This document is meant purely as documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents
"BCOUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 423/97
of 3 March 1997
amending Regulation (EEC) No 3433/91 in respect of imports originating in Thailand and imposing
definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters
originating in Thailand, the Philippines and Mexico
(OJ L 65, 6.3.1997, p. 1)
Amended by:
Official Journal
No page date
"M1 Council Regulation (EC) No 1508/97 of 28 July 1997 L 204 7 31.7.1997
"M2 Council Regulation (EC) No 1471/2001 of 16 July 2001 L 195 15 19.7.20011997R0423 — EN — 20.07.2001 — 001.001 — 1
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 423/97
of 3 March 1997
amending Regulation (EEC) No 3433/91 in respect of imports
originating in Thailand and imposing definitive anti-dumping duties
on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters
originating in Thailand, the Philippines and Mexico
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December
1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members
of the European Community (1), and in particular Articles 9, 11 and 23
thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after
consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
A. PROCEDURE
1.Measures in force
(1) By Regulation (EEC) No 3433/91 (2), the Council imposed a
definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of gas-fuelled, non-
refillable pocket flint lighters (hereinafter referred to as ‘dispos-
able flint lighters’) originating, inter alia , in Thailand. The rate
applicable to products originating in that country was set at
14,1 %, with the exception of the company Politop Co., Ltd
(‘Politop’), whose duty rate was 5,8 % and the company Thai
Merry Co., Ltd (‘Thai Merry’), which was exempted from the
duty since it had offered an undertaking, accepted by Commission
Decision 91/604/EEC (3).
(2) Further to the withdrawal of its undertaking by Thai Merry and the
subsequent imposition of a provisional anti-dumping duty on its
exports to the Community, the Council by Regulation (EC) No
398/94 (4), amended Regulation (EEC) No 3433/91 in order to
remove the exemption from the duty originally granted to this
company. Thai Merry’ s exports to the Community have since been
subject to the definitive anti-dumping duty at the rate of 14,1 %.
2.Request for a review
(3) On 18 March 1995, the Commission announced, by a notice
published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (5),
the initiation of a review of Regulation (EEC) No 3433/91 in
respect of imports of disposable flint lighters originating in
Thailand and commenced an investigation pursuant to Article 11
(3) of Regulation (EC) No 3283/94 (6) which was replaced during
the investigation by Regulation (EC) No 384/96, hereinafter
referred to as ‘the basic anti-dumping Regulation’. This interim
review was initiated as a result of a request lodged in March 1994
by the European Federation of Lighter Manufacturers (EFLM), on
behalf of its members representing almost the totality of
Community production of the like product (namely the BIC!B
(1) OJ No L 56, 6. 3. 1996, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No
2331/96 (OJ No L 317, 6. 12. 1996, p. 1).
(2) OJ No L 326, 28. 11. 1991, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation
(EC) No 1006/95 (OJ No L 101, 4. 5. 1995, p. 38).
(3) OJ No L 326, 28. 11. 1991, p. 31.
(4) OJ No L 54, 25. 2. 1994, p. 1.
(5) OJ No C 67, 18. 3. 1995, p. 4.
(6) OJ No L 349, 31. 12. 1994, p. 1.1997R0423 — EN — 20.07.2001 — 001.001 — 2
Group, producer in France, Greece and Spain, the Swedish Match
Group, producer in France and the Netherlands, Tokai Seiki
GmbH, manufacturer in Germany and Flamagas, producer in
Spain). This request, which alleged that the measure in force in
respect of Thai imports was no longer sufficient to counteract the
injurious dumping, contained sufficient evidence to justify the
initiation of a review.
(4) Since the interim review in respect of imports originating in
Thailand was likely not to be concluded before the end of the
five-year period of application of the measures concerned (that is
to say, on 30 November 1996), the interim review has also covered,
in accordance with Article 11 (7) of the basic anti-dumping
Regulation, the circumstances set out in Article 11 (2) of the said
Regulation (i.e. the circumstances due to be examined in the
context of an expiry review).
3.Complaints
(5) On 18 March 1995, the Commission announced, by a notice
published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (1)
the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports
of disposable flint lighters originating in the Philippines and
Mexico and commenced an investigation pursuant to Article 5 of
the basic anti-dumping Regulation. This proceeding was initiated
as a result of two complaints lodged in August 1994 in respect of
imports of disposable flint lighters originating respectively in the
Philippines and in Mexico.
The complaint concerning imports originating in the Philippines
was lodged by the BIC Group, the Swedish Match Group and the
Tokai Seiki GmbH, representing more than 90 % of total
Community production of the like product. Immediately before
initiation, the Spanish producer Flamagas became party to the
complaint.
The complaint concerning imports originating in Mexico was
lodged by the BIC Group and the Swedish Match Group only. The
complaint remained, however, admissible, since the complaining
producers represented a major proportion of total Community
production of the like product. Immediately before initiation, the
Spanish producer Flamagas also became party to this complaint.
It was considered that the relevant complaints contained sufficient
evidence of dumping by the Filipino and Mexican imports and of
material injury resulting therefrom to justify the initiation of
anti-dumping proceedings. It was, however, considered appropri-
ate that the relevant investigations be carried out in the framework
of a single proceeding, given that both complaints, lodged almost
at the same time, contained similar allegations concerning imports
of the same product.
4.Initiation of investigations
(6) The Commission officially advised the exporters and importers
known to be concerned, the representatives of the exporting
countries and the complainant Community producers of the
initiation of the review and the initiation of the new proceeding.
Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views
known in writing and to request a hearing.
(7) A number of importers and producers in the countries concerned
made their views known in writing. All parties who so requested
were granted hearings.
(8) The investigation of dumping in respect of the three exporting
countries concerned covered the period 1 April to 31 December
1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the investigation period’). For the
purpose of the dumping, injury and Community interest deter-!B
(1) OJ No C 67, 18. 3. 1995, p. 3.1997R0423 — EN — 20.07.2001 — 001.001 — 3
minations, the geographical scope of the investigation was the
Community as composed at the time of initiation, therefore
including all 15 Member States.
(9) The Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be
concerned and received detailed replies from the complainant
Community producers, from two producers in Thailand, one
producer in Mexico and its related exporter in the United States as
well as from another related company which was selling the like
product on the Mexican market, from three producers in the
Philippines and a related company in Japan, and from four
importers in the Community related to the producers in the
exporting countries concerned and one independent importer in
the Community.
(10) The Commission sought and verified all the information it
considered necessary for a determination of dumping and injury
and carried out investigations at the premises of the following
firms:
( a ) complainant Community producers:
Producing companies:
— BIC SA, Redon, France,
— Feudor SA (Swedish Match), Rillieux-la-Pape, France;
Producing companies and sales offices:
— Flamagas SA, Barcelona, Spain,
— Laforest BIC SA, Tarragona, Spain,
— Violex BIC SA, Athens, Greece;
Sales companies:
— BIC Deutschland GmbH, Ettlingen, Germany,— BIC SA, Clichy, France,
— Biro BIC Limited, London, United Kingdom,
— Cricket SA (Swedish Match), Rillieux-la-Pape, France,— Ebas Nederland (Poppell BV — Swedish Match), Eind-
hoven, Netherlands;
( b ) producers/exporters:
From Thailand:
— Politop Co., Ltd, Bangkok, Thailand,
— Thai Merry Co., Ltd, Samutsakorn, Thailand;
From the Philippines:
— Iwax Philippine, Inc., Rosario, Cavite, Philippines (the
investigation having also covered the related company
Iwahori Philippines, Inc., Mariveles, Bataan, Philippines),
— Iwax Inc., Shizuoka, Japan (in respect of exports from its
subsidiaries Iwax Philippine, Inc. and Iwahori Philippines,
Inc.),
— Swedish Match Philippines, Inc., Manila, Philippines;
From Mexico:
— JMP Mexico, SA de CV , Tijuana, Mexico (in respect of its
production of disposable flint lighters in Mexico),
— Tokai de Mexico, SA de CV , Cuernavaca, Mexico (in
respect of its domestic sales of disposable flint lighters in
Mexico),
— Scripto Tokai Corp., Fontana, USA (in respect of its
exports to the Community of disposable flint lighters
manufactured by JMP in Mexico);!B1997R0423 — EN — 20.07.2001 — 001.001 — 4
( c ) importers related to producers/exporters:
— Iwax (UK) Ltd, Ballymoney, United Kingdom; this
importer became independent after the period of inves-
tigation,
— Poppell BV (Swedish Match), Eindhoven, Netherlands,— Tokai Seiki GmbH, Mönchengladbach, Germany,— Tokai Seiki BV , Hoofddorp, Netherlands;
( d ) independent importers:
— Pollyflame International BV , Roelofarendsveen, Nether-
lands.
5.Subsequent procedure
(11) It has to be noted that a number of considerations (detailed in
recitals 40 to 44) have led the Commission to the conclusion that a
cumulative assessment of the effect of the dumped imports from
both the country subject to a review (Thailand) and the two
countries subject to a new proceeding (the Philippines and
Mexico), was warranted.
As as result, from a procedural point of view, it was considered
that definitive measures, if any, should be directly adopted in
respect of all three countries concerned, without resorting to the
intermediate step of provisional duties (an approach which also
implied that the measures in force in respect of Thai imports
would have to be simultaneously repealed).
(12) The Commission accordingly continued to seek and verify all
information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings.
(13) Parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on
the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of
definitive anti-dumping duties. They were also granted a period
within which to make representations (and/or offer undertakings)
subsequent to the disclosure.
(14) The parties either did not submit any written comments or
submitted comments which did not justify any alteration of the
preliminary conclusions. Within the specified time limit, three
producers/exporters offered undertakings.
(15) The establishment of findings which, without resorting to the
intermediate step of provisional duties, could be considered as
final, made it necessary to provide all parties involved with
preliminary and final disclosure and grant them sufficient time to
submit their views. This, together with the setting up of
appropriate undertakings, proved to be time-consuming and
accordingly, the investigation overran the normal duration
provided for in Articles 6 (9) and 11 (5) of the basic anti-dumping
Regulation.
B. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE
PRODUCT
1.Product under consideration
(16) The product subject to the definitive anti-dumping duty referred to
in recital 1, as well as the product subject to the proceeding
initiated in respect of imports originating in the Philippines and
Mexico, is gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters. This
product falls within CN code ex 9613 10 00.
It should be recalled in this respect that there are other disposable
lighters on the market (piezo lighters) the technical characteristics
of which are quite different from those of the abovementioned
product. They were therefore not considered to be identical to the
product concerned in the original investigation concerning!B1997R0423 — EN — 20.07.2001 — 001.001 — 5
Thailand, were not covered by the original investigation and were
excluded from the scope of the measures. No reasons have
emerged in the course of the current review and new proceeding
which would justify a departure from this approach. Accordingly,
piezo lighters were kept outside the scope of the current
investigations.
In their representations made further to the final disclosure, the
Thai authorities have argued that there are two distinct segments
in the Community’ s disposable flint lighter market, the high end
served by high quality Community produced lighters and the low
end served by imports, including those from Thailand. This view,
expressed in previous cases concerning disposable flint lighters,
cannot be shared for the reasons already given in the past, which
can be summarized as follows:
For the market of a product to be divided into segments requires at
least that differences in physical characteristics be perceptible to,
and actually perceived by, consumers and that clearly separate
channels of sale exist. These conditions are not met in the case if
disposable flint lighters, since all such products, which are
globally perceived as being ‘non-piezo and disposable’ lighters are
sold without distinction in the same kind of shops to customers
having the same expectations (namely to buy a disposable product
belonging to a single category of utility goods).
Finally, it has to be noted that although the product under
consideration is manufactured in different sizes and models, all
these disposable flint lighters have the same basic technical
characteristics, the same basic application and perform the same
function. Accordingly, as in previous investigations, the whole
range of models of disposable flint lighters was considered as
forming one single category of product.
2.Like product
(17) As regards the disposable flint lighters produced and sold
domestically in the three countries concerned where such sales
had taken place and information in their respect had been made
available, the investigation showed that such products were either
alike in all respects to, or closely resembling, those exported to the
Community from the countries in question.
(18) The investigation also established that the disposable flint lighters
produced by the Community industry and sold in the Community
market and those imported from the three countries concerned
possess similar basic physical and technical characteristics and are
intended for the same use. While there may be some minor
differences between the product imported from the countries
concerned and the Community production, these differences (for
instance in the presentation or the technique used for the assembly
of the lighter) do not affect the substantial characteristics and
properties of the product. The disposable flint lighters produced
and sold by the Community industry and those imported from the
three countries concerned should therefore be regarded as like
products.
(19) Accordingly, it is concluded that disposable flint lighters produced
and sold in the Community, as well as those produced and sold in
Thailand, the Philippines and Mexico and those exported to the
Community from these three countries should be regarded as ‘like
products’, within the meaning of Article 1 (4) of the basic
anti-dumping Regulation.!B1997R0423 — EN — 20.07.2001 — 001.001 — 6
C. DUMPING
1.Normal value
(a) Thailand
(20) One Thai cooperating exporter, whose exports represented almost
100 % of total Community imports from Thailand during the
investigation period, had sold disposable flint lighters on its
domestic market. For two models, normal value was based on
domestic selling prices, since after exclusion, in accordance with
the provisions of Article 2 (4) of the basic anti-dumping
Regulation, of non-profitable sales, the remaining profitable sales
of comparable models were found to represent at least 5 % of the
sales volume of the models concerned to the Community. For a
third model, in the absence of sufficient profitable sales of a
comparable model, normal value was constructed on the basis of
the company’ s costs of manufacture, selling, general and adminis-
trative expenses (hereinafter referred to as ‘SG & A’) and profit.
These SG & A and profit were established on the basis of the
abovementioned profitable sales.
(21) For the other Thai exporter, no dumping calculation could be
made due to the fact that the company had ceased to export in
1992.
(b) Mexico
(22) The sole Mexican cooperating exporter, whose exports repre-
sented almost 100 % of total Community imports from Mexico
during the investigation period, was fully export oriented but was
nevertheless able to provide information regarding sales of the like
product on its domestic market, as another company in the same
group was producing and selling disposable flint lighters on the
Mexican market. However, the sales in question, which were the
only domestic sales of the like product available in Mexico,
proved to be partly made at a loss, the remaining profitable sales
representing less than 5 % of the quantities exported to the
Community.
(23) Accordingly, the Commission constructed normal value for this
exporter by adding to the cost of manufacture of each exported
model, the domestic SG & A available in Mexico, i.e. those of its
related company selling disposable flint lighters in Mexico. As
regards profit, given the lack of representative profitable sales in
Mexico for disposable flint lighters and the non-availability of
reliable data in respect of sales of the same general category of
products in this country, a reasonable alternative solution had to be
sought.
(24) To this end, it was examined whether Thailand, for which
representative and reliable data were available, could be con-
sidered as a comparable market to Mexico in the sector concerned
and, thus, an appropriate reference for the profit determination.
This examination led to the conclusion that the conditions
prevailing on both markets were similar. Moreover, the exporter
concerned acknowledges that the profit margin achieved in
Thailand was not exceeding the one normally realized on the
Mexican market in the same business sector. Therefore, for the
purpose of constructing normal value for each model exported by
the Mexican cooperating exporter, the profit margin established in
Thailand was, in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 (6)
(c) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation added to the abovemen-
tioned Mexican cost of manufacture and domestic SG & A.
(c) Philippines
(25) The comparison of import statistics, after exclusion, on the basis
of available data, of certain lighters which are outside the scope of
the investigation (see recital 16, considerations concerning piezo!B1997R0423 — EN — 20.07.2001 — 001.001 — 7
lighters) with quantities reported by the three Filipino cooperating
exporters for the period of investigation, showed a level of
cooperation close to 100 %.
(26) In the Philippines, two cooperating exporters (belonging to the
same group) were solely export oriented. The third cooperating
exporter was selling on its domestic market through a related
selling company during the investigation period, but the latter,
recently become independent, refused to cooperate. Therefore, no
information regarding sales of the like product (or of the same
general category of products) on the Filipino market could be
collected and normal value had to be constructed on the basis of
data available.
(27) To this end, it was examined whether Thailand, for which
representative and reliable data were available, could be con-
sidered as a comparable market to the Philippines in the sector
concerned and, thus, an appropriate reference for the SG & A and
profit determination. This examination led to the conclusion that
the conditions prevailing on both markets were similar. Moreover,
the exporters concerned admitted that both the SG & A incurred
and the profit margin achieved in Thailand were not exceeding
those normally encountered on the Filipino market in the same
business sector. Therefore, for the purpose of constructing normal
value in the case of the three Filipino cooperating exporters, the
Commission added to their respective cost of manufacture for
each exported model, in accordance with the provisions of Article
2 (6) (c) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, an amount for
SG & A and for profit based on the respective amounts established
in Thailand.
2.Export price
(28) Practically all e xport transactions made by the exporters
concerned during the investigation period were considered (only
a few models sold in very small quantities were disregarded in
agreement with the representatives of the companies concerned).
(29) Where export sales were made directly to unrelated importers,
export prices were established on the basis of the prices actually
paid or payable for the product sold for export to the Community.
(30) Where exports were made to related companies which imported
the product concerned into the Community, export prices were
constructed on the basis of resale prices to the first independent
buyer, adjusted to take account of all costs incurred between
importation and resale including customs duties and a reasonable
profit margin (namely 5 %). The latter was established on the
basis of the profit margins considered reasonable in this business
sector for unrelated importers.
Where cost allocations for importers’ SG & A were necessary in
the construction of export prices, these were generally made on the
basis of turnover with the exception of those cases where the
importers provided sufficient evidence to justify another method
of allocation. These allocations included all the general adminis-
tration and selling costs related to the sales under consideration,
whether financed by the exporter or by the related importer.
Discounts and rebates given in connection with sales of the related
importer to independent buyers were taken into account in
constructing export prices.
3.Comparison
(31) The weighted average normal value by model, as determined
above, was compared at an ex-factory level with the export price,
on a weighted average basis in the case of Thailand and on a
transaction-by-transaction basis in the case of the Philippines and
Mexico. Indeed, in the latter cases, the export price had to be
constructed on the basis of resale prices to the first independent
buyer. These resale prices and the corresponding constructed!B1997R0423 — EN — 20.07.2001 — 001.001 — 8
export prices showed patterns of pricing differing significantly
among different purchasers, regions or time periods, which would
have resulted in that the full degree of dumping being practised
would not have been reflected had the method based on
weighted-average export prices been used.
(32) As far as differences affecting price comparability are concerned,
adjustments were granted in accordance with Article 2 (10) of the
basic anti-dumping Regulation, where satisfactory evidence was
therefore supplied. Such adjustments concerned differences in
costs for level of trade (calculated on the basis of advertising
costs, incurred on the domestic market but not on exports),
transport, insurance, handling, packing and credit.
4.Dumping margins
(33) The examination of the facts showed the existence of dumping for
all the cooperating exporters for which calculations could be
made, the dumping margins being equal to the difference between
normal value and export price duly adjusted.
(34) The weighted average dumping margins expressed as a percentage
of the free at Community frontier price are as set out below:
Thailand :
Thai Merry: 51,9 %;
Mexico :
production by JMP Mexico and exports by Scripto Tokai Corp.
USA: 27,1 %;
Philippines:
— production by Iwax Philippine Inc. and Iwahori Philippines
Inc. and exports by Iwax Inc. Japan (single dumping margin):
52,6 %;
— Swedish Match Philippines, Inc. 36,7 %.
D. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY
(35) The investigation confirmed that the complainant Community
producers, either represented by the EFLM (on whose behalf the
request for an interim review in respect of Thai imports had been
lodged) or acting separately in two distinct groups (one having
lodged the complaint concerning imports originating in the
Philippines and the other one the complaint concerning imports
originating in Mexico), accounted in all cases for a major
proportion of total Community production of the like product.
(36) During the course of the investigation carried out in respect of the
above companies, it became apparent that two producers or groups
of producers, namely Tokai Seiki GmbH, together with one of its
sales subsidiary in the Community, and the companies belonging
to the Swedish Match Group, were related respectively to the sole
Mexican exporter and one Filipino exporter and were also
importing the dumped product from the countries concerned.
In these circumstances, the Commission examined whether, in the
light of the provisions of Article 4 (1) (a) of the basic
anti-dumping Regulation, these companies should be excluded
from ‘the Community industry’. In this respect, it should be
recalled that Article 4 (1) (a) does not provide for the automatic
exclusion of producers who are related to exporters and/or
themselves importing the dumped products, but rather obliges the
Commission to examine on a case-by-case basis whether the
exclusion of any producer in this situation is warranted.
(37) As far as Tokai Seiki GmbH is concerned, it has firstly to be noted
that this company had made it clear that it only supported the
action against the Philippines and Thailand and that its!B1997R0423 — EN — 20.07.2001 — 001.001 — 9
cooperation as a potential Community producer was restricted to
the investigations in respect of these two countries. Secondly, the
investigation showed that this producer was not only related to the
sole Mexican exporter but also responsible for a very large
proportion of the total imports into the Community of disposable
flint lighters declared as originating in Mexico.
In this respect, it should be recalled that the investigations
concerning Mexican and Filipino imports were carried out in the
framework of a single proceeding (see recital 5) and that a
cumulative assessment of the effect of the dumped imports from
Thailand, the Philippines and Mexico was found to be warranted
(see recitals 40 to 44). In this context, it was considered that taking
into account the situation of Tokai Seiki GmbH in the overall
injury assessment was not appropriate since, given the importance
of the Mexican imports concerned, it would have led to unreliable
results. Accordingly, it was considered appropriate to exclude
Tokai Seiki GmbH from ‘the Community industry’.
(38) As regards the companies belonging to the Swedish Match Group,
which are related to the Filipino exporter Swedish Match
Philippines, Inc., it appeared appropriate to determine whether
those companies (which were complainants in all three cases and
fully cooperated in all three investigations) were primarily
producers with an additional activity based on imports and merely
supplementing their Community production, or whether they were
importers with relatively limited additional production in the
Community.
The investigation revealed that the import activity of the
companies belonging to the Swedish Match Group in respect of
the product concerned originating in the Philippines was
extremely limited, thus underlining that the core of their
operations relating to the product concerned firmly remained in
the Community. Accordingly, it was considered appropriate to
maintain the companies concerned within ‘the Community
industry’.
(39) The injury findings set out below are therefore based on the
information submitted by the cooperating companies other than
Tokai Seiki GmbH, namely the producers belonging to the BIC
Group and to the Swedish Match Group, and the Spanish company
Flamagas.
E.INJURY
1.Cumulation
(40) The basic anti-dumping Regulation requires, as a precondition of
cumulation, that the countries concerned be subject to simulta-
neous investigations, that the margin of dumping established in
relation to the imports from each country be more than de minimis
(i.e. more than 2 %) and that the volume of imports from each
country be not negligible. Where such conditions are met, the
conditions of competition should then be examined, in particular
to determine whether imported products originating in the
countries concerned are interchangeable, are sold at similar price
levels, have common or similar channels of distribution and are
simultaneously present in the same geographical markets.
(41) In this respect, it has to be noted that the disposable flint lighters
exported from all three countries concerned are subject to
simultaneous investigations which have established dumping
margins ranging from 27,1 to 52,6 %. In addition, none of the
exporting countries concerned delivered to the Community
quantities representing a market share beneath 1 %, which could
then have been considered as negligible.!B1997R0423 — EN — 20.07.2001 — 001.001 — 10
As regards their conditions of competition, the imported products
originating in the three countries concerned were found to be
interchangeable and sold at similar price levels, to have similar
channels of distribution and to be simultaneously present in the
same geographical markets.
In this context, the following arguments were raised by interested
parties:
(42) The two related Filipino producers questioned the appropriateness
of cumulation in the case of Filipino and Mexican imports on the
grounds that differences in volume and progression of imports
between these two countries would be such as to affect the above
conclusion that Filipino and Mexican disposable flint lighters were
competing under similar conditions on the Community market.
In support of this assertion, they claimed that the actual rate of
increase of Filipino imports was not, by far, as sharp as that of
Mexican imports and that the difference was such as to warrant a
separate assessment of the impact of the imports concerned in the
Community market. Information was provided showing that the
actual progression of Filipino imports was less marked than the
one reported by Eurostat. Reference was also made to a previous
case (1) where the Commission had decided not to cumulate
imports from Korea and China because the investigation had
shown ‘diametrically opposed progressions’, in recital 42 of that
Regulation, as regards import volume and market share as well as
marked differences in these two countries’ respective pricing
policies.
However, while the progression of Filipino imports (correspond-
ing to an increase in market share from 2 % in 1990 to 3,3 % in
1994) is less marked than that registered in the case of Mexican
imports, of which the starting point was lower (the Mexican
market share, 0,1 % in 1990 reached 9,2 % in 1994), it must be
noted that both countries achieved a significant market share
during the investigation period and exports were made at prices
significantly undercutting those of the Community industry. In
addition, it is worth noting that both Filipino and Mexican imports
have increased in absolute terms as well as in market share and the
levels of price undercutting practised were very similar.
It was therefore considered that the respective positions of Filipino
and Mexican imports on the Community market were not
sufficiently different so as to justify a finding that the conditions
of competition between Filipino and Mexican lighters were
different. Accordingly, the above claim could not be accepted.
(43) The representative of one of the Thai exporters also claimed that
the injury caused by Thai imports should not be cumulatively
assessed with the one attributable to Mexican/Filipino imports for
the following reasons: Although Article 3 (4) of the basic
anti-dumping Regulation allows cumulation in case of simulta-
neous investigations, cumulation of Thai imports, which are the
subject of an interim review, with Mexican/Filipino imports would
be inappropriate because the legal standards (and the consequent
legal tests) which apply in such a review would be different from
those applicable to a new proceeding.
As regards the appropriateness of a global assessment of the
impact of imports already subject to measures together with
imports which are investigated for the first time, it is considered
that since the basic anti-dumping Regulation does not preclude
such a methodology, in particular where a full scale injury
investigation has been carried out, any decision in this respect!B
(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 763/90 of 26 March 1990 imposing a
provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of tungsten carbide and fusedtungsten carbide originating in the People’ s Republic of China andterminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of thoseproducts from the Republic of Korea (OJ No L 83, 30. 3. 1990, p. 36).1997R0423 — EN — 20.07.2001 — 001.001 — 11
should be made for each case on its own merits, i.e. by examining
the impact of the respective behaviour of the exporting countries
concerned.
In this respect, it should be noted that the anti-dumping measures
applicable to Thai imports did not prevent this exporting country,
after the withdrawal by the main Thai exporter of its undertaking
in 1993, to resort again to injurious dumping, with the result that
Thailand appears to have then adopted a very similar behaviour to
that of the Philippines and Mexico.
This similarity of behaviour means that, notwithstanding the
measures in force (likely to have, ipso facto , become insufficient
to counteract the injurious dumping), imports from the country
being reviewed may have contributed, on a par with imports from
the countries subject to the new proceeding, to any injury which
may prove to be attributable to the dumped imports under
investigation.
(44) Therefore, it was considered that the similarity of behaviour of the
three exporting countries concerned (with the consequent
impossibility to assess separately their respective contribution to
injury), together with the fact that the above criteria concerning
conditions of competition are met, was such as to make
cumulation warranted.
This approach was criticised by the Thai authorities on the
grounds that it would lead to a confusion of the issue of whether to
impose anti-dumping duties in the first instance (i.e. in respect of
Filipino and Mexican imports) with the separate, allegedly higher
standard of whether existing duties (applicable to Thai imports)
should be continued (in an amended form, in the context of an
interim review having also covered the circumstances due to be
examined in an expiry review).
This view could not be accepted in particular because the
argument of the Thai authorities that the standards of injury
applicable to reviews of the present kind would be higher than the
one applicable to new proceedings does not appear to be correct,
notably in the light of the combined provisions of Articles 3 and
11 of the basic anti-dumping Regulation. Indeed, in the context of
a review of the present kind, the Institutions have to take account
of the fact that the existing measures may have limited the
injurious effects of the dumped imports under examination. The
latter may have either remained injurious or become such as to
support a finding that the injury is likely to recur in the absence of
measures.
On the basis of all the above considerations, the appropriateness of
the cumulative assessment of the similar and simultaneous effect
of the dumped imports from the three countries concerned was
therefore confirmed.
2.Total Community-consumption
(45) In order to calculate total apparent consumption of the product in
question on the Community market, Community producers’ sales
in the Community of disposable flint lighters were added to the
total imports into the Community, as declared under CN code
9613 10 00 (excluding, however, as far as the Philippines are
concerned, disposable piezo lighters, on the basis of reliable data
made available during the investigation). On this basis, the total
apparent consumption of disposable flint lighters has grown
between 1990 and 1994 by 21 %.
(46) It is, however, known that this high rate of increase has to be
qualified. Indeed, importers (which were anticipating an increased
anti-dumping duty on Chinese disposable flint lighters) imported
large quantities from the People’s Republic of China at the end of
1994. Part of these quantities (around 65 million units), which
could not be put on the market before 1995, were kept in stock and!B1997R0423 — EN — 20.07.2001 — 001.001 — 12
this situation artificially increased total apparent consumption in
1994.
Thus, in order to assess the actual rate of increase of Community
consumption, the Commission has estimated that the share of
Chinese imports cleared through customs in 1994 (amounting in
total to 176,7 million units) likely to have been resold (by
importers to wholesalers or retailers) in the same year amounted to
± 110 million units. On this basis, the increase in total
consumption is 11 % (instead of 21 %). Such a rate of increase
would appear to reflect fairly the actual trend of Community
consumption.
3.Factors relating to the dumped imports
(a) Imports’ increase rate
(47) The overall rate of increase of imports from the countries
concerned was found to be very significant (more than + 280 %).
Indeed, between 1990 and 1994, quantities:
— were multiplied by more than 120 in the case of Mexico (even
though from an admittedly extremely low starting point),
— increased by more than 95 % in the case of the Philippines,
— increased by 18 % in the case of Thailand. In the context of a
review, such an increase rate remains significant, as it appears
likely that the imposition of anti-dumping measures in 1991
(and their amendment in 1994), has had an impact on the rate
of increase of Thai imports, even if limited by the decrease in
Thai selling prices following the withdrawal of its undertaking
by the main Thai exporter.
(b) Market share
(48) Imports from the three countries concerned, considered together,
have captured between 1990 and 1994 an additional 10 % of the
Community market for the product in question (their share of the
market indeed increased from 4,6 to 15 %). In the meantime, in a
growing market, the Community producers have lost a substantial
share of the market, namely more than 8,5 percentage points, from
57,3 % in 1990 to 48,6 % in 1994. This means that, globally, the
position of other third countries has also been slightly eroded (a
more detailed examination however showed, as explained at recital
70, that the People’s Republic of China substantially increased its
share of the Community market to the detriment of exporting
countries other than those subject to the current investigations).
(c) Prices of imports
(49) For the model comparison, as in all previous investigations
concerning disposable flint lighters, it was considered appropriate
that only those lighters with an equal or almost equal amount of
gas, and therefore a similar number of ignitions, be taken as a
basis for the calculation of undercutting.
(50) Where sales were made to unrelated importers, the comparison
was made between the cif import price, adjusted to duty paid,
customer delivered level and the selling price in the EC of the
Community producers at the same level of trade. Where sales were
to a related importer, the price comparison was made on the basis
of the sales to the first independent customer.
The average level of price undercutting, expressed as a percentage
of the Community industry’ s average price, was found to be more
than 30 % in all cases but one (namely the Filipino company
related to the Swedish Match Group, whose exports to the
Community, in extremely limited quantities, cannot be considered
as representative of Filipino exports of disposable flint lighters).
This means that prices of the disposable flint lighters imported!B1997R0423 — EN — 20.07.2001 — 001.001 — 13
from the countries concerned were significantly below the prices
practised by the Community producers during the investigation
period.
4.Situation of Community industry
(a) General
(51) The lighter market is very price sensitive. In order to be able to
sell or to keep market share, the numerous producers and buyers
on the market tend to adjust their prices to the lowest level on
offer. This means that faced with low priced dumped imports, the
Community industry is either forced to lower its prices in order to
try to maintain market share, production level and capacity
utilization, or led to lose market share if it tries to maintain its
prices.
(b) Capacity, production and sales
(52) Between 1990 and the investigation period, capacity remained
stable while production very slightly increased. Sales slightly
increased in volume and very slightly increased in value.
(c) Market share
(53) The Community industry’ s market share decreased from 57,3 % in
1990 to 48,6 % in the investigation period.
(d) Prices
(54) Prices, on average, slightly improved until 1992, then slightly
decreased. It has to be noted in this respect that, in an attempt to
keep its market share, the Community industry has, over the
period examined, sold increasing quantities of products with
special executions (such as ‘sleeved’ and ‘printed’ lighters, which
would have normally justified price levels higher than those of
‘standard’ lighters). The investigation thus showed that such
higher price levels, which would normally be associated with
more sophisticated products, could not be maintained, with a
consequent impact on the Community industry’ s profitability.
(e) Profitability
(55) The Community industry’ s average return on sales of the like
product, negative in 1990, improved and became slightly positive
in 1991. It deteriorated again, but remained positive, in 1992. In
1993, the average return was, again, negative. During the
investigation period, the average sales price was slightly above
the average cost of production.
(f) Employment
(56) In an effort to reduce its costs, the Community industry continued
to reduce the number of its employees (an 8 % reduction between
1990 and 1993 was partly compensated for in 1994, but the
number of employees remained, in 1994, 4 % below its level of
1990).
5.Conclusion on injury
(57) Prices of imports very substantially undercut the Community
industry’ s average price, namely by more than 30 % (with the
exception of the Filipino company related to a Community
producer whose exports were too limited to be considered as
representative of Filipino exports).
(58) Injury to the Community industry over the period under examin-
ation mainly took the following form:!B1997R0423 — EN — 20.07.2001 — 001.001 — 14
— loss of market share: the Community producers have lost an
8,5 percentage point share between 1990 and 1994 (or even a
15 percentage point share if 1994 is compared with 1992).
Given that, in terms of volume, their sales remained stable,
this means that Community producers have been totally
prevented from benefiting from the market expansion,
— insufficient profitability: the Community industry’ s overall
profitability remained very low (particularly for an industry
requiring substantial investments to innovate). This results
from the fact that its prices, heavily undercut, could not be
increased, even slightly, over the last five years (despite the
fact that the share of the products with special executions,
normally more expensive, increased). The Community pro-
ducers’ very low level of profitability reached in 1994, if
allowed to continue, will not be sustainable. This creates a
serious risk to see Community producers, in a relatively short
time, relocating their production outside the Community.
(59) In summary, the Community industry, which appeared to be in the
process of recovering from the effects of past dumping, is still in a
very precarious financial and market situation and on this basis, it
is concluded that it has been adversely affected and has suffered
injury which is sufficient for it to be classified as material.
F.CAUSATION OF INJURY
(60) For the purpose of determining whether the injury suffered by the
Community industry was caused by the Thai, Mexican and
Filipino dumped imports and whether other factors caused or
contributed to that injury, the following elements were examined.
1.Effect of the dumped imports
(61) In examining the effects of the dumped imports, it was found that
the increasing volume and decreasing prices of the dumped
imports coincided with the loss of market share and the
deterioration in the financial situation of the Community industry.
(62) Indeed, between 1990 and the investigation period, the market
share held by the dumped imports from the three countries
concerned has significantly increased, namely from 4,6 to 15 %,
i.e. by more than 10 % of total consumption, while the
Community industry’ s market share decreased by more than
8,5 % of total Community consumption. In addition, during the
investigation period, prices of the disposable flint lighters
imported from Thailand, the Philippines and Mexico were
significantly below the prices practised by the Community
producers (on average by more than 30 %).
Given that the market in question is highly price sensitive, as
already explained at recital 51, it is clear that this significant price
undercutting by Thai, Filipino and Mexican dumped imports, with
consequentially increased market share, has significantly affected
the Community industry, even more so as the imported products
were sold through the same sales channels and to the same
customers as those of the Community industry.
2.Effect of other factors
(a) V olume and prices of imports not sold at dumping prices
(63) Imports from third countries other than those subject to anti-
dumping measures or to the current investigations were found to
have increased by 34 % between 1990 and 1994. However, this
increase is not very significant in terms of market share (from
10 % in 1990 to 11,3 % in 1994).
(64) As to the price levels of these imports, it has to be stressed that
Eurostat data, based on a mix of different lighters, cannot be!B1997R0423 — EN — 20.07.2001 — 001.001 — 15
considered as a suitable basis for the purpose of establishing
accurate unit prices. In any case, no substantiated evidence which
would show that the actual price levels of these imports were
significantly undercutting the Community industry’ s prices was
submitted by any interested party.
(b) Evolution of demand and pattern of consumption
(65) As can be seen from recitals 45 and 46, no contradiction in
demand or any other negative changes in the patterns of
consumption took place during the period under examination.
(c) Trade practices of, and competition between, third countries
and Community producers
(66) No evidence concerning the existence of restrictive trade practices
of third countries, which could have been a source of injury to the
Community industry, has been submitted. As far as competition
between other third countries and Community producers is
concerned, no other case than that of Chinese imports, examined
below, appeared to warrant special consideration.
(d) Developments in technology, export performance and
productivity of the Community industry
(67) The ability of the Community industry to follow, or even get ahead
of, its competitors as regards technological developments is not in
question (Community producers have indeed registered several
valuable patents concerning the manufacture of disposable flint
lighters).
(68) The Community industry’ s ability to compete on export markets
outside the Community is also clearly established (Community
producers’ sales of disposable flint lighters to third countries rose
by 14 % between 1990 and 1994).
(69) The same applies to the Community industry’ s productivity per
worker, which has slightly improved between 1990 and 1994.
(e) Impact of other imports sold at dumping prices
(70) The case of the People’s Republic of China was found to warrant
special consideration in this context. This country indeed appeared
to have substantially increased its share of the Community lighter
market over the period 1990 to 1994. Quantities exported from the
People’ s Republic of China to the Community were very
substantial and prices not only dumped but also very low. By
Council Regulation (EC) No 1006/95 (1), these imports were
subjected to an increased anti-dumping duty.
All cooperating exporters have claimed that they were forced to
follow the trend set by the Chinese in order to continue to sell.
Although this argument is not totally unfounded, it is considered
that the fact that the People’ s Republic of China has become one of
the major players on the market (largely through dumping) cannot
exempt other exporting countries, delivering quantities which are
far from being negligible, from their responsibility for resorting to
injurious dumping.
In addition, this does not detract from the fact that severe
competition of low-priced dumped imports from Thailand, the
Philippines and Mexico has significantly participated to the
downward pressure put on disposable flint lighter prices in the
Community.
3.Conclusion on causation
(71) Notwithstanding the fact that another element, namely the dumped
imports from the People’s Republic of China, may have had a!B
(1) OJ No L 101, 4. 5. 1995, p. 38.1997R0423 — EN — 20.07.2001 — 001.001 — 16
negative impact on the Community industry, it is considered that
dumped imports from Thailand, the Philippines and Mexico have
by themselves caused material injury to the Community industry.
This conclusion is based on the various elements set out above and
especially the level of price undercutting and the quantities
concerned which resulted in a significant downward price
pressure.
G. CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF DUMPING
AND INJURY (THAILAND)
(72) Since, as explained in recital 4, the interim review in respect of
imports originating in Thailand was likely not to be concluded
before the end of the five-year period of application of the
measures concerned, the interim review concerning this country
has also covered the circumstances due to be examined in the
context of an expiry review as set out in Article 11 (2) of the basic
anti-dumping Regulation.
(73) In the course of this examination, carried out with a view to
determining, in the assumption that the measures against Thailand
would be due to expire, whether such expiry ‘would be likely to
lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury’, the
following elements were found to be relevant:
— since, already before any foreseeable expiry, the Thai imports
concerned have continued to be dumped (moreover at a higher
level than the one originally established), it is considered
highly unlikely that the expiry of the measures could result in,
or even coincide with, the disappearance of dumping,
— similarly, as regards the injury analysis, it should be noted
that, had the conclusion on cumulation not been reached and
therefore had Thai imports been examined in isolation, they
would still have been found injurious to such an extent (given
the results of the investigation as to the volume and prices of
such imports) that an increase in the level of the applicable
anti-dumping duty would have been warranted. This finding,
made in consideration of the existence (and level) of the
current measures, would be strengthened, if anything, in the
light of their possible expiry.
(74) Accordingly, it is considered that, since the persistent injurious
dumping is such as to make the amendment of the existing
measures against Thailand warranted, it follows that the expiry of
the measures would be likely to lead to a continuation of dumping
and injury and that the measures against Thailand should not be
allowed to lapse.
H. COMMUNITY INTEREST
(75) In assessing whether it is in the Community’s interest to take or
modify anti-dumping measures in respect of imports of disposable
flint lighters from the countries concerned which have been
dumped and have caused injury to the Community industry
concerned, the views of all parties involved in the proceeding were
considered. This examination was carried out with a view to
determining whether compelling reasons existed which would
make anti-dumping measures unwarranted.
1.Community industry
(76) Unless measures are taken in respect of Mexican and Filipino
imports and the current measures in respect of Thailand amended
in such a way that causes the Mexican, Filipino and Thai lighter
prices to increase significantly, it is considered that the
Community industry will have to lower further its prices or will
lose market share at an increased rate. In both situations, the
financial situation of the Community industry will worsen. As a!B1997R0423 — EN — 20.07.2001 — 001.001 — 17
result, production in the Community will no longer be viable and
might have to cease, resulting in loss of jobs in both the industry
itself and related sectors.
Also, the revenues required for investment in research and
development of products in line with lighter safety standard and
more sophisticated production techniques, which are vital in
maintaining competitiveness in a highly competitive sector, will
be drastically reduced. Consequently, the Community industry
could then, after a relatively short period of sustained losses, do
nothing but withdraw from production in the Community.
It is therefore justified to give the disposable lighter industry,
which has a long history of investment and resultant innovation in
the Community, the chance to survive by removing the distortion
effects of dumping and thus securing employment and future
investment.
2.Consumer interest
(77) No information relating to the Community interest issue has been
received from consumer organizations. The disposable lighter is
an inexpensive product which, in general, is bought without
special preference. Although differences in prices appear to have a
determining effect on consumers’ choice between different
lighters, the absolute level of prices does not seem to have any
influence on the decision to buy or not to buy such a disposable
product. Therefore, a price increase, at the level of the importer
and partly or wholly reflected throughout the distribution chain,
will be likely to have no material impact on the total consumption
of disposable flint lighters.
It should also be stressed that, given the usual mark up between
the cif import price and the retail price, the lighter distribution
chain is likely to be able to absorb most of the impact on the
consumer of price increase which would result from anti-dumping
measures. Additionally, it should be noted that price increases, if
any, will not have a major impact on the budget of the consumer
due to the low unit price of this item and the very limited amount
spent on it per individual.
3.Conclusion
(78) Having examined the various interests involved, it is concluded
that it is in the Community interest to impose anti-dumping
measures to eliminate the injurious effects of the dumped imports
under consideration and that, conversely, no compelling reasons
exist which would make such measures unwarranted.
Indeed, failure to take action could mean disappearance of
production in the Community and, consequently, loss of
employment and lack of investment. The price increase and the
consequent relatively little extra cost for the consumer can by no
means be considered to be of the same magnitude as the cost of
the total disappearance of a Community industry.
I.ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
1.Injury elimination level
(79) In accordance with the relevant provisions of the basic anti-dump-
ing Regulation, it was examined whether the measures should be
less than the dumping margins found, if such lesser measures
would be adequate to remove the injury to the Community
industry. For that purpose, it was considered that the selling prices
of each exporter to unrelated importers, adjusted to duty paid,
customer delivered levels (or, where sales were to a related
importer, the resale price to the first independent customer) should
be compared to selling prices established at the same level of trade!B1997R0423 — EN — 20.07.2001 — 001.001 — 18
and reflecting the Community producers’ cost of production
together with a reasonable amount of profit.
(80) For that purpose, it was considered that only those lighters with an
equal or almost equal amount of gas, and therefore a similar
number of ignitions, should be taken into account. As to the
amount of profit considered as reasonable, it was examined
whether the amount of profit used in the previous proceedings
concerning disposable flint lighters, namely a margin of 15 % on
turnover, could be expected to be attained in the absence of the
dumped imports concerned.
(81) In this respect, it has to be recalled that the dumped imports from
the People’s Republic of China may also have had a negative
impact on the Community industry during the period under
examination. Accordingly, in order to ensure that the remedy
sought in respect of the dumped imports from the three countries
concerned remains proportionate, it was considered appropriate
and not unreasonable that the amount of profit used in the current
injury elimination level calculations be limited to 10 %. This
limitation of the profit margin to 10 % was considered appropriate
in order to take account of the other factor of injury which may
have affected the situation of the Community industry during the
period currently under examination. It should not, therefore, be
interpreted as entailing a global reconsideration of previous
findings in respect of the lighter industry’ s reasonable profit-
ability.
(82) The injury elimination level calculations carried out on the above
basis resulted in the average underselling margins, expressed as a
percentage of the free-at-Community-frontier price, to be higher
than the corresponding dumping margins in the case of the Thai
exporter Thai Merry, as well as in the case of the Mexican
producer JMP (whose products are exported by Scripto Tokai
Corp. USA).
For the Filipino cooperating producers, the average underselling
margins, expressed as a percentage of the free-at-Community-
frontier price, found to be lower than the corresponding dumping
margins, were:
— production by Iwax Philippine Inc., and Iwahori Philippines
Inc. and exports by Iwax Inc. Japan (single margin): 43 %,
— Swedish Match Philippines, Inc.: 17 %.
2.Case of the Thai company Politop
(83) As mentioned above, at the end of the original investigation
concerning Thailand, the company Politop had an individual
anti-dumping duty based on its dumping margin (namely 5,8 %)
imposed. On the occasion of the current review, this producer also
cooperated but was unable to provide any data on the basis of
which new dumping and injury margins could be calculated.
Indeed, this producer only exported small quantities to the
Community in 1992 and did not export to the Community any
disposable flint lighters since then.
(84) From the documents examined (notably the company’ s commer-
cial correspondence), it emerged that this situation came about as
a result of Politop’s refusal to sell at prices below cost. Arguing
that its behaviour had been consistently fair over the past four
years, Politop claimed that the increased residual duty likely to be
established for Thailand should not apply to its exports to the
Community and requested to be granted a 0 % duty rate, or at least
that the current 5,8 % duty rate be maintained.
(85) In seeking an appropriate solution, it was found that since Politop
entirely ceased to export to the Community, the best available
information in its case could not be considered to be the residual
dumping margin determined during the investigation period.!B1997R0423 — EN — 20.07.2001 — 001.001 — 19
(86) In these circumstances, the best available information appeared to
be Politop’s own data from the previous investigation. It was
therefore considered that the maintaining of Politop’s current duty
rate (5,8 %) should constitute the most appropriate solution to its
very specific situation.
3.Undertakings
(87) Having been informed of the essential facts and considerations on
the basis of which it was intended to recommend the repealing of
the existing measures concerning Thai imports and the imposition
of definitive anti-dumping duties in respect of imports originating
in the three countries concerned, one Thai producer, the sole
Mexican producer and the two related Filipino producers offered
undertakings concerning their exports of the product concerned to
the Community.
After examination of these offers, the Commission considered the
undertakings as acceptable since they would eliminate the
injurious effects of dumping pursuant to Article 8 (1) of the
basic anti-dumping Regulation. Furthermore, given in particular
the type of sales channels of the exports concerned (which are
made either to related parties or sole importers in the
Community), it was considered that these undertakings could be
monitored effectively.
(88) The Commission consulted the Advisory Committee on the
acceptance of these undertakings and no objections were raised.
The undertakings offered were accepted by Commission Decision
97/167/EC (1).
4.Individual and residual duties
(89) Notwithstanding the acceptance of the undertakings offered by
certain Thai, Mexican and Filipino producers:
— the measures in force in respect of Thailand should be
repealed,
— individual duties should be imposed in respect of imports
from the Thai company Politop (at the rate of 5,8 %, as
explained in recitals 83 to 86) and the Filipino company
Swedish Match Philippines, Inc., which did not offer any
undertaking (at the level of the lesser margin mentioned in
recital 82, namely 17 %),
— residual duties should be imposed on imports of the product
concerned originating in Thailand, the Philippines and
Mexico, in order to underpin the undertakings by avoiding
their circumvention.
Given the level of cooperation obtained from the three countries
concerned (close to 100 %), the residual definitive duties should
be imposed, for each country, at the level established for the
cooperating company with the highest dumping margin, (i.e. on
the basis of the latter company’ s dumping margin or, where
appropriate, underselling margin). On this basis, the residual
duties should be set at 51,9 % in the case of Thailand, 43,0 % in
the case of the Philippines and 27,1 % in the case of Mexico,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EEC) No 3433/91 is hereby amended as follows:
1. at the end of Article 1 (1), ‘and Thailand’ is deleted;2. paragraph (d) of Article 1 (2) shall be repealed.!B
(1) See page 54 of this Official Journal.1997R0423 — EN — 20.07.2001 — 001.001 — 20
Article 2
1. Definitive anti-dumping duties are hereby imposed on imports of
gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters falling within CN code ex
9613 10 00 (Taric code 9613 10 00*10) originating in Thailand, the
Philippines and Mexico.
2. The rate of the duties, applicable to the net, free-at-Community-
frontier price, before duty, shall be as follows:
(a) 51,9 % for imports originating in Thailand (TARIC additional code
8900) with the exception of imports which are produced and sold for
export to the Community by Politop Co. Ltd, Bangkok where the rate
shall be 5,8 % (TARIC additional code 8937) and imports which are
produced and sold for export to the Community by Thai Merry Co.
Ltd., Samutsakorn where the rate shall be 0 % (TARIC additional
code 8542);
(b) 43,0 % for imports originating in the Philippines (Taric additional
code 8900) with the exception of imports which are produced and
sold for export to the Community by Swedish Match Philippines,
Inc., Manila where the rate shall be 13,0 % (Taric additional code
8938);
(c) 27,1 % for imports originating in Mexico (Taric additional code
8900).
3."M2 3
(b) The duties referred to in paragraph 2 (b) shall not apply to
gas-fuelled, non refillable pocket flint lighters produced by Iwax
Philippine, Inc., Rosario, Cavite, or Iwahori Philippines, Inc.,
Mariveles, Bataan and sold for export to the Community by
themselves or by Iwax Inc., Shizuoka, Japan (Taric additional
code 8939).
(c) The duties referred to in paragraph 2 (c) shall not apply to
gas-fuelled, non refillable pocket flint lighters produced by JMP
Mexico, SA de CV , Tijuana, and sold for export to the
Community by Scripto Tokai Corp., Fontana, USA (Taric
additional code 8940).
4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning
customs duties shall apply.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication
in the Official Journal of the European Communities .
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in
all Member States.!B
!M2
!M1
!B1997R0423 — EN — 20.07.2001 — 001.001 — 21