Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to the 25th Annual Report from the Commission to the European Parliament on the Community’s anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguard activities (2006) [COM(2007) 479 final] /* SEC/2007/1076 final */





[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES | Brussels, 21.8.2007 SEC(2007) 1076 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying document to the 25th ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ON THE COMMUNITY’S ANTI-DUMPING, ANTI-SUBSIDY AND SAFEGUARD ACTIVITIES (2006) [COM(2007) 479 final] TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive summary 5 1. Overview of the legislation 7 1.1. Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy 7 1.1.1. The international framework 7 1.1.2. The Community legislation 7 1.2. Safeguards 8 1.2.1. The international framework 8 1.2.2. The Community legislation 9 1.3. Anti-subsidy and unfair pricing instrument for airline services 9 2. Basic concepts 10 2.1. Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy 10 2.1.1. What is dumping and what are countervailable subsidies - the material conditions for the imposition of duties? 10 2.1.1.1. Dumping and subsidies 10 2.1.1.2. Material injury and causation 10 2.1.1.3. Community interest 11 2.1.2. Procedure 11 2.1.3. Review of measures 14 2.1.4. Judicial reviews 14 2.2. Safeguards 14 2.2.1. What are safeguard measures? 14 2.2.2. Procedure 15 3. Launching of the TDI review process 16 4. Enlargement 17 5. Country-wide market economy status (MES) 17 6. Information and Communication activities / Bilateral contacts 18 6.1. Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) 18 6.2. Stakeholder's process 19 6.2.1. Seminars 19 6.2.2. Evaluation study 19 7. The Trade Defence Instruments’ services 20 8. General overview of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations and measures 20 8.1. New investigations 20 8.2. Review investigations 21 9. Overview of activities in 2005 23 9.1. New investigations 23 9.1.1. Initiations 23 9.1.1.1. Overview 23 9.1.2. Provisional measures 25 9.1.3. Definitive measures 25 9.1.3.1. Overview 25 9.1.3.2. Details on individual cases (in alphabetical order) 26 9.1.4. Investigations terminated without measures 35 9.1.4.1. Overview 35 9.1.4.2. Details on individual cases (in chronological order) 36 9.2. Review investigations 41 9.2.1. Expiry reviews 41 9.2.1.1. Initiations 41 9.2.1.2. Reviews concluded with confirmation of duty(ies) 42 9.2.1.3. Reviews concluded by termination 51 9.2.2. Interim reviews 53 9.2.3. “Other” interim reviews 54 9.2.4. New exporter reviews 55 9.2.5. Absorption investigations 56 9.2.6. Circumvention investigations 56 9.3. Safeguard investigations 56 9.3.2. Safeguard measures on certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (satsumas) 57 9.3.4. Safeguard measures on frozen strawberries 57 10. Enforcement of anti-dumping/countervailing measures 57 10.1. Follow-up of measures 58 10.2. Monitoring of undertakings 58 11. Refunds 60 12. Judicial review: decisions given by the Court of Justice / Court of First Instance 60 12.1. Overview of the judicial reviews in 2005 60 12.2. Cases pending 60 12.3. New cases 60 12.4. Judgments rendered by the Court of First Instance 62 12.4.1. Magnesium oxide and deadburned magnesium originating in the People's Republic of China - T-278 & 280/03 – Van Manekus & Co v. Council of the European Union : Judgment of 27 January 2006 (OJ C 86, 08.04.2006, p. 28) 63 12.4.2. Handbags originating in the People's Republic of China - T-364/03 – Medici Grimm KG v. Council of the European Union : Judgment of 26 January 2005 (OJ C 74, 25.03.2006, p. 17) 63 12.4.3. Compact disc recordables originating in India - T-300/03 – Moser Bear v. Council of the European Union : Judgment of 4 October 2006 (C 281, 18.11.2006, p. 30) 64 12.4.4. Ferro molybdenum originating in the People's Republic of China - T-138/02 – Nanjing Metalink v. Council of the European Union : Judgment of 14 November 2006 (C 326, 30.12.2006, p. 54) 64 12.4.5. Compact disc recordables originating in Taiwan - T-274/02 – Ritek Corp. & Prodisc Tech Inc. v. Council of the European Union : Judgment of 24 October 2006 (C 310, 16.12.2006, p. 11) 65 12.4.6. Para-cresol originating in the People's Republic of China - T-413/03 – Shandong Reipu Biochemicals v. Council of the European Union : Judgment of 13 July 2006 (C 224, 16.09.2006, p. 35) 66 12.5. Judgments rendered by the Court of Justice 66 13. Activities in the framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO) 66 13.1. Dispute settlement in the field of anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguards 66 13.1.1. Overview of the WTO dispute settlement procedure 66 13.1.2. Dispute settlement procedures initiated by third countries against the Community 67 13.1.2.2. Norway – farmed salmon 67 13.2. Other WTO activities 67 14. Conclusion 68 LIST OF ANNEXES 69 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is submitted to the European Parliament following its resolution of 16 December 1981 on the Community’s anti-dumping activities[1], and the report of the European Parliament’s Committee on industry, external trade, research and energy[2]. This report, as in previous years, gives an overview of the Community legislation in force with regard to trade defence instruments, including safeguards. The report further summarises the developments in general policy. As in previous years, the report no longer contains a commentary on each individual case. It gives an overview of all investigations together with the most essential information, such as for instance the rate of individual duty imposed. In turn, cases which merit some special attention are treated in more detail. Consequently, the report is more factual and condensed and covers the essential facts of the year. The detailed annexes which cover all cases ensure that the factual content of the report remains meaningful and sufficient to provide a full overview of the activity in 2006. This report has to be seen against the general background of EU trade policy as set out in the Commission's Communication on "Global Europe"[3]. In this context, the Commission adopted in December 2006 a "Green Paper" inviting a public reflection on how the EU can best use its trade defence instruments in a changing global economic context. In the past decade there have been far-reaching changes in the structure of both the global and the EU economy. Many EU companies now produce goods outside the EU for import into the EU, others have outsourced some steps in the production process, or operate supply chains that stretch beyond the EU market. These changes challenge familiar understandings of what constitutes EU production and the EU's economic interests. A reflection process can help to ensure that EU TDI are fully adapted to changes in the global economy and serve the overall economic interest of the EU. All stakeholders in the EU dealing with trade defence were invited to reply to the questions raised in the Green Paper. Besides the Member States, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, this includes for example producers, consumers and users, exporters, importers, the legal community, academics or any other person interested in this field. Third country governments have also been invited to respond to this Green Paper. The results of this process will be reflected in the 2007 report. As regards the 2006 activities, the year was characterized by a normal average level. Indeed, a total of 31 new investigations were concluded, of which 13 by the imposition of definitive anti-dumping or countervailing measures and 18 by termination. In a further 13 investigations, provisional measures were imposed. As regards the expiry review investigations, 12 investigations were initiated. In 11 cases, the investigations were concluded with confirmation of the duty and in eight cases, the investigations were concluded by termination of the measures. As for the interim review investigations, 18 were initiated, six were concluded thereby terminating the measures and 11 were concluded with confirmation or amendment of the duty. As regards safeguard activities, the investigation on frozen strawberries, which was initiated in 2005, was terminated without the imposition of measures. Therefore, at the end of 2006, only one safeguard measure was still in force, namely the one on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (Satsuma's). As in previous years, this report continues to provide an overview on the Court cases relating to the trade policy instruments. During 2006, six Judgments were rendered by the Court of First Instance (none by the Court of Justice). The chapter in this report on activities in the framework of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) covers dispute settlement procedures initiated against the Community. Furthermore, it deals with other activities, such as the continuation of the negotiations on the Anti-dumping and Subsidies Agreements, in which the Commission continues to play an active role by submitting negotiating proposals. The annexes to this report provide easy access to the activities in table form. This report is also available to the general public. The 2005 version was released in more or less 500 copies.(Internet Website http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/issues/respectrules/anti_dumping/legis/index_en.htm 1. OVERVIEW OF THE LEGISLATION 1.1. Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy 1.1.1. The international framework On an international level, unfair trading practices such as dumping and the granting of subsidies were identified as a threat to open markets as early as 1947, when the first GATT agreement was signed. The agreement contained specific provisions allowing GATT members to take action against these practices if they caused material injury to the domestic industry of a GATT member. Even though, the beginning of the framework dates back quite some time, world trade is currently still distorted by unfair practices, making the instrument still relevant. Since the beginning, considerable efforts have been made to harmonise the rules relating to trade instruments. During the last GATT round (the « Uruguay Round ») which led to the creation of the WTO and the detailed Anti-Dumping and Anti-Subsidy Agreements, much of the attention was focused on the procedural and material conditions to be fulfilled before protective measures can be adopted. The Community played an active role in the negotiation of these relevant criteria which are reflected in its own legislation. This role is the more so important today as a number of new users take action without the necessary rigor and restraint, affecting negatively also EU operators. The role the Community plays as a prudent user has therefore also an exemplary function at WTO level. 1.1.2. The Community legislation The Community’s anti-dumping and anti-subsidy legislation was first enacted in 1968 and has since been modified several times. The current basic texts , which form the legal basis of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations in the Community, entered into force in March 1996 and October 1997 respectively. These are in line with the Anti-Dumping and Anti-Subsidy Agreements adopted during the GATT/WTO negotiations. The basic texts are: - Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community[4] - Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on protection against subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Community[5]. These regulations will overall be referred to as the "basic Regulation(s)". The Community legislation contains a number of provisions aimed at ensuring a balanced application of the Community’s Anti-Dumping and Anti-Subsidy rules on all interested parties. These provisions include the “Community interest test” and the “lesser duty rule”, which go beyond the WTO obligations. The Community interest test is a public interest clause and states that measures can only be taken if they are not contrary to the overall interest of the Community. This requires an analysis of all the economic interests involved, including those of the Community industry, users, consumers and traders of the product concerned. The Community interest test does not involve wider aspects such as foreign or development policy considerations. The lesser duty rule requires the measures imposed by the Community to be lower than the dumping or subsidy margin, if such lower duty rate is sufficient to remove the injury suffered by the Community industry. Such a “no-injury” rate is determined by using the cost of production of the Community industry and a reasonable profit margin; it reduces the anti-dumping measures for individual exporting companies in almost half of the cases and is applied, on a world-wide level, only by the Community on a regular basis. 1.2. Safeguards 1.2.1. The international framework The principle of liberalisation of imports was set under the GATT 1947 and strengthened under the 1994 WTO Agreements. As safeguard measures consist of the unilateral withdrawal or suspension of a tariff concession or of other trade liberalisation obligations formerly agreed, they have to be considered as an exception to this principle. Article XIX GATT 1994 and the WTO Agreement on Safeguards do not only impose strict conditions for the application of this "escape clause”, but also put in place a multilateral control mechanism under the WTO Committee on Safeguards. Under WTO rules, safeguard action has to be viewed as a temporary defence measure that applies to all imports of the product covered by a measure, irrespective of origin. As regards non-WTO members, safeguard measures may be selective and apply to products originating in a specific country. WTO Accession Protocols may also provide for such selective safeguard mechanisms (e.g. the People's Republic of China's Protocol). WTO safeguards should only be adopted after a comprehensive investigation which provides evidence of the existence of a) unforeseen developments leading to b) increased imports c) the existence of a serious injury for Community producers and d) a causal link between the imports and the injury. WTO Accession Protocols may provide for specific requirements. 1.2.2. The Community legislation The above-mentioned principles are all reflected in the relevant Community regulations, except for the “unforeseen development requirement” (which is not in the Community law but has been confirmed as a self-standing condition by WTO jurisprudence). Additionally, the adoption of measures in the Community requires an analysis of all interests concerned, i.e. the impact of the measures on producers, users and consumers. In other words, safeguard action can only be taken when it is in the Community’s interest to do so. The current Community safeguard instruments are covered by the following regulations: - Council Regulation (EC) No 3285/94[6] on the common rules of imports and repealing Regulation (EC) No 518/94; - Council Regulation (EC) No 519/94[7] on common rules for imports from certain third countries and repealing Regulations (EEC) Nos 1765/82, 1766/82 and 3420/83. This Regulation was amended in 2003 when a Transitional Product-Specific Safeguard Mechanism for imports originating in the People’s Republic of China was adopted[8]. This Regulation ensures that Council Regulation (EC) No 519/94 is no longer applicable to the People’s Republic of China; - Council Regulation (EC) No 517/94[9] on common rules for imports of textile products from certain third countries not covered by bilateral agreements, protocols or other arrangements, or by other specific Community import rules. These regulations will overall be referred to as the "basic safeguard Regulation(s)". 1.3. Anti-subsidy and unfair pricing instrument for airline services Regulation No 868/2004[10] dealing with the effect of subsidisation and unfair pricing for air services from third countries which was adopted by the EP and the Council in 2004 requested the Commission to prepare a methodology to assess unfair pricing practices. This complex work, involving different services of the Commission as well as external experts, is on-going. The resulting methodology should be both derived from the significant EU experience in trade in goods and adapted to the highly specific sector of the air-services. 2. Basic concepts 2.1. Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy 2.1.1. What is dumping and what are countervailable subsidies - the material conditions for the imposition of duties? 2.1.1.1. Dumping and subsidies Dumping is traditionally defined as price discrimination between national markets, or as selling below cost of production. The Community’s anti-dumping legislation defines anti-dumping as selling a product in the Community at a price below its “normal value”. This “normal value” is usually the actual sales price on the domestic market of the exporting country. Therefore, a country is selling at dumped prices if the prices in its home market are higher than its export prices (i.e. price discrimination). Where sales in the domestic market are not representative, for instance because they have only been made in small quantities, the normal value may then be established on another basis, such as the sales prices of other producers on the domestic market or the cost of production. In the latter case, a company is selling at dumped prices if its export prices are below the cost of production. A certain segregation of the market, triggered by a variety of distortions, exists in the majority of the cases where dumping occurs on a more than incidental basis. That segregation may be caused, amongst other reasons, by government regulation. As a result, exporters are shielded, at least to a certain degree, from international competition on their domestic market. Subsidies can have similar effects to sales at dumped prices in that they allow exporters to operate from a distorted home base. Subsidies involve a direct support from a government or a government-directed private body which has the effect of conferring a benefit to producers or exporters (e.g. grants, tax and duty exemptions, preferential loans at below commercial rates, export promotion schemes, etc.), all aimed at allowing the exporters to sell at low prices in the Community. Only subsidies which are “specific”, i.e. targeted at individual companies or certain sectors of the economy, can be subject to trade defence measures. Both anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures are thus only second-best solutions in the absence of internationally agreed and enforced competition rules. 2.1.1.2. Material injury and causation For measures to be taken against these unfair trading practices, it is not sufficient that companies are exporting their products to the Community at dumped or subsidised prices. Measures can only be taken if these exports cause material injury to Community producers, who cannot be expected to compete on an equal footing with exporters. Typical indicators of injury are that the dumped and/or subsidised import volumes increase over a certain period and import prices undercut the sales prices of the Community industry. As a consequence, the latter is forced to decrease production volumes and sales prices thus losing market shares, making losses or having to make employees redundant. In extreme cases, exporters may try to eliminate viable Community producers by using a predatory, below cost, pricing strategy. In any event, the injury analysis requires that all relevant factors be taken into account before deciding whether the Community industry is in fact suffering “material injury”. A further condition for the imposition of measures is the need for “a causal link”: the injury must be caused by the dumping or the subsidy. This condition is often fulfilled when the injury to the Community industry coincides with the increase in dumped and subsidised imports. It is important to note that the dumped or subsidised imports do not have to be the only cause of the injury. 2.1.1.3. Community interest Finally, it has to be established whether there are compelling reasons that the application of measures would not be contrary to the overall interest of the Community. In this respect, the interests of all relevant economic operators which might be affected by the outcome of the investigation must be taken into account. These interests typically include those of the Community industry, users, consumers and traders of the product concerned and the analysis assesses the positive impact measures will have on some operators as opposed to the negative impact on others. Only if it can be clearly concluded that the negative impact would be disproportional, measures should not be imposed. 2.1.2. Procedure Investigations are carried out in accordance with the procedural rules laid down in the basic Regulations. These rules guarantee a transparent, fair and objective proceeding by granting significant procedural rights to interested parties. In addition, the results of an investigation are published in the Official Journal, and the Community is obliged to justify its decisions in this publication. Finally, it is ensured that each case is decided on its merits and the Commission does not hesitate to terminate a case if the conditions to impose measures are not met. Whereas each investigation is different depending on the products and countries involved, all cases follow the same procedural rules. However, certain preferential rules apply to the candidate countries. The rules relating to a new case are summarised below. Initiation A case normally starts with a sufficiently substantiated complaint from the Community industry manufacturing the same or a similar product to the one referred to in the complaint. After receipt of this complaint, the Commission assesses whether the complaint contains sufficient evidence to allow for the initiation of the case. A case is opened by a notice of initiation published in the Official Journal. In this notice, all interested parties, including users, in anti-subsidy investigations in particular exporting country authorities and, where appropriate, consumer organisations, are invited to participate and co-operate in the proceedings. Detailed questionnaires are sent to producers in the exporting countries, in anti-subsidy investigations also to the exporting country authorities, and in the Community, traders (in particular importers) and other interested parties, such as users. These questionnaires cover all different conditions to be fulfilled, i.e. dumping/subsidy, injury, causation and Community interest. The parties are also informed that they can request a hearing and ask for access to the non-confidential files which will help them defend their case. The investigation up to the provisional measures Following receipt of the replies to the questionnaire, investigations are carried out by Commission officials at the premises of the co-operating parties. The main purpose of these visits is to verify whether the information given in the questionnaires is reliable. The verified information is subsequently used to calculate or determine the dumping margin and the injury factors, in particular the price undercutting margin and injury elimination level, as well as the Community interest analysis. The respective calculations and analysis often involve the processing of thousands of transactions, the complex examination of production costs and the assessment of the economic situation of numerous economic operators. The results of the calculations and other findings are summarised in a working document, on the basis of which it is decided - after consultation of the Member States in the Advisory Committee - whether to impose provisional measures, whether to continue the investigation without proposing duties or whether to terminate the proceedings. In either eventuality, at this stage the decision is the Commission's responsibility. The investigation up to the definitive stage Following the publication in the Official Journal of a Commission regulation imposing provisional duties, interested parties which so request receive a full disclosure which allows them to verify the Commission’s calculations and to submit comments. Comments can also be made at a hearing. These provisional submissions and comments are taken into account when a second, definitive, working document is prepared by the Commission. After final disclosure, assessment of comments of interested parties and consultation of the Member States on the basis of the second working document, the Commission makes a proposal to the Council whether or not to impose definitive measures. Another possibility is that the Commission accepts undertakings offered by exporters, which undertake to respect minimum prices. In the latter case, no duties are generally imposed on the companies from which undertakings are accepted. As set out above, throughout the process and at various specific steps, the procedure - consisting e.g. of requests for information, hearings, access to the file and disclosure – ensures that the rights of defence of interested parties are fully respected in this quasi-judicial process. Unless the Council decides by a simple majority not to adopt the Commission proposal for definitive measures, such measures are imposed. The regulation imposing definitive duties, and deciding on the collection of the provisional duties, is published in the Official Journal. In view of the findings made, it may also be decided to terminate a case without the imposition of measures. The same procedure (disclosure, comments, hearing, working document) as described above applies. The termination of the case would generally be made by a Commission Decision after consultation of the Member States. Timing The procedure described above is subject to strict statutory time limits. Thus, a decision to impose provisional duties must be taken within nine months of the initiation and the total duration of an investigation is limited to fifteen months in anti-dumping cases and to thirteen months in anti-subsidy cases. This leads to significant time constraints, taking into account, inter alia , internal consultations and the necessity to publish regulations and decisions in all Community languages at the same time. Anti-dumping or countervailing measures will normally remain in force for five years, and may consist of duties or undertakings concluded with exporters. Measures are taken on a countrywide basis, but individual treatment, i.e. the application of a company-specific duty, can be granted to exporters which have co-operated throughout the investigation. During the five-year period, interested parties may, under certain conditions, request a review of measures or the refund of anti-dumping duties paid. Measures may also be suspended for a certain period, subject to given criteria. 2.1.3. Review of measures The basic Regulations provide for administrative reviews and distinguish between interim reviews, newcomer reviews and expiry reviews. The expiry review is initiated at the end of the five year life-time of the measures. Initiation of such a review depends on the existence of a request by the Community industry evidencing that the expiry of the measures would lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Since the amendment to the basic Regulations, expiry reviews initiated after 20 March 2004 are subject to strict deadlines, i.e. they shall normally be concluded within 12 months of the date of initiation of the review, but in all cases be concluded within 15 months. During the five year life-time of measures, the Commission may perform an interim review . Under the latter procedure, the Commission will consider whether the circumstances with regard to subsidy/dumping and injury have changed significantly or whether existing measures are achieving the intended results in removing the injury. Since 20 March 2006, the deadline for concluding an interim review is set at 12 months, but no later than 15 months. Finally, the basic Regulations provide that a review shall be carried out to determine individual margins for new exporters in the exporting country concerned. Since 20 March 2006, the deadline for conclusion of newcomer reviews is nine months. During these reviews, the main procedural rules outlined in chapter 2.1.2 are also applicable. 2.1.4. Judicial reviews The procedural rights of the parties, including hearings and access to non-confidential files, are respected in the course of the proceeding, and a system of judicial review is in place to ensure their correct implementation. The competence to review anti-dumping and anti-subsidy cases lies with the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Furthermore, the possibility of recourse to the WTO dispute settlement mechanism exists for WTO members. 2.2. Safeguards 2.2.1. What are safeguard measures? Safeguard measures allow temporary protection against the adverse effects of import surges. Under the Community legislation[11] implementing the WTO Safeguards Agreement, they can be applied under the following conditions: safeguard measures may be imposed if, as a result of unforeseen developments, a product is being imported into the Community in such increased quantities and/or on such terms and conditions as to cause, or threaten to cause, serious injury to Community producers of like or directly competitive products. Safeguard measures may only be imposed to the extent and for such time as may be necessary to prevent or remedy the injury. 2.2.2. Procedure Investigations are carried out in accordance with the procedural rules laid down in the basic safeguard Regulations. These rules guarantee a transparent, fair and objective proceeding. In addition, the results of safeguard investigations are published in the Official Journal, and the Community is obliged to justify its decisions in this publication. Initiation The Commission is informed by one or more Member States should trends in imports of a certain product appear to call for safeguard measures. This information must contain evidence available, of the following criteria : a) the volume of imports, b) the price of imports, c) trends in certain economic factors such as production, capacity utilisation, stocks, sales, market share, prices, profits, employment, etc. and d) facts other than trends. Where there is a threat of serious injury, the Commission must also examine whether it is clearly foreseeable that a particular situation is likely to develop into actual injury. This information is immediately passed on by the Commission to all other Member States, at which stage consultations are held within the Advisory Safeguard Committee. If there is sufficient evidence to justify an investigation, the Commission publishes a notice of initiation in the Official Journal within one month of receipt of the information and commences the investigation, acting in co-operation with the Member States. Provisional measures Provisional measures may be imposed at any stage of the investigation. They shall be applied in critical circumstances where delay would cause damage which would be difficult to repair, making immediate action necessary, and where a preliminary determination provides clear evidence that increased imports have caused, or are threatening to cause, serious injury. The duration of the provisional measures can, however, not exceed 200 days (i.e. six months). Definitive measures If, at the end of the investigation, the Commission considers that definitive safeguard measures are necessary, it will take the necessary decisions no later than nine months from the initiation of the investigation, at which stage the results of the investigation are being published in the Official Journal. In exceptional circumstances, this time limit may be extended by a further maximum period of two months, provided a notice is published in the Official Journal specifying the duration of the extension and a summary of its reasons. Safeguard measures shall be applied only to the extent to prevent or remedy serious injury, thereby maintaining as far as possible traditional trade flows. As to the form of the measures, the Community will choose the measures most suitable in order to achieve these objectives. These measures could consist of quantitative quotas, tariff quotas, duties, etc. Duration and review of the measures The duration of safeguard measures must be limited to the period of time necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustments on the part of the Community producers, but should not exceed four years, including the duration of the provisional measures, if any. Under certain circumstances, extensions may be necessary but the total period of application of safeguard measures should not exceed eight years. If the duration of the measures exceeds one year, the measures must be progressively liberalised at regular intervals during the period of application. If the duration exceeds three years, the Commission should seek consultations with the Advisory Safeguard Committee in order to examine the effects of the measures, to determine the appropriateness of further liberalisation and to ascertain that the application of the measures is still necessary. Depending on the consultations, the measures may be revoked or amended. 3. Launching of the TDI review process The European Union (EU), like most other countries in the global economy, operates a system of trade defence instruments. These instruments allow the EU to defend its producers against dumped or subsidised imports (i.e. trade resulting from competitive distortions) and a dramatic shift in trade flows. The use of these instruments is firmly rooted in the WTO agreements; indeed, these trade defence instruments are legitimate part of the multilateral system of free trade. At the same time, since the last substantial review of the EU's TDI back in 1994, important developments occurred both in the European and global economic context. In order to consider these changes and to see if eventual adaptations are necessary, the Commission published on 6 December 2006 a Green Paper on the functioning of the EU's trade defence instruments[12] and launched a three-month long public reflection process with stakeholders. The Green Paper flows from the recent Communication on external competitiveness. The Paper posed a series of questions on how the EU's trade defence instruments operate in light of the globalisation and the resulting far-reaching changes in the global patterns of trade and production. These changes have made an assessment of what constitutes the EU's economic interests much more complex. Thus, the purpose of the current review is to establish whether the EU’s trade defence instruments reflect the changes to the extent necessary and offer EU businesses the chance to seize the opportunities of globalisation, while maintaining the efficacy of these instruments to combat competitive distortions in international trade. Following the public debate and after having evaluated the replies received, the Commission will communicate the results to stakeholders, draw conclusions and, if appropriate, propose modifications to the EU's trade defence instruments. 4. ENLARGEMENT During 2006, the Commission continued to implement an Action Plan to prepare for the accession of Bulgaria and Romania. The Action Plan, set up already in 2005, included a number of activities similar to those that the Commission organized in the area of TDI already in relation to the 2004 EU enlargement (outlined in the 2004 and 2005 annual reports). As before, the aim of these activities was to ensure as smooth as possible the integration of the administrations of the acceding countries in the area of trade defence. In the framework of this Action Plan, apart from regular exchange of information, dedicated training and stocktaking seminars were held in the acceding countries. They involved not only the administrations, but also economic operators both from the acceding countries and from the EU Member States. It was important because as of 1 January 2007 all the Community's trade defence measures were automatically applied to all imports into the Community including those destined for Bulgaria and Romania. In addition, the Commission disseminated information about the impact in the area of TDI of EU enlargement in 2007 through an updated website (see following link for consultation: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/respectrules/tdi_enlarg/index_en.htm) and a publication of a notice for information in the Official Journal of the European Union[13]. 5. Country-wide market economy status (MES) Conceptually, the country-wide criteria for determining whether a country can be considered a full market economy for the purpose of anti-dumping investigations are inspired by those applicable to individual companies located in economies in transition, which are set out in Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation. Significant work has been done on country-wide MES requests during 2006. In particular, the Commission services prepared the second assessment of Vietnam's request for MES where it was concluded that Vietnam does not yet fulfil the five criteria to obtain MES. The Council endorsed the Commission's conclusions in December 2006. Following the assessment, the Commission services and the Vietnamese authorities agreed to set up a working group to discuss regularly the outstanding issues with regard to the MES request. It was agreed that the working group would meet for the first time in March 2007. The People’s Republic of China’s request was received in September 2003 and a preliminary assessment was carried out by the Commission in June 2004, which came to the conclusion that China does not fulfil the five criteria to obtain MES. The high-level MES working group, set up after the EU-China summit in 2005, met twice during 2006 and focussed on reform efforts of China in the field of the accounting and financial sectors. At the EU-China summit in September 2006, both sides expressed their satisfaction over the progress of the market economy status dialogue and the working group. The summit took also note of the joint report on MES which recorded progress of China in fulfilling the outstanding criteria but also highlighted that further progress is needed to obtain MES. The Commission services agreed at the summit to prepare an update of the 2004 preliminary assessment. During 2006, the work on MES requests received from Mongolia, Kazakhstan and Armenia continued. The Commission analysed the newly submitted information and followed up with questions on issues that had not been sufficiently addressed in the replies. The Commission also analysed external sources for all three countries. Upon elaborating draft internal assessments for these countries, it became clear that further information or clarification was necessary on a number of outstanding issues. To this end, the Commission services conducted a MES specific mission to Mongolia in December 2006 and scheduled further MES specific missions to Kazakhstan and Armenia in 2007. 6. Information and Communication activities / Bilateral contacts 6.1. Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) The Trade Defence Helpdesk for SMEs, set up in December 2004, continued its activity in addressing specific SME questions/problems regarding TDIs, whether general or case-specific. This helpdesk is accessible through a direct link from a TDI SME website, which has been launched at the same time. All this is geared towards ensuring proper access to the TDI instruments, especially for companies and sectors which could otherwise meet technical difficulties using these instruments because of their small size, their fragmentation and/or their high number. 6.2. Stakeholder's process 6.2.1. Seminars The TDI services continued to organise and participate in information and training seminars for third country government representatives and for economic operators, both within and outside the EU. All in all, nine seminars have been held for the following third country beneficiaries: Argentina, Bulgaria, China, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Pakistan, Romania, Russia and Ukraine. Furthermore, a number of ad hoc meetings on TDI matters were organised with specific third country TDI services and economic operators. 6.2.2. Evaluation study The Commission’s Directorates-General and Services carry out regularly ex post evaluations of their activities and policies. In December 2005, DG TRADE received the results of an evaluation study of its trade defence instruments.(http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/respectrules/anti_dumping/legis/index_en.htm) The evaluation had three objectives: (1) to provide a broad description of the European Community’s trade defence practice; (2) to identify and evaluate differences between the European Community and the United States; and, (3) to identify possible areas for improvement of the European Community’s trade defence laws and practice. The evaluation was based on a survey of stakeholders to EU trade defence activities, such as Member States, Community industry, exporters, importers and downstream users. The evaluators made a positive assessment of the general approach of the Community to trade defence investigations. While confirming the balanced nature of the EC system and the high standards applied, the evaluation also suggested reflecting on some specific issues and contained some interesting proposals for improvements. These proposals, which cover in particular rights of parties and transparency, have been taken up in the Green Paper on 'GLOBAL EUROPE Europe's trade defence instruments in a changing global economy'. For further details, see Heading 3. 7. THE TRADE DEFENCE INSTRUMENTS’ SERVICES Within DG Trade, Directorate B is responsible for trade defence instruments. The directorate consists of 5 Units. Unit 1 is in charge of policy aspects related to anti-dumping and anti-subsidy (including WTO and complaints office). Units 2 to 5 deal with investigations covering dumping/subsidization, injury and Community interest aspects. Moreover, Unit 2 monitors the activity of third countries on anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguards, as well as policy aspects related to safeguards. Unit 4 is also responsible for following up and controlling the efficiency of measures and for policy matters concerning circumvention/absorption. A restructuring of the services is foreseen for 2007 and will be dealt with in the next report. 8. General overview of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations and measures As regards the 2006 activities, the year was characterized, in comparison with previous years, by an increase in the number of cases initiated and, at the same time, by an increase in the number of investigations terminated without the imposition of measures. It was an average year in terms of measures imposed. Below are details on both, new investigations and review investigations. 8.1. New investigations At the end of 2006, the Community had 134 anti-dumping measures[14] and 12 countervailing measures in force. The anti-dumping measures covered 59 products and 32 countries (see Annex O); the countervailing measures covered 10 products and five countries (see Annex P). Of the measures, the large majority was in the form of duties; however, in a number of cases, undertakings were accepted. Of the measures in force at the end of 2006 (both anti-dumping and anti-subsidy), 40 concerned China, 16 India, 10 Russia, eight Thailand, seven Indonesia, six the Republic of Korea, Ukraine and Taiwan, 5 Malaysia and 11 measures (excluding China) applied to countries with economies in transition or to non-market-economy countries, including Belarus with five measures and Vietnam with six measures. Seven measures were still applicable against imports originating in the candidate countries Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia and Turkey. For a more realistic view of the impact of anti-dumping measures, however, one has to look at the trade volume of the products concerned, which varies considerably depending on the product sector. The biggest trade volumes are often generated by high technology, such as electronics, which are high-value products. It should be noted that in 2006, only 0,6%[15] of total imports into the Community was affected by anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures. Table 1 below provides statistical information on the new investigations for the years 2002 – 2006. TABLE 1 Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy new investigations during the period 1 January 2002 - 31 December 2006 [16] 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | Investigations in progress at the beginning of the period | 43 | 33 | 15 | 31 | 28 | Investigations initiated during the period | 23 | 8 | 29 | 26 | 36 | Investigations in progress during the period | 66 | 41 | 44 | 57 | 64 | Investigations concluded : - imposition of definitive duty or acceptance of undertakings - terminations[17] | 28 5 | 5 21 | 11 2 | 19 10 | 13 18 | Total investigations concluded during the period | 33 | 26 | 13 | 29 | 31 | Investigations in progress at the end of period | 33 | 15 | 31 | 28 | 33 | Provisional measures imposed during the period | 17 | 10 | 6 | 15 | 13 | Details on the conclusions can be found under heading 9.1. 8.2. Review investigations Anti-dumping measures, including price undertakings, may be subject, under the basic Regulation, to five different types of reviews: expiry reviews (Article 11(2)), interim reviews (Article 11(3)), newcomer investigations (Article 11(4)), absorption investigations (Article 12) and circumvention investigations (Article 13). Also anti-subsidy measures may be subject, under the basic Regulation, to five different types of reviews: expiry reviews (Article 18), interim reviews (Article 19), absorption investigations (Article 19(3)), accelerated reviews (Article 20) and circumvention investigations (Article 23). These reviews continue to represent a major part of the work of the Commission's TDI services. In the period from 2002 to 2006, a total of 212 review investigations were initiated. These review investigations represented more than 63% of all investigations initiated. In 2006, 35 reviews were initiated. Of these, 12 were expiry reviews, 18 interim reviews, one newcomer review, two anti-absorption investigations and two circumvention investigations. An overview of the review investigations in 2006 can be found in Annexes F to K. Table 2 provides statistical information for the years 2002 - 2006. TABLE 2 Reviews of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations during the period 1 January 2002 - 31 December 2006 [18] 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | Reviews in progress at the beginning of the period | 58 | 67 | 53 | 41 | 60 | Reviews initiated during the period | 55 | 26 | 42 | 54 | 35 | Reviews in progress during the period | 113 | 93 | 95 | 95 | 95 | Total reviews concluded during the period[19] | 46 | 40 | 54[20] | 35 | 46 | Reviews in progress at the end of the period | 67 | 53 | 41 | 60 | 49 | Details on the conclusions can be found under heading 9.2. 9. Overview of activities in 2005 9.1. New investigations 9.1.1. Initiations 9.1.1.1. Overview In 2006, 36 investigations were initiated, one of which concerned an anti-subsidy investigation. They involved 17 different products from 15 different countries. Details of these investigations are given in Annex A. Most affected countries are China with 12 investigations, Ukraine and Taiwan with three investigations each and Thailand, Malaysia, Russia, USA, Kazakhstan and India with two investigations each, followed by Korea, Turkey, Japan, Egypt, Macedonia and South Africa with one investigation each. As to the products, the most affected is the chemical and allied sector, followed by the other metals, electronics and "other" products sectors. In the five-year period from 2002 to 2006, 122 investigations were initiated on imports from 30 countries. The main sectors concerned by the investigations were chemical and allied with 32 investigations, iron and steel with 22 investigations and electronics with 17 investigations. A breakdown of the product sectors is given in Annex B(A). The main countries concerned during the period from 2002 to 2006 were the People's Republic of China with 36 investigations, Russia with nine investigations, India with eight investigations, Taiwan and Malaysia with seven investigations, Korea with six investigations and Vietnam, USA, and Thailand with five investigations each. The investigations initiated over the last five years are broken down by country of export in Annex B(B). The alphabetical list of cases initiated in 2006 can be found below, together with the name of the complainant. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal to which reference is given in Annex A. Product/type of investigation[21] | Originating from | Complainant | Camera systems (AD) | Japan | Grass Valley Nederland BV | Cathode-ray colour television picture tubes (AD) | P.R. China Korea (Rep. of) Malaysia Thailand | Task Force against Unfair Business in Europe (TUBE) | Coke of coal in pieces with a diameter of more than 80 mm (AD) | P.R. China | Three Community producers | Compressors (AD) | P.R. China | Federazione ANIMA/COMPO | Dicyandiamide (AD) | P.R. China | Degussa AG | Dihydromyrcenol (AD + AS) | India | Destilaciones Bordas Chinchurreta S.A. and Sensient Fragances S.A. | Ferro-silicon (AD) | P.R. China Egypt Kazakhstan Macedonia (FYR) Russia | Comité de Liaison des Industries de Ferro-Alliages (Euroalliages) | Ironing boards (AD) | P.R. China Ukraine | Three Community producers | Manganese dioxides (AD) | South Africa | Tosoh Hellas AIC | Pentaerythritol (AD) | P.R. China Russia Turkey Ukraine USA | European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) | Peroxosulphates (AD) | P.R. China Taiwan USA | European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) | Polyester staple fibres (AD) | Malaysia Taiwan | Comité International de la Rayonne et des Fibres Synthétiques (CIRFS) | Polyvinyl alcohol (AD) | P.R. China Taiwan | Kuraray Specialties Europe GmbH | Saddles (AD) | P.R. China | European Saddle Manufacturers Association | Silico-manganese (AD) | P.R. China Kazakhstan Ukraine | Comité de Liaison des Industries de Ferro-Alliages (Euroalliages) | Strawberries (frozen) (AD) | P.R. China | Polish Freezing Industry Union | Sweet corn (prepared or preserved in kernels) (AD) | Thailand | Association Européenne des Transformateurs de Maïs Doux(AETMD) | 9.1.2. Provisional measures In 2006, provisional duties were imposed in 13 anti-dumping proceedings. They involved imports from seven different countries. As shown in Table 1 (see point 8.1), this figure compares to 15 in 2005 and six in 2004. The alphabetical list of cases where provisional measures were imposed during 2006 can be found below, together with the measure(s) imposed. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal to which reference is given in Annex C. Product | Originating from | Type[22] and level of measure | Chamois leather | P.R. China | AD : 62% | Footwear with leather uppers | P.R. China Vietnam | AD : 4,8-19,4% AD : 4,2-16,8% | Ironing boards | P.R. China Ukraine | AD : 0-38,1% AD : 10,3% | Lever arch mechanisms | P.R. China | AD : 33,3-48,1% | Polyester staple fibres | Malaysia Taiwan | AD : 12,4-23% AD : 14,7-29,5% | Refrigerators (side-by-side) | Korea (Rep. of) | AD : 9,1-14,3% | Saddles | P.R. China | AD : 0-30,9% | Strawberries (frozen) | P.R. China | AD : 0-34,2% | Sweet corn (prepared or preserved in kernels) | Thailand | AD : 4,3-13,2% | Tungsten electrodes | P.R. China | AD : 25,9-86,8% | 9.1.3. Definitive measures 9.1.3.1. Overview During 2006, definitive duties were imposed in 13 anti-dumping cases. They involved imports from nine different countries and covered eight products. The People’s Republic of China featured with five investigations, followed by Norway, Croatia, Romania, Russia, Ukraine, Korea, Thailand and Vietnam with one investigation each. The alphabetical list of cases where definitive measures were imposed during 2006 can be found below, together with the measure(s) imposed. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal to which reference is given in Annex D. Annex D also gives some additional information on import and consumption volumes. Product | Originating from | Type[23] and level of measure | Chamois leather | P.R. China | AD : 58,9% | Footwear with leather uppers | P.R. China Vietnam | AD : 9,7-16,5% AD : 10% | Lever arch mechanisms | P.R. China | AD : 27,1-47,4% | Plastic sacks and bags | P.R. China Thailand | AD : 4,8-28,8% AD : 5,1-14,3% | Refrigerators (side-by-side) | Korea (Rep. of) | AD : 0-12,2% | Salmon | Norway | AD : 0-1,12 EUR/kg | Seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel | Croatia Romania Russia Ukraine | AD : 29,8% AD : 11,7-17,8% AD : 24,1-35,8% AD : 12,3-25,7% | Tartaric acid | P.R. China | AD : 0-34,9% | 9.1.3.2. Details on individual cases (in alphabetical order) 1. Salmon originating in Norway The anti-dumping proceeding concerning farmed salmon from Norway was initiated on 23 October 2004. At this stage, the proceeding ran in parallel with the safeguard proceeding mentioned in the previous Report to the Parliament. However the safeguard proceeding was terminated in April 2005. Provisional ad valorem duties were imposed on 27 April 2005 on the basis of findings that Norwegian exporters, with a share of around 60% of the EU market, were engaged in unfair trading causing clear injury to EU salmon farmers. The form of the measures was changed on 30 June 2005 to a minimum import price and the duration of the provisional measures was extended until 22 January 2006. This had been agreed with the Norwegian salmon industry in June 2005. However, they rejected a similar agreement at definitive stage. Therefore, the Council decided on 17 January 2006 with a very large majority of Member states to implement definitive anti-dumping measures in the form of a minimum import price of 2,80 €/per kg on a whole fish equivalent basis. The minimum import price was established at different levels corresponding to the different presentations that are traded by Norwegian exporters. After imposition of the definitive measures, Norway began WTO consultations. The consultations did not lead to any satisfactory result and a WTO Panel was established on 22 June 2006. The conclusions of the panel were not known at the time of drafting of this report. 2. Seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel (SPT) originating in Croatia, Romania, Russia and Ukraine The proceeding was initiated on 31 March 2005 following a complaint lodged by the Defence Committee of the Seamless Steel Tube Industry of the European Union on behalf of Community producers representing more than 50% of the total Community production of SPT. The investigation covered an extended product scope. At the time of initiation, measures were still in force on part of the product, although not applied for Russia and Romania and partially suspended for Croatia and Ukraine. Consequently two ex-officio interim reviews were initiated in parallel to the new investigation to allow for the repeal of the existing measures on the narrower product scope in the event that duties would be imposed on the broader product scope of the new investigation. No provisional measures were imposed because of the need to investigate further certain key elements, such as the extended product scope, which had been challenged by some of the exporters, as well as the Community consumption figures. Definitive anti-dumping duties were imposed on 29 June 2006 at following levels: 29,8% for Croatia, between 11,7% to 17,8% for Romania, between 24,1% to 35,8% for Russia and between 12,3% to 25,7% for Ukraine. Duties were based on the dumping margins found, which were in all cases lower than the injury elimination levels. By the same Regulation, existing measures on the narrower product scope were repealed and the two interim reviews initiated in parallel with the new investigation were terminated. Croatia The sole producer in Croatia did not co-operate in the investigation because its legal predecessor had formally ceased to exist and production had stopped in the middle of the investigation period (2004). Therefore the dumping margin of 29,8% had to be calculated based on facts available, i.e. data in the complaint and Eurostat. Romania Three exporting producers co-operated. The dumping margins were 11,7%, 17,7% and 17,8% respectively. Since the level of cooperation was high, the residual dumping margin applicable to all other Romanian exporters was set at 17,8%. Russia The larger of the two producer groups, representing around 80% of imports from Russia into the Community during the investigation period, did not co-operate in the investigation. Therefore, the dumping margin had to be determined based on facts available and was set at 35,8%. The dumping margin found for the other Russian producer group which co-operated was 24,1%. Since the two groups represent all exports from Russia to the Community, the residual dumping margin was set at the same level as the one established for the non-co-operating group, namely 35,8%. Ukraine Three Ukrainian producer groups co-operated in the investigation. All of them requested market economy treatment, which could consequently be granted as the investigation showed that all three groups fulfilled the criteria required. The dumping margins calculated were 25,1%, 25,7% and 12,3%. Since the co-operation was high, the residual margin applicable to all other Ukrainian exporters was set 25,7%. Injury and causation The injury picture was clear with almost all injury indicators showing a negative trend over the period 2001-2004; in particular profitability went down from 3% to 10%. This negative development of the Community industry coincided with a significant increase in the dumped imports from the four countries concerned which were considerably undercutting the Community industry's prices. No apparent other factors were found which could have caused the material injury to the same extent as the dumped imports. Community interest The possible impact of measures on importers, users and consumers was analysed in detail prior to the imposition of measures. It was found that even if measures were likely to affect negatively the business of one importer, on average they were not expected to have a significant negative financial impact on importers in general. Two of the four co-operating importers considered that they were not affected by the imposition of duties. None of the known industrial users co-operated in the investigation and in the absence of any other elements or reactions from consumer organisations, it was concluded that there were no compelling reasons on the grounds of Community interest not to impose anti-dumping measures. Undertakings The majority of the exporting producers offered price undertakings. However, due to the complexity of the product, which consists of a considerable number of product types and is characterised by strong price volatility, monitoring of undertakings would have been extremely complex and burdensome. Therefore, undertakings were not considered workable in principle. However, due to the very short duration of measures for Romania, in view of its accession to the Community, the Commission accepted the undertaking offers of the Romanian producers. 3. Side-by-side refrigerators originating in the Republic of Korea Side-by-side refrigerators are combined refrigerator-freezer units with a capacity exceeding 400 litres and fitted with at least two separate external doors which are placed side-by-side. They are also known as “American fridges” and are considered a rather upmarket consumer product. The proceeding was initiated in June 2005 following a complaint lodged by Whirlpool Europe, sole European manufacturer of this particular type of cooling appliance. Provisional measures were imposed in February 2006 and definitive measures in August 2006. Product definition The product definition turned out to be the most controversial issue in this case. At the provisional stage, the external aspect (i.e. the existence of at least two separate doors placed side-by-side) was considered as sufficient to consider refrigerator-freezer units with a capacity exceeding 400 litres as side-by-side refrigerators. However, following extensive submission of arguments and evidence by interested parties, it was finally decided at the definitive stage that the placement of the inner compartments played a decisive role, in the sense that the freezer and refrigerator compartments should also be placed side-by-side. Practically, this entailed that models consisting of two swing doors opening on the refrigerator compartment, placed on top of one large door opening on the freezer compartment would no longer be affected by the measures. Whirlpool Europe opposed the change of definition and lodged a case before the Court of First Instance on this particular issue. The case is still on-going. Dumping Three exporting producers, accounting for 100% of the Korean exports to the Community, co-operated in the proceeding. For approximately 95% of the exported quantity, normal value was based on domestic prices. Sales to the UK and French markets were made at prices significantly lower than prices to all other markets in the Community. In cases where there is a pattern of export prices which differs significantly among regions, the basic Regulation requires that dumping be calculated by comparing weighted average normal values with the prices of each individual export transaction, in order to ensure that the full degree of dumping being practiced is reflected in the calculations. The final dumping margins thus found were between de minimis and 12,2%. Injury and causation Between 2002 and the investigation period (IP), the volume of the dumped imports of the product concerned originating in the Republic of Korea increased significantly by 157% and their share of the Community market increased by around 13 percentage points to reach 80%. The average prices of dumped imports from the Republic of Korea were consistently lower than those of the Community industry during the period considered. Moreover, during the IP, the prices of the imports from the country concerned significantly undercut those of the Community industry. Undercutting of Community industry’s prices by Korean prices was in the IP between 34% and 42% depending on the exporter concerned. A deterioration in the situation of the Community industry was found over the period considered and most of the injury indicators developed negatively. The injury margins found were between 66,3% and 98,5%. The increase of the market share of the low-priced Korean imports coincided with a decline in the Community industry’s market share and in unit sales price, and with the drop in profitability, in return on investments and cash-flow from operating activities. On the other hand, the examination of other factors which could potentially have injured the Community industry revealed that none of them had a significant negative impact. Community interest In view of the deteriorating situation of the Community industry, there was a real risk that in the absence of measures, the sole Community producer would have to close down its production facility and lay-off its workforce. Whilst some limited negative effects occurred in the form of a levelling off in the volumes imported from Korea, the extent of these was far outweighed by the expected beneficial outcome for the Community industry. In light of the above, no compelling reasons could be found for not imposing measures in the present case. 4. Footwear with leather uppers originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam Introduction The footwear case was a landmark case in terms of the effects of globalisation and was one of the precursors which eventually led to the Green Paper on the Trade Defence Instruments. The footwear sector in the European Union (EU) has changed profoundly over the last 10 years. Former EU footwear manufacturers have delocalised their manufacturing operations, in whole or in part, and many of them are now importing footwear from the People's Republic of China (PRC) and Vietnam. Those companies remain important players in the EU, with thousands of jobs depending on their design, research and development, marketing activities and distribution activities across Member States. At the same time, the remaining Community industry has been restructured and is producing "state of the art" fashion footwear. The Community industry, which still generates several hundred thousands of jobs - often in small and medium sized enterprises, remains the leader when it comes to setting fashion standards in the Community and abroad. Chinese and Vietnamese companies are mainly under the control of EU or US companies and are providing the labour and production factories. In many cases, the design and know-how is provided by European or US companies. Other issues which came up in this case were those of alleged Copyrights and IPR infringements by some footwear producers in China and Vietnam. The investigation In July 2005, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping proceeding on imports into the Community of certain footwear with leather uppers, originating in the PRC and Vietnam. The proceeding was initiated upon a complaint being lodged by the European Confederation of the Footwear industry (CEC) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 40%, of the total Community production of certain footwear with uppers of leather. The Commission imposed provisional measures in April 2006 and definitive measures were imposed by the Council in October 2006. The rates of the definitive anti-dumping duties range between 9,7% and 16,5%. Details of the investigation of dumping, injury and Community interest are summarized below. Dumping Due to the large number of exporting producers in both countries, samples of 13 Chinese and eight Vietnamese were selected in agreement with the authorities of the exporting countries. Only one Chinese company was finally granted market economy treatment (MET) and no company, in either country, was granted individual treatment (IT). Since both export countries are economies in transition, an appropriate analogue country had to be used in order to establish normal value for exporting producers not granted MET. Brazil was chosen for that purpose, inter alia, because of the easy access to raw materials and the high degree of competition on the Brazilian market, which reflected good market economy conditions. In addition, Brazil has a substantial local production of leather footwear and is in fact one of the biggest producers in the world. The investigation established compelling evidence of serious state intervention in the leather footwear sector in the PRC and in Vietnam, for example, State subsidised finance allowed companies to keep afloat, non-performing loans, tax holidays, and land rented at below market prices, State tolerated incorrect asset valuation and restricted competition designed to keep costs low and favour exports, etc. It is evident that these interventions considerably reduced the local production costs in the PRC and Vietnam. The country-wide definitive dumping margins established stood at 28,9% (PRC) and 70,1% (Vietnam). The dumping margin for the Chinese company that was granted MET amounted to 9,7%. Injury and causation of injury There was clear evidence of economic damage to Community producers inflicted by Chinese and Vietnamese dumped footwear exports to the Union. Some 40.000 jobs in the sector had been lost over the last two years and a further 200.000 jobs were at stake. Given the large number of Community producers, a sample of 10 producers was selected. The investigation showed that the imports from the PRC and Vietnam caused material injury to the Community industry, especially in terms of decrease in sales volume and market shares. It was also demonstrated that in view of the coincidence in time, the dumped imports played a determining role in the injurious situation of the Community industry. The injury margins found were 23% for the PRC and 29% for Vietnam. At the same time, while the damage suffered cannot be legally ignored, this had to be balanced against the changing structure of this industry – and the impact on globalisation. So measures had to take into account the rights of Community producers to be protected from unfair trade practices, but also the wider interest of all those employed or active in the footwear sector and the interests of consumers benefiting from lower priced footwear. Another element which had to be taken into account was that footwear imports were subject to a quota until January 2005. It was only since the lifting of that quota that the situation for the Community industry had developed in such a negative way. All these elements were taken into account in setting the duty needed to eliminate the economic and financial damage suffered. During the definitive phase of the investigation, it was considered that only imports above a certain volume threshold caused material injury. Therefore, a more refined methodology for the definitive measures had to be envisaged. In this respect, the value of total import volumes for the year 2003 from the countries concerned was considered as not yet materially injurious and formed the basis for a proportional adaptation of the injury elimination levels. This resulted in injury thresholds of 16,5% and 10% for the PRC and Vietnam respectively. Community interest Given the type of product with its great varieties and the sheer magnitude of the investigation, the Commission put quite some effort into analysing carefully the interests of all parties directly involved. The conclusion of the provisional Regulation, that it was in the interest of the Community industry to impose measures, was confirmed. It was demonstrated that consumers would not be affected by the effect of anti-dumping measures or, if so, only to a very marginal extent. In fact, the subsequent monitoring of consumer prices did not show any price increases for the consumer due to imposition of the measures until six months after the imposition of the definitive duties. The same conclusion could be drawn for the distributors and retailers. Importers would be in a position to accommodate to the imposition of measures, although some of them, which depend largely on imports from the PRC and Vietnam, may indeed face some adverse effects. This analysis led to the overall conclusion that imposing measures would allow the Community industry to maintain its activity and to counter the ongoing deteriorating situation, whilst the adverse effects for the other economic operators do not outweigh the beneficial effects for the Community industry. Taking all factors into account, definitive measures were imposed on the basis of the injury margin found, except for one Chinese exporter, which had been granted MET, where the dumping margin was to be found lower than the injury margin. Its duty was therefore based on the dumping margin found. Some key issues addressed in this case Children's shoes At the provisional stage of the investigation, children shoes were excluded from the measures, so as to evaluate further the effect of measures on the consumers of this product. The definitive measures, however, provide for the inclusion of children shoes, because it was not confirmed that the effect of imposing measures on children's footwear would be different from the effect it would have on adult footwear. In addition, import data suggested substantial circumvention of the provisional duties – reflected in very large increases in the imports of children's shoes. Moreover a large production of children's footwear in the Community could not be disregarded. The investigation also showed that there was no clear dividing line between children shoes and other footwear types and that the essential technical and physical characteristics were the same. STAF shoes (Special Technology Athletic Footwear) Since the investigation showed that there was no production of STAF shoes left in the Community and that STAF shoes were mostly sold in separate retail outlets, the decision to exclude STAF shoes from the scope of the provisional measures was confirmed at definitive stage. However, the price threshold for STAF shoes had to be reduced from 9 € to 7,5 €, because the technology to produce STAF became cheaper. Phasing in of provisional measures. In view of the exceptional circumstances of this case, notably that it concerned a basic, non-durable consumer product, which is vulnerable to fashion trends and the trading of which presents unique characteristics, it was considered appropriate to gradually phase in the provisional anti-dumping duties until they reached their full level in September 2006. Moreover, due to its considerably reduced production capacity, the Community industry could not immediately supply the necessary quantities if import levels fell as a result of measures. Phasing in the anti-dumping duty allowed the Community industry a short grace period to enable it to return to previous production levels whilst allowing availability of the product concerned to remain at reasonable levels to meet consumer demand. The phasing in of the provisional measures also allowed the trade in the Community some time to adjust. Indeed the product concerned is a fashion-driven consumer good, usually purchased by importers and retailers on the basis of medium term contracts, for which prices are often already set at the time when goods are ordered. Therefore, switching from suppliers, or even countries of origin, not only takes time, but also implies additional expenses. Another characteristic of this case were the long lead times from design, the selection of raw material and the production of certain production tools (moulds) and prototypes. Those trade particularities in the footwear sector mean that there are long lead times between order and delivery, which means that importers have to plan ahead. It was therefore considered in the interest of trade, overall, to avoid situations in which traders were faced with additional duties on products purchased and accounted for months before. Therefore, it was considered in the Community interest, as an exceptional measure limited to the present case, that the full amount of the duty would be gradually phased in. This ensured that unfair trade practices caused from injurious dumping were removed and at the same time that parties could adjust to the new situation, whilst the Community market remained open, traditional trade flows were preserved and the availability of supply to meet the demand was guaranteed. Measures and monitoring of the footwear market In the light of various factors, in particular the fact that the Community industry was still in a phase of re-orientation after the recent lapsing of the quota on imports from the PRC, it was considered prudent to limit the duration of the measures to two years only, instead of the normal five- year period. For the same reasons, the Commission will monitor the developments on the footwear market to ensure that the measures are having the desired effect. 9.1.4. Investigations terminated without measures 9.1.4.1. Overview In accordance with the provisions of the respective basic Regulations, investigations may be terminated without the imposition of measures if a complaint is withdrawn or if measures are unnecessary (i.e. no dumping/no subsidies, no injury resulting therefrom, measures not in the interest of the Community). In 2006, 18 new anti-dumping proceedings (of which two anti-subsidy proceedings) were concluded without measures, compared to 10 in 2005 and two in 2004. The alphabetical list of cases which were terminated without the imposition of measures during 2006 can be found below. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal to which reference is given in Annex E. Product (type of investigation[24]) | Originating from | Main reason for termination | Colour television picture tubes (cathode-ray) (AD) | P.R. China Korea (Rep. of) Malaysia Thailand | No causal link between dumping and injury | Ethyl alcohol (AD) | Guatemala Pakistan | Withdrawal of the complaint | Footwear with protective toecap (AD) | P.R. China India | Withdrawal of the complaint | Plastic sacks and bags (AD) | Malaysia | Below de minimis dumping margin | Plastic sacks and bags (AS) | Malaysia Thailand | Withdrawal of the complaint | Recordable compact discs (CD+/-R) (AD) | P.R. China Hong Kong Malaysia | Against Community interest | Recordable digital versatile discs (DVD+/-R) (AD) | P.R. China Hong Kong Taiwan | Against Community interest | Silicon carbide (AD) | Romania | Withdrawal of the complaint | 9.1.4.2. Details on individual cases (in chronological order) 1. Ethyl alcohol originating in Guatemala and Pakistan In May 2005, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping proceeding on imports into the Community of ethyl alcohol, whether denatured or undenatured, having an alcoholic strength by volume of 80% vol or higher, originating in Guatemala and Pakistan. The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged by the Committee of Industrial Ethanol Producers of the European Union (CIEP) on behalf of Community producers representing more than 30% of the total Community production of ethyl alcohol. In January 2006, the CIEP, by a letter addressed to the Commission, formally withdrew its complaint. According to the complainant, this withdrawal was prompted by the significant change in the Generalised System of Preferences on ethyl alcohol originating in Pakistan which took place on 1 July 2005. CIEP believed that though this development did not eliminate dumping practices, it has helped to significantly curb the large and injurious volumes of imports from Pakistan into the Community. As the injury data in the complaint was based on the combined effect of imports from Guatemala and Pakistan, the complainant believed that the withdrawal of the complaint with regard to both countries was a reasonable course of action. In accordance with the basic Regulation, an anti-dumping proceeding may be terminated when the complaint is withdrawn unless such termination would not be in the Community interest. In April 2006, the Commission concluded that the anti-dumping proceeding on imports of ethyl alcohol originating in Guatemala and Pakistan should be terminated without the imposition of measures since the investigation had not brought to light any indication that such termination would not be in the Community interest. 2. Footwear with protective toecap originating in the People's Republic of China and India On 30 June 2005, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping proceeding on imports into the Community of footwear with a protective toecap originating in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and India. The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged by the European Confederation of the Footwear Industry on behalf of Community producers representing more than 26% of the total Community production of footwear with protective toecap. The product under investigation is footwear with a protective toecap, designed to protect the user against injuries caused by the impact of objects on the toes, and is usually used for professional activities in various kinds of industries or activities where safety equipment is required. No measures were proposed at the provisional stage as the Commission decided to continue the investigation to further examine certain aspects of injury, causation and Community interest. The People's Republic of China Following the initiation of the proceeding, 34 Chinese producers came forward, out of which 13 exporting producers provided the requested information within the given deadline set in the notice of initiation. Account taken of the aforesaid number of companies, the Commission decided to apply sampling in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. Consequently, a sample of four Chinese exporting producers was chosen, representing around 43% of the export volume to the Community of the Chinese companies and 28% of domestic sales as reported by the co-operating exporters. The Chinese authorities gave their full agreement to the sample chosen. The Commission sought all information deemed necessary and verified all information submitted in the market economy treatment (MET) claim at the premises of the four Chinese companies selected in the sample. The Commission concluded that none of the Chinese sampled companies fulfilled the conditions for being granted MET. In particular, two companies failed to demonstrate that their business decisions were made in response to market signals and without significant State interference. All companies failed to prove that they had one clear set of basic accounting records which are independently audited in line with international accounting standards and applied for all purposes. Finally, three companies failed to demonstrate that there are no distortions carried over from the non-market economy system. All four sampled Chinese exporting producers who requested MET also claimed individual treatment (IT). It was found that three exporting producers provided sufficient evidence to prove that they met all the requirements for IT as set forth in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation. One company, which was subject to quantitative sales restrictions set out in its annual accounts, i.e. it was not allowed to sell on the domestic market, which also influenced the business decisions for the exports, failed to demonstrate that it met the conditions set out in Article 9(5)(b) of the basic Regulation. India Thirty-one Indian producers came forward, out of which 11 reported exports to the Community during the investigation period. The Commission decided to apply sampling: four Indian exporting producers were chosen, representing around 56% of the export volume to the Community of the Indian companies and 100% of domestic sales as reported by the co-operating exporters. The Indian authorities gave their full agreement to the sample chosen. Dumping The dumping margins established for three Chinese sampled producers ranged from 27% to 60%, whilst the rates for co-operating exporting producers not in the sample and all other companies were respectively set to 46, 6% and 62%. The dumping margins established for the four Indian sampled exporting producers ranged from 3,7% to 17,2%, whilst the rates for co-operating exporting producers not in the sample and all other companies were respectively set to 12,7% and 17,2%. Injury The Commission selected a sample of six Community producers out of which five replied to the questionnaire within the given deadline. The sample was established on the basis of the largest production volume. It represented around 70% of the production of the complaining Community producers. During 2005, the Commission sought all information deemed necessary and verified all information submitted at the premises of the five Community producers selected in the sample. As the investigation did not show the existence of either material injury or threat of material injury, the case was terminated. 3. Recordable digital versatile discs (DVD+/-R) originating in the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong and Taiwan and Recordable compact discs (CD+/-R) originating in the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong and Malaysia On 6 August 2006, the above-mentioned anti-dumping proceedings were initiated following a complaint lodged by the Committee of CD-R manufacturers (CECMA). The investigation revealed that dumping indeed had taken place in both cases and that the Community industry had suffered material injury as a result of the dumping practices. Community production and Community industry DVD case: the market share of Community industry was limited to less than 1% while the market shares of exporting producers in the countries concerned were in excess of 80%. CDR case: several Community producers were found to import themselves and could therefore not be considered as genuine Community producers. Thus the investigation revealed that there was only one remaining Community producer within the definition of the basic Regulation and this producer's market share was limited to 2%. The market share of imports from the countries concerned was close to 50%. Community Interest DVD case : having examined the apparent benefits for the small Community industry against the negative effects for many other interested parties (importers, distributors, retailers and not least, the end-consumers), it was found that, on balance, anti-dumping measures would be disproportionate and therefore not be in the interest of the Community. CDR case: it was considered whether the apparent benefit of anti-dumping measures for this sole producer, with a 2% market share, would be proportionate to the inevitable negative effects to the interested parties. It was held therefore, that in both cases, measures would not provide an effective remedy for Community industry nor be proportionate in this case to impose measures in the Community interest. 4. Cathode-ray colour television picture tubes originating in the People's Republic of China (PRC), the Republic of Korea, Malaysia and Thailand The case was initiated on 11 January 2006. The product concerned, cathode-ray picture tubes, is the main component used in the production of cathode-ray tube Colour Television Receivers. A distinctive feature of this case was the sudden and irreversible deterioration of the financial situation of many Community producers, since out of the six existing Community producers, four filed for bankruptcy and definitively ceased activity shortly after the initiation of the case. Only two producers were therefore left active in the Community. Dumping PRC: two co-operating exporting producers were granted market economy treatment. The dumping margins established for these two companies on the basis of their own data on sales and production costs were 0% and 20,8%. The residual dumping margin for this country was found to be 24,6%. Malaysia, South-Korea, Thailand: only one company co-operated from each of the three other countries concerned. The dumping margins found were: for Malaysia between 10,5% and 14,5%, for South-Korea between 0% and 15% and for Thailand between 41,4% and 47,2%. Injury The market share held by the countries concerned increased from 17% to around 19,5% between 2002 and 2005. The export prices of the co-operating exporters hardly undercut the sales prices of the Community industry. The Community industry operated in a very difficult market environment because it not only had to face dumped imports but also a sharp decline in consumption (a sudden drop of -20% was observed between 2004 and 2005). Causality Whilst the dumped imports may, to some extent, have contributed to the economic situation of the Community industry, the root of the problems of the Community industry lies in the emergence of substitute products (flat panel TV sets, like LCD and Plasma displays) which led to a sharp decline in the demand for conventional TV sets and consequently also for the cathode-ray picture tubes. Indeed, no clear correlation could be established between the dumped imports and the sudden deterioration of the financial situation of the Community industry. The investigation evidenced that the real reason for the deterioration of the economic situation of the Community industry was the sudden drop of demand by 20% observed in 2005. The steep drop in consumption was the only parameter which changed in the environment of the Community industry in 2005. The drop of the demand for cathode-ray picture tubes coincided in time with the increasing penetration of flat panel TV sets, which represented less than 1% of the market in 2002, but suddenly rose to 28% in 2005. Community interest Given the above absence of causal link between dumping and injury, it was not necessary to examine the issue of Community interest. Subsequently, the case was terminated in November 2006 without the imposition of measures. 9.2. Review investigations 9.2.1. Expiry reviews Article 11(2) and Article 18 of the basic Regulations provide for the expiry of measures after five years, unless an expiry review demonstrates that they should be maintained in their original form. In 2006, nine anti-dumping measures were allowed to expire automatically. The references for these measures are set out in Annex N. Since the expiry (or "sunset") provision of the basic Regulations came into force in 1985, a total of 414 measures have been allowed to expire automatically. 9.2.1.1. Initiations During 2006, 12 expiry review investigations were initiated. It should be noted that investigations initiated after 20 March 2004 are under deadline, i.e. conclusions should be reached within 12 months but not later than 15 months from the date of initiation. The alphabetical list of these cases can be found below, together with the name of the complainant. It should be noted that some expiry reviews may be carried out in parallel with interim reviews, which allow the amendment of the duty rates. In such case, these reviews are marked with an asterisk. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal to which reference is given in Annex F. Product (type of investigation[25]) | Originating from | Complainant | Ammonium nitrate (AD) | Ukraine | European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association (EFMA) | Lamps (AD) | P.R. China | Community Federation of Lighting Industry of Compact Fluorescent Lamps Integrated | Lighters (refillable and non-refillable) (AD) | P.R. China (extension Taiwan) | BIC S.A. | Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film (AD)* | India | Community producers representing more than 50% of the total Community production | Steel ropes and cables (AD)* | Russia Thailand Turkey* | Liaison Committee of EU Wire Rope Industries (EWRIS) | Urea (AD) | Belarus Croatia Libya Ukraine | European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association (EFMA) | Urea (AD)* | Russia | European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association (EFMA) | 9.2.1.2. Reviews concluded with confirmation of duty(ies) During 2006, 11 expiry reviews concluded that there was a need for the duties to continue for a further five years. The alphabetical list of the cases which were concluded with confirmation of duty during 2006, together with the result of the investigation, can be found below. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal to which reference is given in Annex F. Product | Originating from | Result of the investigation/ Type[26] and level of measure | Ethanolamines | USA | Confirmation of AD duty : 59,25-11,25 €/tonne | Magnesia (dead-burned) | P.R. China | Confirmation of AD duty : variable duty in combination with a minimum price of 120 €/tonne | Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film | India | Confirmation of AS duty : 3,8-19,1% | Potassium chloride* | Belarus Russia | Modification of AD duty : 27,5% Confirmation of AD duty : for 1 company : 12,3% for 1 company : 23% for all other companies : between 19,61 and 40,63 €/tonne depending on category and grade of potash | Silicon carbide | P.R. China | Confirmation of AD duty : 52,6% | Television camera systems | Japan | Confirmation of AD duty : 52,7-200,3% | Urea and ammonium nitrate solutions | Algeria Belarus Russia Ukraine | Confirmation of AD duties : 6,88 €/tonne 17,86 €/tonne 17,8-20,11 €/tonne 26,17 €/tonne | Details on some individual cases (in chronological order) 1. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India (anti-subsidy investigation) Background The review was initiated on 10 December 2004 following a request lodged by the Community producers of PET film. Definitive countervailing measures had been imposed in December 1999. Given the large number of Indian exporters concerned, a sample consisting of the four largest Indian exporters was selected. Results of the review investigation Continuation of Subsidisation The review has shown that most of the subsidy schemes found during the 1999 investigation were still in place during the review investigation period (1st October 2003 - 30th September 2004). These are the Duty entitlement passbook scheme on a post-entry basis (DEPB post export), the Export promotion capital goods scheme (EPCG), the Export promotion zones/Export oriented units scheme (EPZ/EOU), the Export credit scheme (ECS), and various regional schemes pertaining to Gujarat, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. Since 1999, two countervailed schemes have disappeared: the Passbook scheme (PBS) and the Duty entitlement passbook scheme on a pre-entry basis, whilst a new scheme has been created (the Advance licence scheme, ALS). The results of the review investigation are summarised in the table below: Company | Scheme | Polyester staple fibres* (AD) | Australia India Indonesia Thailand* | No risk of recurrence of dumped exports from the 4 countries concerned | Seamless pipes and tubes* (AD) | Romania Russia | Repeal of the measures as the product concerned is covered by a new investigation | Silicon carbide* (AD) | Russia Ukraine | No risk of recurrence of dumping No likelihood of recurrence of dumping | Details on some individual cases (in chronological order) 1. Seamless pipes and tubes originating in Romania and Russia The expiry review was initiated in November 2002 following a request lodged by the Defence Committee of the Seamless Steel Tube Industry of the European Union on behalf of producers representing more than 75% of the Community production. However, beginning 2005, an investigation covering an extended product scope, i.e. seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, was initiated on imports originating, inter alia , in Romania and Russia (see heading 9.1.3.2 – point 2). Definitive anti-dumping duties were imposed by the Council on 29 June 2006 at following levels: from 11,7% to 17,8% for Romania and from 24,1% to 35,8% for Russia. Duties were based on the dumping margins found, which were in all cases lower than the injury elimination levels. By the same Regulation, the existing measures on the narrower product scope were repealed and the expiry review with regard to imports originating in Romania and Russia was terminated. 9.2.2. Interim reviews Article 11(3) and Article 19 of the basic Regulations provide for the review of measures during their period of validity on the initiative of the Commission, at the request of a Member State or, provided that at least one year has elapsed since the imposition of the definitive measure, following a request containing sufficient evidence by an exporter, an importer or by the Community producers. In carrying out the investigations, it is being considered, inter alia , whether the circumstances with regard to dumping/subsidization and injury have changed significantly. Reviews can be limited to dumping/subsidization or injury aspects. During 2006, a total of 18 interim reviews were initiated. Eleven interim reviews were concluded with confirmation or amendment of duty and eight investigations were concluded thereby terminating the measures. The alphabetical list of cases which were concluded during 2006, together with the result of the investigation, can be found below. It should be noted that some interim reviews may be carried out in parallel with expiry reviews, which allow the amendment of the duty rates. In such case, these reviews are marked with an asterisk. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal to which reference is given in Annex G. Product | Originating from | Result of the investigation/ Type[28] and level of measure | Aluminium foil | Russia | Amendment of the AD regulation imposing the measures thereby imposing 0% duty for one company | Bed linen | Pakistan | Amendment of the AD regulation imposing definitive duties in order to reflect the lower dumping margins found | Bicycles | P.R. China | Termination of the AD review thereby maintaining the duty for one company | Lamps (integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps) | P.R. China | Amendment of the AD regulation imposing definitive duties in order to clarify the scope of application of the measures | Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film | India | Amending the AD regulation imposing definitive duties thereby withdrawing the undertakings | Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film | India | Amendment of the AD regulation imposing definitive duties thereby imposing duties on the exports from the companies from which undertakings were withdrawn | Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film | India | Termination of the AS review thereby rejecting the undertakings offered | Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film (AS) | India | Amendment of the AD and AS regulations imposing definitive duties in order to reflect the lower margins found | Potassium chloride* | Belarus | Following the expiry review, the measures for imports from Belarus were maintained but the fixed amounts were replaced by an ad valorem duty | Silicon | Russia | Termination of the AD review following withdrawal of the request | Sulphanilic acid | India | Amendment of the AD and AS regulations imposing definitive duties in order to cover for the possibility of undertakings | 9.2.3. “Other” interim reviews A series of other reviews, not falling under Article 11(3) or Article 19 of the basic Regulations or for which no notice of initiation was published in the Official Journal, were concluded during 2006. They more specifically concern: - Acceptance, voluntary withdrawal or breach of undertakings (urea, steel ropes and cables, castings, colour television receivers, potassium chloride, polyester staple fibres) - Suspension of the measures (ferro-molybdenum) - New exporters requests (bed linen, PET film) - Amendment following report adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO (DRAMs) - Amendment of the annex of the regulation in order to include new models (television camera systems) More information can be obtained from the Official Journal to which reference is given in Annex H. 9.2.4. New exporter reviews As far as the anti-dumping measures are concerned, Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation allows for a review ("newcomer" review) to be carried out in order to determine individual margins of dumping for new exporters located in the exporting country in question which did not export the product during the investigation period. Such parties have to show that they are genuine new exporters, i.e. that they are not related to any of the exporters or producers in the exporting country, which are subject to the anti-dumping measures, and that they have actually started to export to the Community following the investigation period, or that they have entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Community. When a review for a new exporter is initiated, the duties are repealed with regard to that exporter, though its imports are made subject to registration under Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation in order to ensure that, should the review result in a determination of dumping in respect of such an exporter, anti-dumping duties may be levied retroactively to the date of the initiation of the review. As far as anti-subsidy measures are concerned, Article 20 of the basic Regulation allows for a review ("accelerated" review) to be carried ou