number of corrections being made to the data originally supplied, the applicant produced new calculations, reducing the amount originally requested for the period from March 1985 to March 1986 from Fl-. .. to Fl . .. However, it pointed out that, during the on-the-spot checks on normal- value, Hitachi Construction Machinery Co. Ltd had discovered that data relating to the first reference period had mistakenly been used again in calculating the normal value for the second period. This had resulted in a higher normal value. The applicantargued-that this error at:its own cost was clearly involuntary since it resulted in a wider dumping margin, and that its applications should therefore- be considered justified for a larger amount. The Commission found that the calculations presented by the applicant for the comparisons between normal value and export price were in line with the method used during .the original