1997R2398 — EN — 14.08.2001 — 004.001 — 1
This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents
►B COUNCIL REGULATION (EC)No 2398/97
of 28 November 1997
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Egypt,
India and Pakistan
(OJ L 332, 4.12.1997, p. 1)
Amended by:
Official Journal
No page date
►M1Council Regulation (EC) No 1508/98 of 13 July 1998 L 200 9 16.7.1998
►M2Council Regulation (EC) No 1421/1999 of 28 June 1999 L 166 29 1.7.1999
►M3Council Regulation (EC) No 554/2000 of 13 March 2000 L 68 1 16.3.2000
►M4Council Regulation (EC) No 1644/2001 of ►C28 August 2001 ◄ L 219 1 14.8.2001
Corrected by:
►C1Corrigendum, OJ L 19, 24.1.1998, p. 83 (2398/97)
►C2Corrigendum, OJ L 260, 28.9.2001, p. 39 (1644/2001)
▼B
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC)No 2398/97
of 28 November 1997
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type
bed linen originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan
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 membersof the European Community(
1), and in particular Articles 9 (4) and
10 (2) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after
consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
A.PROCEDURE
(1)By Regulation (EC) No 1069/97(2) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
provisional Regulation’) the Commission imposed a provisionalanti-dumping duty on imports into the Community of cotton-typebed linen falling within CN codes 6302 21 00, 6302 22 90,6302 31 10, 6302 31 90 and 6302 32 90 originating in Egypt,
India and Pakistan.
(2)Following the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duty,
certain interested parties submitted comments in writing. Thoseparties, who so requested, were granted an opportunity to beheard by the Commission. 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 andthe definitive collection, at the level of these duties, of amountssecured by way of provisional duties. They were also granted aperiod within which to make representations subsequent to this
disclosure.
(3)The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties
were analysed and, where deemed appropriate, taken into accountfor the definitive findings.
B.PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE PRODUCT
1.Requests for exclusion from the proceeding
(4)Following the disclosure of provisional findings, the Commission
received various requests for exclusion of certain product typesfrom the proceeding:
— certain parties repeated their request for exclusion of
‘seersucker’, atype of bed linen produced with the use ofchemicals, claiming there to be no more production of such
items in the Community,
— some parties repeated the request for exclusion of bleached
bed linen which is intended for institutional use (i.e. hospitals,
hotels etc.). Moreover, one party argued for the exclusion of
institutional dyed bed linen. In support of their requests, theyclaimed that the user institutions require a special quality ofthe product in question, namely products made from fabric ofa particularly heavy weaving construction, which they claimedwere not produced in the Community,1997R2398 — EN — 14.08.2001 — 004.001 — 2
(1) OJ L 56, 6. 3. 1996, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No
2331/96 (OJ L 317, 6. 12. 1996, p. 1).
(2) OJ L 156, 13. 6. 1997, p. 11.
▼B
— a request was also received to exclude items made from fabric
woven on looms operated purely by hand or foot(‘handloom’).
(5)On ‘seersucker’, since no new arguments were advanced insupport of the request following the imposition of provisionalmeasures, and despite the absence of production of identical
products by the Community industry, the request could not be
accepted. It was therefore concluded that this product type issubject to the proceeding as it shares sufficient physicalcharacteristics and uses with other types of bed linen to makethem competitive with each other.
(6)On the request to exclude certain types of bed linen intended forinstitutional use, and in particular to exclude products of aweaving construction above a certain weight threshold, it was
found that bed linen of a heavier construction was produced in the
Community (notably but not exclusively a specific type known asflannel). In addition, no clear dividing line could be establishedbetween bed linen produced and sold in the Community forinstitutional and private use and the imported types: all sharedsufficient physical characteristics, functions and uses to be
considered like products.
The request to exclude bed linen for institutional use from the
scope of the proceeding could not therefore be accepted and thefindings of the investigation and the conclusions of theCommission as set out in recital 13 of the provisional Regulationare confirmed.
(7)As regards the request to exclude handloom products, while theuse of different production methods is not in itself area sonrelevant to the definition of the like product, it was found that
handloom items had physical characteristics different from those
of other bed linen, notably through a less regular and looserweave. This difference led to a different consumer perception ofhandloom products which was reinforced by the fact thathandloom products are often sold through particular saleschannels such as charity shops which are not available to
Community producers.
Consequently it was concluded that handloom products should be
excluded from the scope of the proceeding and, therefore, theseproducts should be exempted from the payment of the duties ifaccompanied by a certificate of handloom origin (see Annex II to
this Regulation) issued by the appropriate authorities of the
exporting country.
2.Like product
(8)Following the disclosure of provisional findings, certain parties
repeated the claim, already made at the provisional stage, that
there were such differences between all imported bed linen and all
Community-produced bed linen that they could not be consideredalike product within the mea ning of Article 1 (4) of CouncilRegulation (EC) No 384/96 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘basicRegulation’). The Commission considered these claims but found
that for the reasons already set out in recital 14 of the provisional
Regulation they could not be accepted.
3.Conclusion
(9)It follows from the conclusions set out in recital 10 of the
provisional Regulation as modified above with regard to
handloom products that the product under consideration is bed
linen of cotton fibres, pure or mixed with man-made fibres orflax, bleached, dyed or printed. It includes but is not limited tobed sheets, duvet covers and pillow cases.
Bed linen of pure man-made fibres and bed linen where flax is the
dominant fibre is not covered by this proceeding. Bed linen made1997R2398 — EN — 14.08.2001 — 004.001 — 3
▼B
from handloom woven fabric is also not covered by this
proceeding.
Based on the above exclusion and clarifications of the product
scope, bed linen covered by the present proceeding falls withinCN codes ex 6302 21 00, ex 6302 22 90, ex 6302 31 10,ex 6302 31 90 and ex 6302 32 90.
Subject to the above, and in the absence of any further arguments,
the conclusions as set out in recitals 10 and 14 of the provisionalRegulation concerning the product definition and the like productare hereby confirmed.
C.EXPORTING PRODUCERS IN THE COUNTRIES
CONCERNED
1.Requests for status of cooperating parties
(10)It was only after the selection of the samples of exporters and, in
many cases, following the disclosure of the preliminary findingsof the investigation to cooperating parties, that several exporting
producers in the countries concerned made themselves known and
requested the status of cooperating parties.
(11)Given that all these exporting producers either did not makethemselves known or did not provide the information deemednecessary for the investigation within the time limits set in thenotice of initiation(
1), it is considered that the cooperating status
requested should not be granted because to do otherwise would
constitute a discrimination against other parties who had decided
to cooperate since the outset of the investigation.
2.New exporters
(12)Following the adoption of provisional measures, a number of
exporters in the countries concerned made themselves known,often at a very advanced stage of the investigation, and requestednew exporter status. Some of them showed to the satisfaction of
the Commission that they did not export the product concerned to
the Community during the investigation period, that they startedto export to the Community after this period or that they haveentered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export asignificant quantity to the Community, and that they were notrelated to any of the exporting producers in the respective
exporting countries which are subject to the anti-dumping
measures on the product concerned. Consequently, thoseexporting producers were considered to be new exporters andshould be granted the same treatment, in terms of definitivemeasures, as the cooperating exporting producers not included in
the sample, i.e. an anti-dumping duty calculated in accordance
with Article 9 (6) of the basic Regulation.
(13)The same treatment should be granted to any new exportingproducer which following the adoption of definitive measuresshows to the satisfaction of the Commission that it fulfils theabovementioned criteria.
D.DUMPING
1.Normal value
(a)Methodology for the construction of normal value
(14)Three Egyptian exporting producers argued that if domestic sales
were considered unrepresentative for assessing profit, they shouldbe considered equally unrepresentative for assessing selling,general and administrative (SG& A) expenses.1997R2398 — EN — 14.08.2001 — 004.001 — 4
(1) OJ C 266, 13. 9. 1996, p. 2.
▼B
In this respect, it should be noted that the fact that some or all of
the domestic sales of the like product appear to be loss-makingdoes not in itself render the related SG& A expenses
inappropriate to construct normal value if such sales were made
in sufficient quantities when compared to the sales volume of theproduct under consideration sold for export to the Community.
(b)Cost of production
(15)As already explained in recital 36 of the provisional Regulation,
two Pakistani exporting producers claimed that due to exceptionalcircumstances, resulting from civil disorder on a major scale inKarachi during the investigation period, costs corresponding to‘idle capacity’ should not be taken into account in constructing
normal value. Following the imposition of provisional measures
these companies repeated their claim and resubmitted theirquantification of the idle costs concerned.
In this respect, it should be noted that according to an extract of
the International Accounting Standard No 2 (IAS-2), which one ofthe companies concerned quoted, although the amount of fixedoverheads allocated to each unit of production is not to beincreased as a consequence of low production or idle plant,
unallocated overheads are in any event recognised as an expense
in the period in which they are incurred. In other words, all costsincurred within a certain period should be fully absorbed withinthe same period by the total cost of production (manufacturingcost and SG& A expenses) irrespective of whether ‘idle capacity’
costs are classified as fixed overheads included in the manufac-
turing cost or as part of the SG& A expenses. Therefore, theseclaims could not be accepted since the total cost of productionincorporated in the constructed normal value includes bothmanufacturing cost and SG& A expenses.
(16)One Pakistani exporting producer claimed that the cost of initial
material (grey cloth) it had reported in the cost of manufacturing
included certain SG& A expenses. Therefore, when constructingits normal value, the SG& A expenses reported should have beendeducted from the cost of production in order to avoid a doublecounting of SG& A expenses. The Commission, after reviewing
the data of the company, accepted the claim and modified the
dumping calculations accordingly.
(c)Selling, general and administrative expenses (SG& A)
(17)One Egyptian exporting producer contested the inclusion of
allegedly exceptional high financing expenses in the construction
of its normal value. It argued that these high financing expenseswere incurred by two state-owned companies on their loss makingdomestic sales of the like product and, therefore, should not beused for calculating constructed normal value for a private-owned
company, but that a ‘reasonable’ amount of SG& A expenses
should be established for this purpose instead. It was furtherargued that this ‘reasonable’ amount could be based on the SG&A expenses of the third state-owned company investigated whichhad profitable domestic sales of the like product.
In that respect, it has to be mentioned that, where all companies
are operating in free market conditions, the consistent practice ofthe Community institutions has been to include all costs incurredto produce and sell the product concerned on the domestic
market, including financing expenses, in the construction of
normal value irrespective of whether these costs are incurred bystate or private-owned companies.
In addition, it is consistent practice when constructing normal
value for companies without domestic sales to use the weightedaverage SG& A expenses of all investigated companies withdomestic sales of the like product, as provided in Article 2 (6) (a)of the basic Regulation. Therefore, for the company in question1997R2398 — EN — 14.08.2001 — 004.001 — 5
▼B
the methodology used and explained in recital 32 of the
provisional Regulation is confirmed.
(d)Domestic profit margin
(18)All Indian exporting producers contested the use of the actual
profit margin realized by one Indian company on its representa-tive profitable domestic sales in the construction of normal valuefor other Indian companies. They argued that this profit margin isexceptionally high because, to a great extent, it relates to
domestic sales of branded products and that since export sales
always concerned non-branded products, such domestic sales donot permit aproper compa rison within the terms of Article 2 (3)of the basic Regulation. Four of these exporting producers alsoargued that this profit is not calculated by reference to the
weighted average profits of other exporters or producers as
provided for in Article 2 (6) (a) of the basic Regulation, butcorresponds to only one exporting producer. It was furtherclaimed in this respect that, in order to ensure that the amount forprofits used is reasonable, the profits realised on sales of productsof the same general category in India should in any event not be
exceeded.
It should be noted that the profit margin used in constructing
normal value corresponds to the weighted average profit realizedon domestic sales of profitable types of branded and non-brandedproducts by the Indian company concerned and that, had thisclaim been accepted, this would have been to the disadvantage of
the producers, the profit margin used being lower than the profit
margin realized by the same company solely on its domestic salesof non-branded products.
With regard to the use of the profit margin of only one company,
it should be recalled that the investigation has been restricted to asample of exporting producers in accordance with Article 17 of
the basic Regulation and that the vast majority of the cooperating
Indian companies are export oriented companies with no domesticsales of the like product. The Commission selected for the samplefive Indian exporting producers two of which had declared at thetime of the selection that they had made domestic sales of the likeproduct. However, as indicated in recital 23 of the provisional
Regulation, the investigation revealed that only one had
representative domestic sales of the like product during theinvestigation period. Moreover, the reference in Article 2 (6) (a)of the basic Regulation to a weighted average amount for profitsdetermined for other exporters or producers, does not exclude that
such amount can be determined by reference to a weighted
average of transactions and/or product types of a single exporteror producer. Consequently, it is not considered justified toestablish the amount for profits in accordance with Article 2 (6)(b) or 2 (6) (c) of the basic Regulation, as claimed by the Indiancompanies concerned.
(19)One Indian exporting producer argued that its domestic profit-ability should have been assessed only on the basis of those typesof the product concerned sold both domestically and on the
Community market.
It should be noted however, that Article 2 (2) of the basic
Regulation provides that the sales of the like product intended fordomestic consumption shall normally be used to determinenormal value if such sales volume constitutes 5 % or more of thesales volume to the Community of the product under considera-tion. Therefore, all domestic sales of the like product intended for
domestic consumption were, where appropriate, used to establish
the domestic profit margin, whether or not particular producttypes were also exported to the Community.
It follows from the above that the methodology and the findings
as set out in recitals 23 to 36 of the provisional Regulation arehereby confirmed.1997R2398 — EN — 14.08.2001 — 004.001 — 6
▼B
2.Export price
(20)One Pakistani exporting producer which sold part of its exports to
a related importer based in the Community, argued that the export
price for the transactions made through the related importershould not be constructed because all prices charged to the relatedimporter were at ‘arm's length’ and they are in line with pricescharged to unrelated customers in the Community. Therefore itwas argued that the actual export price charged to the related
importer should be considered as reliable and that it should be
used in the dumping calculations.
It is the consistent practice of the Community institutions, where
it appears that the export price is unreliable because of an
association or a compensatory arrangement between the exporterand the importer, to construct it in accordance with Article 2 (9)of the basic Regulation. In this particular case the investigationrevealed that all subsequent resales by the related importer to
independent buyers were made at a loss. This was considered to
be an indication that the prices charged by the exporter to itsrelated importer are unreliable. Therefore, the methodology usedto determine the export price as explained in recitals 37 and 38 ofthe provisional Regulation is confirmed.
3.Comparison
(21)One Indian exporting producer contested the Commission's
refusal to grant an adjustment for level of trade.
Article 2 (10) (d) of the basic Regulation requires that it has to be
shown that the export price is at a different level of trade from thenormal value and that the difference has affected pricecomparability, which is demonstrated by consistent and distinct
differences in functions and prices of the seller for the different
levels of trade in the domestic market of the exporting country.Therefore, in the absence of any substantiated evidence to thiseffect, the claim was rejected as already explained in recital 40 ofthe provisional Regulation.
(22)The same Indian company also contested the Commission'srefusal to grant adjustments to normal value for certain sellingexpenses.
The request was provisionally rejected because the adjustments
requested exceeded the expenses incorporated in the constructednormal value.
The company's renewed request showed the same shortcomings
and could not, therefore, be accepted either.
However, it was finally decided to grant an adjustment limited to
those expenses (e.g. commissions and freight) which could beidentified in the allocation of SG& A expenses as submitted bythe company in its response to the Commission's questionnaireand which were verified during the investigation and incorporatedin the constructed normal value.
(23)This Indian company further challenged the Commission's refusalto grant an adjustment to normal value for credit costs.
As explained in recital 44 of the provisional Regulation, this
claim had to be rejected given that the delivery of all goods sold
in the domestic market by the company concerned took place onlyafter payment. Thus, since the seller did not pass on to the buyerthe use or the possession of the goods in question until the time ofpayment, it cannot be argued that there was any credit granted by
the seller.
(24)One Pakistani exporting producer also challenged the Commis-
sion's refusal to grant an adjustment to normal value for creditcosts. In order to support its argument, it was requested to submitadditional information following the imposition of provisionalmeasures.1997R2398 — EN — 14.08.2001 — 004.001 — 7
▼B
Since the information submitted did not contradict but satisfacto-
rily supplemented the data previously verified by the Commissionat the premises of the company concerned, the claim for an
adjustment concerning credit costs was accepted and the
calculations were revised accordingly.
(25)All Pakistani exporting producers contested the Commission'scalculation of the adjustment for import charges and duties borneby the like product and in particular by certain materialsphysically incorporated therein, when intended for consumption
in Pakistan and refunded on export of the product under
consideration pursuant to the Pakistani legislation. They arguedthat the amount of the adjustment should be expressed as apercentage of the cost of production and that the same percentageshould then be deducted from the normal value.
The argument neglects the fact that such a percentage calculated
by reference to the cost of production should be applied on theappropriate basis and that the normal value, being the equivalentof a domestic price, cannot be considered as such. Therefore, the
argument was not accepted.
(26)One Pakistani company argued that the amount of the adjustment
for import charges and duties borne by the like product, wasunderestimated in the Commission's dumping calculations forcertain types of product.
The Commission reviewed the calculations and accepted the
claim where appropriate.
(27)The Pakistani authorities were of the opinion that the dutydrawback adjustment granted to the cooperating exportingproducers was not sufficient. They concede that the relevant
Pakistani legislation mentions only a limited number of imported
materials (certain dyes and chemicals) which are eligible forrefund if the finished product is exported and that theCommission has granted an adjustment in this respect. However,they argue that, upon proof of export performance, Pakistaniexporters also receive a refund for a number of other indirect
taxes and duties borne by sales of the like product in the domestic
market and that this refund should also give entitlement to anadjustment.
In this respect, it should be noted that any adjustment pursuant to
Article 2 (10) of the basic Regulation requires that it isdemonstrated that there is a difference in factors which affectprice comparability. As part of such demonstration pursuant toArticle 2 (10) (b), it has to be shown that the cost concerned, in
this case import charges or indirect taxes, has actually been
incurred by the exporting producer for the product concernedwhen intended for consumption in the exporting country and notcollected or refunded in respect of the product exported to theCommunity. Neither the Pakistani exporting producers nor thePakistani authorities could demonstrate a link between any other
indirect taxes and duties paid and the amounts refunded. In
addition, the Pakistani authorities could not specify the indirecttaxes or duties for which the additional refund claimed wasallegedly granted. Therefore, the request was not accepted.
It follows that unless otherwise provided above the conclusions
drawn in recitals 39 to 45 of the provisional Regulation are herebyconfirmed.
4.Dumping margins
(a)General methodology
(28)The representatives of the Indian and the Egyptian cooperating
exporting producers, which were not included in the sample and,therefore, were not investigated, argued that the dumping marginsestablished for investigated state-owned companies should not be1997R2398 — EN — 14.08.2001 — 004.001 — 8
▼B
taken into account when calculating the dumping margins to be
allocated to private-owned companies not investigated.
As already explained above, the Commission cannot treat
differently state and privately owned companies where allcompanies are operating in free market conditions. Therefore,the claim cannot be accepted and the provisions of recitals 46 to48 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(b)Dumping margins for companies in the sample
(29)The comparison between the normal value and the export price, in
accordance with the methodology of the provisional Regulationand after revisions, where appropriate, following the arguments
made by interested parties, showed the existence of dumping in
respect of all companies investigated. The definitive dumpingmargins expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at theCommunity frontier are as follows:
India
Anglo French Textiles 24,7 %
The Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd 7,7 %
Nowrosjee Wadia & Sons Ltd 7,7 %
Madhu Industries Ltd 17,0 %
Madhu International 17,0 %Omkar Exports 14,2 %
Prakash Cotton Mills Ltd 2,6 %
Egypt
Damietta Spinning & Weaving Co. 13,5 %
El Nasr Wool and Selected Textiles Co. (STIA) 13,5 %
Orient Linen & Cotton Co. 13,5 %Stephanie Textile 8,7 %
Pakistan
Al-Abid Silk Mills Ltd 6,7 %
Al Abid Export (Pvt) Ltd 6,7 %
Al-Karam Textile Mills Ltd 1,3 % ( de minimis )
Fateh Textile Mills Ltd 6,3 %Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd 0,1 % ( de minimis )
Excel Textile Mills Ltd 0,1 % ( de minimis )
Mohammad Farooq Textile Mills Ltd 1,8 % ( de minimis )
(c)Dumping margin for cooperating companies not in the
sample
(30)Cooperating companies not selected in the sample (see recitals 17
and 21 of the provisional Regulation and recitals 12 and 13 of this
Regulation) were allocated the average dumping margin of the
companies in the sample, weighted on the basis of their exportturnover to the Community. In accordance with Article 9 (6) ofthe basic Regulation, when calculating this average dumpingmarginde minimis margins established have been disregarded.
Expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the
Community frontier, these definitive dumping margins are asfollows:
India11,6 %
Egypt 13,5 % (for state-owned companies)1997R2398 — EN — 14.08.2001 — 004.001 — 9
▼B
Egypt 13,0 % (for other companies)
Pakistan 6,4 %
The companies entitled to the reduced rates are set out in an
Annex to this Regulation.
(d)Dumping margin for non-cooperating companies
(31)For non-cooperating companies a dumping margin was deter-
mined on the basis of the facts available in accordance withArticle 18 of the basic Regulation. Since the level of cooperation
was high, it was considered appropriate to set the dumping margin
for non-cooperating companies in each country concerned at thelevel of the highest dumping margin established for a company ineach sample because it would constitute a bonus for non-cooperation to assume that the dumping margin to be allocated toexporting producers which did not make themselves known is
lower than that found for a cooperating exporting producer.
These definitive dumping margins expressed as a percentage of
the CIF import price at the Community frontier, are the following:
India24,7 %
Egypt 13,5 %
Pakistan 6,7 %.
E.COMMUNITY INDUSTRY
1.Definition of the Community industry
(32)Exporters from all three exporting countries observed that the
complainant Community producers taken to be the Community
industry made up just 34 % of total Community production. They
claimed that this showed that a majority of bed linen producers inthe Community did not support the complaint and shouldtherefore be assumed not to be injured, and that the Communityindustry was not therefore representative of total Communityproduction.
However, in response to the provisional measures only two non-
complainant Community producers, which originally expressedno opinion to the Commission on the complaint, expressedopposition to the duties. The combined production of these two
producers was less than one-third of the total production of the
complainants. Throughout the proceeding, therefore, the complai-nants represented considerably more than 50 % of the collectiveoutput of those producers expressing either support for oropposition to the complaint.
(33)Pakistani exporters also claimed that the Commission had notused the correct test in determining whether Communityproducers which also import bed linen from the countries
concerned should be excluded from the Community industry
(recitals 52 to 55 of the provisional Regulation). By way ofclarification, it is confirmed that the test used in recital 54 waswhether bed linen imported from the countries concernedaccounted for 10 % of the turnover in bed linen of the companies
in question, rather than 10 % of total company turnover. Under
this test it was found and is hereby confirmed that none of thesampled companies retained in the list of 35 complainants madesufficient imports of the product concerned by this proceedingfrom the countries in question to be excluded from the definitionof the Community industry.1997R2398 — EN — 14.08.2001 — 004.001 — 10
▼B
2.Conclusion
(34)In conclusion, the finding that the 35 complainant companies
represent a major proportion of total Community productionwithin the meaning of Article 5 (4) of the basic Regulation andthat they therefore constitute the Community industry within the
meaning of Article 4 (1) of the basic Regulation is confirmed.
F.INJURY
1.Cumulative assessment of the effects of the dumped imports
(35)Pakistani exporters argued that imports from Pakistan should not
have been cumulated with those from India and Egypt for theassessment of injury. In support of this they pointed out thatimports from Pakistan had grown less fast than those from theother two countries, that according to Eurostat the average price
of the imports from Pakistan was higher and had risen while the
others had fallen, and that the dumping margins calculated forPakistan were on average about half those for the other twocountries concerned.
These arguments were examined. It was noted that imports from
Pakistan, while rising less quickly than those from India and
Egypt (in particular because of quota restraints), had nonethelessrisen and remained the highest of the three exporting countries.As for the Eurostat data on average prices, it should beremembered that this data groups together a wide variety ofdifferent products. It was observed among the sampled Pakistani
exporters that their product mix included a greater proportion of
higher value products (e.g. satin and other products from finercotton yarn) than sampled producers in India and Egypt. It wasconsequently found that the data on average prices was highlyinfluenced by differences and changes in product mix and could
not justify differential treatment in the overall analysis of injury.
Finally, the size of dumping margins for a given country,
provided they are more than de minimis , is not acriterion for the
decision as to whether or not to make a cumulative assessment ofthe effects of the dumped imports.
(36)The cumulative assessment made in the provisional Regulation istherefore confirmed under the terms of Article 3 (4) of the basic
Regulation.
2.Prices of the dumped imports
(37)Exporters and importers claimed that the Commission's analysis
of the degree to which the imports concerned undercut the prices
of the sampled Community producers, and the consequentcalculation of injury margins, were flawed, for various reasons:
— firstly because the criteria for selection of the ‘reference
products’, on which the analysis was based, were claimed notto have been explained,
— secondly, because the reference products accounted, they
claimed, in some cases for only a small proportion ofCommunity sales of the sampled exporters in the countries
concerned, allegedly indicating a lack of competition between
imported and Community products and a lack of reliability ofthe analysis,
— thirdly, because it was claimed that in making the price
comparisons inadequate account had been taken of thedifferences in sales channels between Community producers
and exporters from the countries concerned,
— fourthly, because there were claimed to be quality differences
which should be taken into account,
— fifthly, because it was claimed that products imported and
Community products falling within the same referenceproduct definition could not be compared, there being othercriteria besides size, weaving construction and finish by which1997R2398 — EN — 14.08.2001 — 004.001 — 11
▼B
the products differed or because the range of constructions
considered to be comparable was too wide.
(38)On the first point, it is confirmed that the reference products wereselected, for each market studied, following consultation with therelevant national producers' association and also using informa-
tion available to the Commission. Furthermore, it is confirmed
that the investigation showed that the sizes, weaving constructionsand finishes chosen as reference products were indeed among themost prevalent in the markets concerned. Finally, at no time didthe exporters or their representatives define other products which
in their view would have been more appropriate for an analysis of
undercutting.
On the second point, it was noted that the wide variety of bed
linen products limited the proportion of each exporter's saleswhich could accurately be compared with sales by the sampledCommunity producers. Given the Commission's intention to
conduct accurate comparisons (comparing prices only of products
matching in size, weaving construction and finish) and the limitsto the number of different such products for which accurate priceinformation could be collected in the time available, it isunsurprising that the proportion of each exporter's sales in the
Community which could reasonably be compared with the
products of the sampled Community producers was in someexceptional cases as low as 5 %. This was particularly the case ofexporters concentrating on simple, high volume products (amarket segment from which the Community industry is nowlargely excluded by import penetration). This invalidated neither
the finding that there were significant market segments where the
dumped imports competed with Community production nor themethod adopted for assessing undercutting, since the quantitiesoverall were in all cases considered sufficiently representative andin several cases exceeded 30 %. In any event, it should be noted
that low export prices in one market segment, given the high
interchangeability of the product concerned, will also havenegative effects on prices in adjacent segments.
On the third point, the exporters substantiated their claim with
evidence that the total mark-up from the CIF export price to the
ultimate retail price was much greater than the level of trade
adjustment made by the Commission. The Commission consid-ered however that this was not relevant information since priceswere not being compared at the level of sale to the ultimateconsumer but at the level of sale to the first independentcustomer. The exporters' claim is therefore rejected.
On the fourth point, the claim for adjustment for quality
differences was based on average weights per square metre ofthe Community and imported products. Since however the weightper square metre of fabric is a function of its weavingconstruction, and since products were compared only when they
corresponded in terms of this construction, there was no
justification for such an adjustment and the claim is thereforerejected.
On the fifth point, the Commission considered the arguments but
could not accept it. This conclusion was reached bearing in mind
the large number of reference products allowing a detailed
analysis and the fact that remaining differences within eachreference product definition were compensated by a pricecomparison carried out on an average per kilo basis.
(39)The finding in recital 79 of the provisional Regulation that theimported products undercut the products of the sampledCommunity producers, and the findings of the level of theundercutting, are therefore confirmed.
3.Situation of the Community industry
(40)Exporters from all the exporting countries claimed that the
Commission's analysis of injury was defective in that it referred to1997R2398 — EN — 14.08.2001 — 004.001 — 12
▼B
the significant decline in total Community production of bed linen
in assessing the situation of the Community industry. Theyclaimed in particular that information concerning companies not
included in the definition of the Community industry or which no
longer produce bed linen cannot be used to construe a finding ofmaterial injury.
These claims were examined carefully. It should however be
remarked that the principal basis for the finding of material injury
was the reduced profitability and price suppression of theCommunity industry as observed among the sampled companies.
(41)In the assessment of injury pursuant to Article 3 of the basicRegulation, the Community institutions have to assess theeconomic situation of the Community industry. This assessmentusually covers the analysis of a time period of four to five years as
in the present case (‘assessment period’). Such an assessment is
commonly based on an analysis of the complaining industry andnot necessarily on companies accounting for the totality ofCommunity production on the ground that the situation of a majorproportion of the Community production is representative for its
totality. Such an assessment, however, also has to take into
account the structure and the nature of the industry underconsideration. In the present case this industry is characterized bya high number of operators, in many cases small- and medium-sized companies, and by the fact that it is a sector with relativelylow barriers to exit. The latter is mainly due to the fact that
machinery can be sold or used for other products relatively
simply. This has the effect that material injury is likely tomanifest itself through the exit of economic operators within theassessment period.
Consequently, to limit the assessment of injury only to companies
which are still operational at the end of the assessment period (i.e.at the time of the lodging of the complaint) and thus able activelyto support a complaint would mean that any injury caused tocompanies which have closed down before this point in time
would go unconsidered in the analysis. Furthermore, it should be
noted that this distortion could even be aggravated as thesurviving complaining companies of the Community industrymay have benefited, possibly only temporarily, from thedisappearance of other companies, causing their positive devel-opment to be overestimated.
In the present case, it should be noted that 29 companies of the
bed linen industry have closed down or ceased production: that isto say, that a substantial number of companies have ceasedoperation. Furthermore, given the substantial price undercutting
established, the strong increase in the volumes of the imports
concerned and their consequent rise in market share, anyrelatively positive development of the complaining producersmust be seen as threatened in the absence of anti-dumpingmeasures.
4.Conclusion
(42)The finding of material injury, within the meaning of Article 3 (1)
of the basic Regulation, is therefore confirmed.
G.CAUSAL LINK
(43)Exporters from all three countries concerned claimed that any
material injury could be ascribed to the fall in consumption of 7 %between 1992 and the investigation period. However, as noted inrecital 105 of the provisional Regulation, the total fall in sales by
all Community producers significantly exceeded the total fall in
consumption. As to the exporters' argument that data concerningthe totality of Community production was not relevant to thedetermination of whether the dumped imports caused materialinjury, this suggestion is rejected on the grounds set out in recitals40 and 41 of this Regulation. The finding is therefore confirmed1997R2398 — EN — 14.08.2001 — 004.001 — 13
▼B
that the fall in consumption does not contradict the finding that
the dumped imports, taken in isolation, have caused materialinjury to the Community industry. The findings concerning the
causal links between the dumped imports and the material injury
suffered by the Community industry as set out in recitals 109 to111 of the provisional Regulation are therefore confirmed.
H.COMMUNITY INTEREST
1.Interests of consumers
(44)Certain importers claimed that the impact on consumers would be
greater than that assessed in the provisional Regulation. In its
provisional findings (recital 124 of the provisional Regulation)
the Commission had noted that the imports concerned by theproceeding were sold to the ultimate consumer at prices verymuch higher than the price at the Community frontier andconsidered that the duty would therefore represent a smallerproportion of the ultimate price to the consumer than the ad
valorem percentage levied. Since subsequent costs (e.g. of
transport, storage and retailing) would not be increased by theimposition of aduty, the impa ct on consumers of the proposedmeasures was evaluated as minor.
(45)Certain parties challenged these arguments. Some claimed thatretailers set prices to the consumer at a set percentage mark-upfrom their purchase price, so that the price to the consumer would
rise by the same percentage as the duty imposed. Some retailers
even claimed that the percentage increase in the price to theconsumer could be higher than the duty level: they claimed thatproducts were sold in particular price brackets and that if the dutyincreased the price of a given product above one bracket, it wouldbe priced in the next bracket, an increase which might be as high
as2 0% .
The Commission considered that these claims did not constitute a
reason to depart from the provisional findings. It was concludedthat pressure of competition between retailers should ensure thatprice increases to consumers would not exceed the cost increase
attributable directly to the duty. The view reached by the
Commission at the provisional stage that this duty would haveonly a minor impact on consumers, especially when comparedwith other factors such as currency fluctuations, is thereforeconfirmed. It should be noted in this context that this conclusion
was not subsequently contested or commented on by any
organization representing consumers following the provisionalmeasures.
2.Interests of other users
(46)Following the imposition of provisional duties, certain parties
came forward claiming that the duties imposed would have asevere negative effect on their businesses. These were, inparticular, companies involved in the rental of linen to hotels
and other institutions. An association representing such users had
come forward before provisional measures and had been invitedby the Commission to supply relevant information but had notdone so.
The parties coming forward after the imposition of provisional
duties were similarly asked to provide relevant information such
as the proportion of their costs represented by purchases of bedlinen but none did so within the time limits specified in theprovisional Regulation. Some of them sought exclusion of certaintypes of bed linen from the scope of the current proceeding (see
recitals 4 and 6 above). In so doing they indicated that the types
of bed linen used were those capable of multiple use and frequentindustrial washing. The Commission therefore took the view thatwhile these businesses would suffer some impact from theimposition of measures, the original costs of purchasing the bedlinen concerned would be minor when compared with the1997R2398 — EN — 14.08.2001 — 004.001 — 14
▼B
continuing service costs of laundry, collection and delivery. The
claims therefore gave no compelling reason why measures shouldnot be imposed.
I.ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
1.Definitive duties
(47)Injury margins remain above the level of the dumping margins in
all cases. Therefore a definitive anti-dumping duty should beimposed at the level of the dumping margins set out in recitals 29to 31 above, with the exception of companies with de minimis
dumping margins for which no duty should be imposed.
2.Collection of provisional duties
(48)The magnitude of the dumping margins found for the exporting
producers and the seriousness of injury caused to the Communityindustry would normally justify the definitive collection of theprovisional duties up to the level of the definitive duties.
Some exporters and importers concerned argued however that the
provisional Regulation was not imposed within the periodspecified in the last sentence of Article 7 (1) of the basic
Regulation. In the light of the uncertainty which has arisen as to
whether, when judged by reference to the provisions of CouncilRegulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1182/71 of 3 June 1971determining the rules applicable to periods, dates and timelimits(
1), the deadline was met, the Council considers that in
order to avoid legal uncertainty, the provisional duties should not
be definitively collected.
3.Certification of handloom items
(49)In order to benefit from the exemption for handloom products
referred to in recital 7, a certificate of handloom origin is
required. The certificate should be in the form attached in Annex
II and it should be issued by the competent authorities of thecountry of origin. The certificate provided for in Article 3 ofCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 of 12 October 1993 oncommon rules for imports of certain textile products from thirdcountries(
2) should also be regarded as adequate for the granting
of the exemption.
(50)The Commission will closely monitor handloom bed linen
imports from the countries concerned and if the circumstancesso require will take all the appropriate measures.
4.Future requests for new exporter treatment
(51)Since sampling has been used in the investigation, a new
exporters' review pursuant to Article 11 (4) of the basicRegulation with the objective of determining individual dumpingmargins cannot be initiated in this proceeding. However, asalready explained in recitals 12 and 13, in order to ensure equal
treatment between any genuine new exporting producer and the
cooperating companies not included in the sample, it isconsidered that provision should be made for the weightedaverage duty imposed on the latter companies to be applied to anynew exporting producers which would otherwise be entitled to areview pursuant to Article 11 (4) of the basic Regulation,1997R2398 — EN — 14.08.2001 — 004.001 — 15
(1) OJ L 124, 8. 6. 1971, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 275, 8. 11. 1993, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC)
No 824/97 (OJ L 119, 8. 5. 1997, p. 1).
▼B
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of
bed linen of cotton fibres, pure or mixed with man-made fibres or flax
(flax not being the dominant fibre), bleached, dyed or printed originating
in India, Pakistan and Egypt, not covered by the provisions of Article 2and falling within the following CN codes:
CN code Taric code
ex 6302 21 00 6302 21 00 * 81
6302 21 00 * 89
ex 6302 22 90 6302 22 90 * 19
ex 6302 31 10 6302 31 10 * 90
ex 6302 31 90 6302 31 90 * 90
ex 6302 32 90 6302 32 90 * 19
2. Subject to paragraphs 3 and 4, the rates of the definitive anti-
dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Community-frontier price,before duty, shall be as follows for products originating in:
Country Rate of duty Taric additional code
Egypt 13,5 % 8900
India ►M49,8 %◄ 8900
Pakistan 6,7 % 8900
3. Products manufactured and sold for export by the exporting
producers listed in Annex I, shall be subject to the following anti-dumping duty rates:
Country Rate of duty Taric additional code
Egypt 13,0 % 8041
India ►M45,7 %◄ 8042
Pakistan 6,4 % 8043
4. Products manufactured and sold for export by the companies listed
below shall be subject to the following anti-dumping duty rates:
Country Manufacturer Rate of dutyTARIC additional
code
IndiaAnglo French Textiles 9,8 % 8044
The Bombay Dyeing & Manufac-
turing Co. Ltd5,5 % 8045
Nowrosjee Wadia & Sons Ltd 5,5 % 8045
Madhu Industries Ltd 3,0 % 8046
Madhu International 3,0 % 8046
Omkar Exports 0,0 % 8047
Prakash Cotton Mills Ltd 0,0 % 80481997R2398 — EN — 14.08.2001 — 004.001 — 16
▼M4
▼B
Country Manufacturer Rate of dutyTaric additional
code
Egypt Stephanie Textile 8,7 % 8049
Country Manufacturer Rate of dutyTaric additional
code
Pakistan Al-Abid Silk Mills Ltd 6,7 % 8050
Al-Abid Export (Pvt) Ltd 6,7 % 8050
Al-Karam Textile Mills Ltd 0,0 % 8051
Fateh Textile Mills Ltd 6,3 % 8052
Mohammad Farooq Textile Mills Ltd 0,0 % 8051
Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd 0,0 % 8051
Excel Textile Mills Ltd 0,0 % 8051
5. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning
customs duties shall apply.
Article 2
1. Products classified under the CN codes mentioned in Article 1 (1)
and made of fabrics woven on looms operated exclusively by hand orfoot are exempted from the duty imposed in Article 1 (Taric codes6302 21 00*21, 6302 21 00*29, 6302 22 90*11, 6302 31 10*10,6302 31 90*10, 6302 32 90*11).
2. The exemption is granted only to products accompanied on their
release for free circulation in the Community by either
(i) a certificate from the competent authorities of the country of origin
which conforms to the model attached as Annex II; or
(ii) a certificate issued pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No
3030/93.
3. Certificates issued pursuant to paragraph 2 (i) shall only be valid if
the countries of origin have informed the Commission of the names andaddresses of the governmental authorities situated in their territory
which are empowered to issue these certificates, and have sent it
specimens of stamps used by those authorities and the names andaddresses of the relevant governmental authorities responsible for thecontrol of the certificates. The stamps shall be valid as from the date ofreceipt by the Commission of the specimens.
4. Certificates issued pursuant to paragraph 2 shall only be valid if
presented with options (a) and (c) in box 11 deleted and if they certifythat the products concerned fulfil the description in option (b).
5. The appropriate provisions implementing the Community Customs
Code, and notably the provisions concerning administrative cooperationcontained in Article 93 et seqof Commission Regulation (EEC) No
2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community
Customs Code(
1), shall apply mutatis mutandis .
Article 3
Where any new exporting producer from the countries concerned
provides sufficient evidence to the Commission that
— it did not export to the Community the products described in Article
1 (1) during the investigation period (1 July 1995 to 30 June 1996),1997R2398 — EN — 14.08.2001 — 004.001 — 17
(1) OJ L 253, 11. 10. 1993, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC)
No 89/97 (OJ L 17, 21. 1. 1997, p. 28).
▼B
— it is not related to any of the exporters or producers in the exporting
country which are subject to the anti-dumping measures imposed bythis Regulation,
— it has actually exported to the Community the products concerned
after the investigation period on which the measures are based, or it
has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a
significant quantity to the Community,
then the Council, acting by simple majority on a proposal submitted by
the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee, may amendArticle 1 (3) by adding that new exporting producer to the list in AnnexI.
Article 4
Amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty imposed
by Regulation (EC) No 1069/97 shall be released.
Article 5
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.1997R2398 — EN — 14.08.2001 — 004.001 — 18
▼B
ANNEX I
EGYPT
AMC Arab Metals Co., Cairo
Dantex Ltd, Cairo
Egyptex, Cairo
El Naggar Egyptian Co. For Furniture, Elmahalla
Nile Tex, AlexandriaWintex-Wahab International Textiles Ltd, Cairo
Zahret El Mehalla for Weaving, Mehalla El Kubra — El-Seka El-Wosta
INDIA
A. Shashikant & Co., Mumbai (Bombay)
Aditya International, Mumbai (Bombay)Ajit Impex, Mumbai (Bombay)
Akai Impex Ltd, Mumbai (Bombay)
Alps Industries Ltd, Ghaziabad
Amitara Fabrics Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai (Bombay)
Anunay Fab. Pvt. Ltd, AhmedabadB.X. International, Mumbai (Bombay)
Badridass Gauridatt Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai (Bombay)
Brijmohan Purusottamdas, Mumbai (Bombay)Bünts Exports Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai (Bombay)
Chevron Garments (P) Limited, CoimbatoreChhaganlal Kasturchand & Co. Ltd, Mumbai (Bombay)
Classic Connections, Mumbai (Bombay)
Concepts International India Pvt. Ltd, Gurgaon
Cotfab Exports, Mumbai (Bombay)
Country House, New Delhi
Creative Mobus Fabrics Limited, Mumbai (Bombay)Deepak Traders, Mumbai (Bombay)
Dhanalakshmi Weaving Works, Cannanore
Divya Textiles, Mumbai (Bombay)
Dyna-lmpex Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai (Bombay)Elite Exports, Mumbai (Bombay)
Emm Libas Private Limited, New DelhiEmperor Trading Company, Tirupur
Encore Themes, New Delhi
Euro Pacific Textiles, Mumbai (Bombay)Falcon Finstock Pvt. Ltd, SuratGovindji Trikamdas & Co., Mumbai (Bombay)
Hindustan Textiles, CannanoreIbats, New Delhi
Incotex, Mumbai (Bombay)
Indo Euro Textiles Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi
Indo Export Corporation, New Delhi1997R2398 — EN — 14.08.2001 — 004.001 — 19
▼M1
▼B
▼M1
▼B
▼M3
▼B
▼M2
▼B
▼M1
▼M3
▼B
▼B
International Services, Chennai (Madras)
Intex Exports, Mumbai (Bombay)
Invitation Apparels Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai (Bombay)Jindal India, Mumbai (Bombay)
Jindal Worldwide Ltd, Ahmedabad
K. Overseas, New DelhiKanodia Fabrics (International), Mumbai (Bombay)
Kaushalya Export, Ahmedabad
Kitu Bhandari Pvt. Ltd, New DelhiKothari Industrial Corporation Ltd, Chennai (Madras)
Lakshmi Apparels and Wovens Limited, Coimbatore
Lalit & Co., Mumbai (Bombay)
Mahalaxmi Exports, Ahmedabad
Maritex Exports, Mumbai (Bombay)Marwaha Exports, New Delhi
Milano International (India) Pvt. Ltd, Chennai (Madras)
Minar Exports, Mumbai (Bombay)Mridul Enterprises, New Delhi
Niaz International, Farrukhabad
P.J. Exports, Mumbai (Bombay)
Pacific Exports, Mumbai (Bombay)
Patodia Syntex Ltd, Mumbai (Bombay)
Pattex Exports, Mumbai (Bombay)
Prem Textiles, Indore
Punch Exporters, Mumbai (Bombay)
Radiant Exports, New Delhi
Raghuvir Exim Ltd, Ahmedabad
Rajka Designs Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad
Redial Exim Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai (Bombay)
Sanna Inttex, Mumbai (Bombay)
Santex Exports, Mumbai (Bombay)
Sarna Exports Limited, New Delhi
S. D. Enterprises, Mumbai (Bombay)
Shades of India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi
Shetty Garments Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai (Bombay)
Shivani Exports, Mumbai (Bombay)
Shorewala Exim Int'l, New DelhiShrijee Enterprises, Mumbai (Bombay)
Shruti Designs Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai (Bombay)
Sohanlal Balkrishna Export, Mumbai (Bombay)Southern Sales & Services, Bangalore
Standard Industries Ltd, Mumbai (Bombay)
Starline Exports, Mumbai (Bombay)
Stitchwell Garments, Ahmedabad1997R2398 — EN — 14.08.2001 — 004.001 — 20
▼M1
▼B
▼M3
▼B
▼M1
▼B
▼M1
▼B
▼M2
▼B
▼M1
▼B
▼M2
▼B
Sumangalam Exports Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai (Bombay)
Sunil Impex, Mumbai (Bombay)Sunil Silk Mills, Mumbai (Bombay)
Sunny Made Ups, Mumbai (Bombay)
Suresh & Co., Mumbai (Bombay)Surya International, Panipat
Syndicate Impex, Ahmedabad
Syntex Corporation Ltd, Mumbai (Bombay)Tata Exports Limited, Mumbai (Bombay)
Texcellence Overseas, Mumbai (Bombay)
The Hindoostan Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd, Mumbai (Bombay)The Ruby Mills Limited, Mumbai (Bombay)Trend Setters, Mumbai (Bombay)
Trend Setters K.F.T.Z., Mumbai (Bombay)
Utkarsh Exim Pvt. Ltd (India), AhmedabadVepar Private Limited, Ahmedabad
Vigneshwara Exports Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai (Bombay)Wooltop Weaves, Chennai (Madras)
PAKISTAN
Adamjees Impex International, Karachi
Afroze Textile Industries (Private) Ltd, KarachiAmer Fabrics Limited, Lahore
Anjum Textile Mills (Private) Ltd, Faisalabad
Arzoo International (Pvt.) Ltd, FaisalabadArzoo Textile Mills Ltd, Faisalabad
Asco International (Pvt.) Ltd, Karachi
Aziz Sons, KarachiB.I.L. Exporters, Karachi
Be Be Jan Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd, Faisalabad
Bela Textiles Limited, KarachiDyer Textile & Printing Mills (Pvt.) Ltd, Karachi
Eksons Sales Organization, Karachi
Elahi Enterprises Ltd, LahoreElasta Amtex Industries (Pvt.) Ltd, Karachi
Fairdeal Textiles (Pvt.) Ltd, Karachi
Faisal Industries, KarachiFashion Knit Industries, Karachi
Gohar Enterprises, Faisalabad
Gohar International (Pvt.) Ltd, FaisalabadH. A. Industries (Private) Ltd, FaisalabadHome Furnishings Ltd, Karachi
Kam International, Karachi
Kausar Textile Industries (Pty) Ltd, FaisalabadKohinoor Textile Mills Ltd, Rawalpindi
Latif Int'l (Pvt.) Ltd, Faisalabad
Liberty Mills Limited, KarachiLinex International (Pvt.) Ltd, Karachi
Lotus Textile Industries Limited, Karachi
Lucky Impex, KarachiLucky Tex, Karachi
Lucky Textile Mills, Karachi1997R2398 — EN — 14.08.2001 — 004.001 — 21
▼M2
▼B
▼B
M.F.M.Y. Industries Ltd, Karachi
M.R. Export (Private) Ltd, LahoreMukaty Corporation, KarachiNadia Textile International (Pvt.) Ltd, Lahore
Nakshbandi Industries Limited, Karachi
Nash Textiles, Karachi
Nina Industries Ltd, Karachi
Nishat Mills Limited, Karachi
Nishitex Enterprises, KarachiNu-tex (Pvt.) Ltd, KarachiParsons Industries (Pvt.) Ltd, Karachi
S.P.R.L. Rehman Brothers, Lahore
Sas Texexport (Pvt.) Ltd, KarachiShabbir Associates, Karachi
Sharif Textile Industries (Pvt.) Ltd, Faisalabad
Sitara Textile Industries (Pvt.) Ltd, FaisalabadSyncotex Sa Agencies, KarachiThe Crescent Textile Mills Limited, Faisalabad
Today's Sportswear Inc., Karachi
Towellers Limited, KarachiUnibro Industries Limited, Karachi
Union Exports (Pvt.) Ltd, Karachi
ZN Textiles (Pvt.) Ltd, Faisalabad1997R2398 — EN — 14.08.2001 — 004.001 — 22
▼C1
▼B
▼B
ANNEX II
1997R2398 — EN — 14.08.2001 — 004.001 — 23