The GOA's claim is therefore rejected.

On this basis, the GOA's claims are considered to be unfounded.

On this basis, it is considered that the claims of the GOA are unfounded.

The GOA argued that there was no failure to cooperate during the investigation.

The GOA requested and was granted a hearing before the Commission services on 4 February 2000.

Accordingly, the GOA suggested that injury, if any, was caused by large imports from other third countries.

The GOA argued, that the amount of the subsidy was not properly calculated since it is incorrect that only exports are 'cross-subsidised'.

The GOA contested the method used by the Commission to assess the production capacity of the Community industry for the product concerned.

In response to this claim, it is considered that the disclosure document sent to the GOA despite the fact that no request for such provisional disclosure had been received from the GOA, contained a detailed analysis concerning subsidisation, injury, causation and Community interest.

Consequently, the GOA claimed that no proper assessment could be made as to whether the injury suffered by the Community industry was material.

Consequently, contrary to the claim made by the GOA, the assessment of production capacity for PSF takes into account the actual production of PSF.

Therefore, the claims made by the GOA and the exporting producer concerning the EMDG scheme are rejected and the provisional findings are confirmed.

For the active substance Laminarin an application was submitted by Laboratoires Goëmar SA, France, to the authorities of Belgium on 29 March 2001.

The GOA and the exporting producer claimed that no further payments have been received because the company is not eligible anymore for further grants.

The GOA claimed that there is no evidence that the injury suffered by the Community industry was caused by the limited volumes imported from Australia.

In any event, the GOA considered that the reduction in the Community industry's production capacity was not compatible with a finding of material injury:

The GOA claimed that the market share of Australian imports was too limited (2 % of consumption) to have any influence on prices on the Community market.

Since the GOA did not receive the calculation methodology or the method of imposition of provisional measures, the disclosure documentation was deficient.

The GOA considered that production capacity for PSF should have been assessed exclusively on the actual production of the PSF covered by the investigation.

The GOA argues that the EMDG scheme does not favour domestic over imported goods since the legislation allows the promotion of goods made in Australia or overseas.

The actual conditions of the grants in question were never disclosed in full to the Commission services by the GOA and the cooperating exporting producer, not even orally.

The GOA pointed out that the Community industry's profitability significantly improved over the period considered, namely from a loss of around 4 % to a profit of over 6 %.

Regarding the arguments raised by the GOA on its market share, it is recalled that imports from Australia were found to be clearly above the de minimis level during the IP.

The Government of Australia (hereafter 'GOA') contested the method used by the Commission to assess the production capacity of the Community industry for the product concerned.

Both the GOA and the GOT stated that there is no evidence that the injury suffered by the Community industry was caused by the limited volumes imported from Taiwan and Australia.

Since this was not disputed by the GOA, it was thus established that unless it is anticipated that earnings will accrue from exports, grants under the EMDG scheme will not be made.

Regarding the arguments raised by the GOA and the GOT on their respective market share, it is recalled that imports from Australia and Taiwan were found to be clearly above the de minimis level during the IP.

It is furthermore considered that the GOA did not provide any evidence which would contradict the provisional finding that the Community industry suffered material injury as a result of low-priced dumped imports.

The GOA claimed that the EMDG scheme is not contingent upon export performance since the grant is calculated as a reimbursement of a percentage of promotional expenditure which is not tied to the sale of the product.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the GOA and the exporting producer refused to provide copies of the documents pertaining to the actual grant received by the company, citing 'business confidentiality' requirements.

The GOA claimed that the disclosure documents did not set out 'the details underlying the essential facts and considerations on which provisional measures have been imposed' as set forth in Article 30 of the basic Regulation.

Consequently, it is considered that the GOA and the GOT did not provide any evidence which would contradict the provisional finding that the Community industry suffered material injury as a result of low-priced subsidised imports.

Both the company and the GOA have been made aware during the verification visit that this refusal might lead to the final findings being made on the basis of the facts available in accordance with Article 28 of the basic Regulation.

The GOA and the exporting producer claim that PSF is not an eligible product under the scheme, which is described in recitals 33 to 35 of the provisional duty Regulation, and no payments or benefits were received by the company in relation to PSF.

The GOA claimed that in the absence of data relating to the profitability of the Community industry prior to the appearance of dumped imports, no proper assessment could be made as to whether the injury suffered by the Community industry was material.

Therefore, it is considered, that the arguments made by the GOA concerning the IAP and the IICP should be rejected and it is confirmed that these subsidies are contingent upon export performance in the meaning of Article 3(4)(a) of the basic Regulation.

The GOA also argued that since the ICS will be terminated on 30 June 2000, the continuation of the subsidy in the calculation of the countervailing duty is not justified in the light of Article 19(4) of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.

The GOA argued that the Commission failed to look at the effect that exchange-rate fluctuations have had on import price from Australia, specifying that during the investigation period PSF imported from Australia had benefited from a favourable exchange rate appreciation.

The GOA argued that the Commission failed to look at the effect that exchange rate fluctuations have had on import prices from Australia, specifying that during the investigation period PSF imported from Australia had benefited from a favourable exchange rate appreciation.

The GOA argued that with regard to grants made under the IICP and the IAP the denominator for allocation of the subsidy amount should be total sales and not only export sales since the grants were linked to the acquisition of fixed assets and therefore benefited the entire operation.

The reasons for rejecting the unverifiable statement made by the GOA that neither the grants under the IICP nor under the IAP were contingent upon export performance are clearly set forth in the provisional disclosure document and in recitals 28, 29, 40 and 42 of the provisional duty Regulation.

Following the publication of the provisional duty Regulation, the Government of Australia (hereinafter referred to as 'GOA') submitted on 17 January 2000, in writing, its comments on the disclosure document containing the details underlying the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which provisional measures have been imposed.

In this respect, it should be noted that information given by the GOA and the exporting producer on the intent, parameters and operation of the two programmes and the conditions and amount of the grants in question was not disregarded to the extent that this information was verifiable in accordance with Article 28(3) of the basic Regulation.

During the verification visit the GOA and the cooperating exporter were made aware several times of the provision contained in Article 28(1) of the basic Regulation that the refusal to provide access to the grant contract and related supporting documents may lead to findings being made on the basis of the facts available concerning subsidies granted under the IICP and IAP.

The GOA argued that the 'grants entry test' performed under the EMDG scheme, which is described in recitals 14 to 17 of the provisional duty Regulation, does not tie the grant to anticipated export earnings since the intent of the test is to ensure that the enterprise must have a prospect of success by ensuring that the applicant undertakes adequate financial and management planning.

The GOA argued furthermore that information provided by the Victorian Government in relation to the grant payment under the IAP had been disregarded, and that the statements by the European Commission that the Victorian Government grant payment is contingent on export and that exports are one of the objectives of the Economic Development Act 1981, are not correct and not supported by the facts.

The GOA argued, that the amount of the subsidy was not properly calculated since it is incorrect that only exports are "cross-subsidised".

The Government of Australia (hereafter "GOA") contested the method used by the Commission to assess the production capacity of the Community industry for the product concerned.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the GOA and the exporting producer refused to provide copies of the documents pertaining to the actual grant received by the company, citing "business confidentiality" requirements.

The GOA claimed that the disclosure documents did not set out "the details underlying the essential facts and considerations on which provisional measures have been imposed" as set forth in Article 30 of the basic Regulation.