19. 4. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities COMMISSION DECISION of 21 March 1989 concerning applications for refund of anti-dumping duties collected on certain imports of hydraulic excavators originating in Japan (Oswald de Bruycker NV) (Only the Dutch and: French texts are authentic) (89/258/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 (1), and in particular Article 16 thereof, Whereas: A. PROCEDURE (1)  Council Regulation (EEC)No1877/85 (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 November 1985 and July 1987 Oswald de Bruycker NV, Ostend, an independent importer, made five applications for the refund of definitive anti-dumping duties paid on the importatien of 10 hydraulic excavators manufactured and exported by Kobelco. The total amount requested was Bfrs . . . (3). The applications were sent to the Belgian customs authoritiess 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 LB (a) of the Commission- notice' concerning the reimbursement of anti-dumping duties (4). (3)  The Commission asked the applicant for additional - information, which was supplied within the time limit set. The Commission also visited Kobelco’s premises (1) OJ NoL 209, 2. 8. 1988, p. 1. (z) O] NoL 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. in Japan to 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 2176/84 (5) (and under Regulation .(EEC) No 2423/88) an importer who has paid anti-dumping® duties and who applies for reimbursement must show that the duty collected exceeds the dumping margin calculated 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 1.2 (b) of the Commission notice concerning the reimbursement of anti-dumping duties. No L 108/3 .