19. 4. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 108/1 (Acts whose publication is not obligatory) COMMISSION COMMISSION DECISION of 21 March 1989 concerning applications for refund of anti-dumping duties collected. on certain imports .of hydraulic excavators originating in Japan (Kobemac Ltd) - {Only the English text is authentic) (89/257/EEC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Communtity, 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)No 1877/85 (?) 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 (heremafter referred to as Kobelco) was 31,9%. (2) In October 1985 Kobemac Ltd, Hampshire, United Kingdom, made an application for the refund of the anti-dumping duty paid in August 1985 on the importation of a hydraulic excavator maniifactured and exported by Kobelco. The total amount requested was £... paid. (*) OJ No L 209, 2. 8. 1988, p. 1. (2) O] No L 176, 6. 7. 1985, p. 1. (*) 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. (3). This amount represents all the duty - (3) (4) (%) (6) (7)- (8) The Commission asked the applicant for additional information on certain aspects of the dossier. It then visited Kobelco’s premises in Japan to check the information supplied by Kobelco on the normal value of the goods during the six months preceding impoi"t. 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 The” applicant argued that the excavator had been imported at a price equivalent to the price proposed to the Commission by Kobelco under the original - proceeding with a view to a price undertaking. The applicant maintains therefore that the export price for the goods imported exceeded the normal value. C. ADMISSIBILITY The application is admissible in that it was introduced in- conformity with the relevant provisions of the - Community’s anti-dumping legislation, in parucular’ with regard to time limits. D. MERITS OF THE CLAIM The application is founded in part. Pursuant to Article 16 (1) of Council Regulation (EEC)