19. 4. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 108/9 COMMISSION DECISION of 21 March 1989 concerning applications for refund of anti-dumping duties collected on certain imports of hydrauli¢ excavators originating in Japan (Tridiam Ltd) (Only the English text is authentic) (89/261/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 hydraulic excavators exceeding six tonnes but not exceeding 35 tonnes originating in Japan. The rate of duty -applied to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries was 21,6 %. Between November 1985 and September 1986 Tridiam Ltd, Woking, Surrey, the sole importer into the Community of the machines produced by Mitsubishi, made three successive applications for the refund of anti-dumping duties paid on the importation of hydraulic excavators between October 1985 and September 1986. The total amount requested was £...(3), representing the total anti-dumping duty paid. The applications- were submitted in the form and . within the time limit anti-dumping rules. . prescribed under the - Tridiam subsequently claimed that it had submitted another application, which did not, however, appear in the Commission’s files. Not until 10 June 1987 did - the Commission receive a copy of the final application, for £..., corresponding- to () O] NoL 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. 4) ) (6)- (7) (8) anti-dumping duties paid on machines imported in April 1986. Attached was a copy of a letter from the applicant’s representative, which showed that the fourth application had not been sent to the relevant national authorities within three months from the day - on which the definitive anti-dumping duties had been determined. Having informed Tridiam of the guidelines contained in the Commission notice concerning the reimbursement of anti-dumping duties (4), the Commission.asked the applicant, pursuant to point L.7 of the notice, for additional information on the normal value during the six-month periods preceding _ the imports in question and on the application of certain adjustments. The applicant supplied the information available to it within the agreed time limit, The applicant was informed of the preliminary results of this examination and given an opportunity to comment. The Commission informed the Member States and gave its opinion on the matter. No Member State raised any objection. ’ B. ARGUMENT OF THE APPLICANT Essentially, the applicant argued that the 12 excavators imported between November 1985 and September 1986 were not imported at prices constituting dumping. C. ADMISSIBILITY The first three 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. The fourth application concerned anti-dumping duties determined in April 1986. Pursuant to Article (*) O] No C 266, 22. 10. 1986, p. 2.