Following final disclosure the applicant offered an undertaking in accordance with Article 8 of the basic Regulation.

The Union industry indicated that it disagrees with the acceptance of an undertaking offer, in particular with a fixed MIP.

The undertaking offer of this company therefore also has to be rejected.

The undertaking offer was also supported by the Chinese authorities.

The applicant expressed an interest in offering an undertaking but failed to submit a sufficiently substantiated undertaking offers within the deadlines set in Article 8of the basic Regulation.

The withdrawal of the acceptance of the undertaking does not prejudice any possible future decision, should a company wish to submit an undertaking offer.

Following the abovementioned disclosure, one of the exporting producers from whom the exemption was withdrawn offered an undertaking in accordance with Article 8of the basic Regulation.

The undertaking offer of this company is therefore not acceptable.

The undertaking offer has been made available to interested parties.

The company offered to include this subsidiary in the undertaking offer.

The applicant expressed an interest in offering an undertaking but failed to submit a sufficiently substantiated undertaking offer within the deadlines set in Article 8of the basic Regulation.

As mentioned above, due to this complexity the applicant could not formulate an acceptable undertaking offer within the statutory deadline.

For the reasons stated above, the undertaking offered by Alumina d.o.o.

In view of the above, the undertaking offered by Norlong should be rejected.

The undertaking offer also contained the provision that the sales of the product concerned would be shipped directly from Alumina d.o.o.