No L 217/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 5. 8. 86 COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 2495/86 of 1 August 1986 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of potassium permanganate originating in Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic and the People’s Republic of China THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84 of 23 July 1984 on protection against dumped or subsi- dized imports from countries not members of the Euro- pean Economic Community ('), and in particular Article 11 thereof, After consultations within the Advisory Committee as provided for by the above Regulation, A. Procedure 1. In January 1986 the Commission received a complaint lodged by the Conseil européen des Fédérations de I'Industrie Chimique (CEFIC) on behalf of a Community producer of potassium permanganate whose collective output constitutes the totality of Community production of the product in question. The complaint contained evidence of dumping and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify, the initia- tion of a proceeding. The Commission accordingly announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (%), the initia- tion of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Community of potassium perman- ganate falling within Common Customs Tariff subheading ex 28.47 C, corresponding to NIMEXE code 28.47-60 and originating in Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic and the People’s Republic of China and commenced an investigation. 2. The Commission officially so advised the exporters and importers known to be concerned, the represen- tatives of the exporting countries and the complai- nants and gave the parties directly concerned the opportunity to make known their views in writing and to request a hearing. 3. The Commission, for the purpose of obtaining all the information it deemed necessary, sent questionnaires to the Community producer, on whose behalf the complaint was made, in order to allow him to demonstrate the injury caused to it, thereby substan- tiating the allegations made in the complaint, to the () OJ No L 201, 30. 7. 1984, p. 1. () O] No C 63, 18. 3. 1986, p. S. Czechoslovakian, the German Democratic Republic and Chinese exporters to the Community and to 18 importers of the product into the Community. 4. The Community producer, the Czechoslovakian exporter and one importer sent complete replies to the Commission’s questionnaire ; six importers, the German Democratic Republic exporter and China National Chemicals Import-Export Corporation (Sinochem) sent incomplete replies, while the rest did not reply at all within the time limits set. Therefore, for those parties that did not reply to the Commis- sion’s questionnaire, nor made themselves known otherwise, dumping and the resulting injury was determined on the basis of facts available ; facts avail- able were also relied upon to the extent that replies received from other parties were incomplete. 5. The Community producer, all the exporters and some importers have requested and have been granted hearings. One Community processor of the product in question has made a submission, has requested and has been granted a hearing. 6. The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed to be necessary for the purpose of a pre- liminary determination and carried out investigations at the premises of the following : (a) EEC producer: Asturquimica SA, Oviedo, Spéin; (b) Non-EEC producer Carus Chemical Company, LaSalle, Illinois, 61301 USA. The investigation period covered the calendar year 1985. B. Normal value 7. In order to establish whether the imports from Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic and the People’s Republic of China were dumped, the Commission had to take account of the fact that these countries do not have market economies and the Commission therefore had to base its determina- tions on the value in a market economy country. In this connection the complainants had suggested that comparison should be made with domestic prices in United States, since the only other market economy country producing the products was India and the United States prices were the lowest. Objections were