19. 4. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 108/7 COMMISSION DECISION- of 21 March 1989 concerning applications for refund of anti-dumping duties collected on certain imports of hydraulic excavators originating in Japan (Louis Reyners BV) (Only the Dutch text is authentic) (89/260/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) (3) 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 Kobelco-Kobesteel Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Kobelco) was 31,9%. Between August 1985 and April 1986 the Dutch - company Louis Reyners of Amsterdam, an independent importer, made three applications for the refund of definitive anti-dumping duties paid on the importation  of four hydranlic excavators manufactured and exported by Kobelco. The total amount requested was Fl. .. (3). The applications were sent to the Dutch 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 (*). The Commission asked for additional information from the applicant, which had the - required information sent by Kobelco. The Commission then (*) OJ No.L 209, 2. 8. 1988, p. 1. (2) OJ NoL 176, 6:7.1985,p. 1. (3) In accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, (4). 7 (8) visited Kobelco’s premises in Japan to check the information on normal value which Kobelco had sent to the Commission at the request of the applicant. 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 there was in - effect no dumping margin at the moment of importation. C. ADMISSIBILITY 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 The -applications are founded in part. Pursuant to Article 16 (1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84 (*) (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 fer the imports for which the duty was collected. Calculation of the actual dumping margin must normally be based on the same method applied during the original investigation, in particular with regard to any application of weighted averages (¢). which deals with the non-disclosure of business secrets, certain figures have been omitted from the published version of this Decision. (4) OJ No C 266, 22. 10. 1986, p. 2. (%) OJ No L 201, 30.7.1984, p. 1. (%) Point II.2 (b) of the Commission notice concerning the reimbursement of anti-dumping duties.