11,1». «1 ^(FP<HIV"I», t >l 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 13.11.1997 
COM(97) 591 final 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION ŒC) 
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen 
originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan 
(presented by the Commission) 

Explanatory memorandum 
Subject: Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping 
duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Egypt, India 
and Pakistan 
1. On 13 September 1996, the Commission announced the initiation of an 
anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of cotton-type bed linen from 
Egypt, India and Pakistan. 
2. The Commission began an investigation and advised parties known to be 
concerned of the initiation. In view of the large numbers of exporting 
producers in the countries concerned and of Community producers 
supporting the complaint, sampling techniques were applied to these two 
groups. Questionnaires were sent to the companies thus sampled and also 
to other parties (notably importers), in order to obtain the information 
which the Commission deemed necessary for its investigation. 
3. The Commission found that imports from all three countries were being 
sold at dumped prices, were undercutting the prices of the sampled 
Community producers and had caused injury to the Community industry. 
The Commission also found that anti-dumping measures were in the 
interest of the Community and imposed provisional anti-dumping duties in 
June 1997. 
4. Interested parties in the proceeding were given one month to comment on 
the findings on which the provisional measures were based. 
5. In the light of all the information obtained and representations made during 
the proceeding, the Commission proposes the imposition of definitive 
measures. Certain adjustments have been made to the level of the 
provisional duty rates and bed linen of fabrics woven by hand (handloom) 
are excluded from the scope of the definitive measures. 
6. The Commission accordingly proposes that the Council adopt the attached 
proposal for a Regulation which imposes definitive anti-dumping duties 
ranging from 2,6% to 24,7% on imports from India, from 0% to 6,7% on 
imports from Pakistan and from 8,7% to 13,5% on imports from Egypt. 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 191 
of.... 
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen 
originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan 
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on 
protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European 
Community1, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2331/96 of 2 December 19962. and 
in particular Articles 9(4) and 10(2) thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the 
Advisory Committee, 
Whereas: 
1 OJNoL56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. 
2 OJNoL317, 6.12.1996, p. 1, 
A. PROCEDURE 
(1) By Regulation (EC) No 1069/973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the provisional 
Regulation') the Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on 
imports into the Community of cotton-type bed linen falling within CN codes 
6302 21 00, 6302 22 90, 6302 31 10, 6302 31 90 and 6302 32 90 originating 
in Egypt, India and Pakistan. 
(2) Following the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duty, certain 
interested parties submitted comments in writing. Those parties, who so 
requested, were granted an opportunity to be heard by the Commission. 
Parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of 
which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti­
dumping duties and the definitive collection, at the level of these duties, of 
amounts secured by way of provisional duties. They were also granted a 
period within which to make representations subsequent to this disclosure. 
(3) The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were 
analysed and, where deemed appropriate, taken into account for the definitive 
findings. 
OJNoL 156, 13.6.97, p. II. 
B. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE PRODUCT 
1. Requests for exclusion from the proceeding 
(4) Following the disclosure of provisional findings, the Commission received 
various requests for exclusion of certain product types from the proceeding: 
- Certain parties repeated their request for exclusion of "seersucker", a type 
of bed linen produced with the use of chemicals, claiming there to be no 
more production of such items in the Community. 
- Some parties repeated the request for exclusion of bleached bed linen 
which is intended for institutional use (i.e. hospitals, hotels etc.). 
Moreover, one party claimed the exclusion of institutional dyed bed linen. 
In support of their requests, they claimed that the user institutions require 
a special quality of the product in question, namely products made from 
fabric of particularly heavy weaving constructions, which they claimed 
were not produced in the Community. 
- A request was also received to exclude items made from fabric woven on 
looms operated purely by hand or foot ("handloom"). 
(5) On "seersucker", since no new arguments were advanced in support of the 
request following the imposition of provisional measures, and despite the 
absence of production of identical products by the Community industry, the 
request could not be accepted . It was therefore concluded that this product 
type is subject to the proceeding as it shares sufficient physical 
characteristics and uses with other types of bed linen to put them in 
competition with each other.. 
(6) On the request to exclude certain types of bed linen intended for institutional 
use, and in particular to exclude products of weaving constructions above a 
certain weight threshold, it was found that bed linen of heavier constructions 
was produced in the Community (notably but not exclusively a specific type 
known as flannel). In addition, no clear dividing line could be established 
between bed linen produced and sold in the Community for institutional and 
private use and the imported types: all shared sufficient physical 
characteristics, functions and uses to be considered like products. 
The request to exclude bed linen for institutional use from the scope of the 
proceeding could not therefore be accepted and the findings of the 
investigation and the conclusions of the Commission as set out in recital (13) 
of the provisional Regulation are confirmed. 
(7) As regards the request to exclude handloom products, while the use of 
different production methods is not in itself a reason relevant to the definition 
of the like product, it was found that handloom items had physical 
characteristics different from those of other bed linen, notably through a less 
regular and looser weave. This difference led to a different consumer 
perception of handloom products which was reinforced by the fact that 
handloom products are often sold through particular sales channels such as 
charity shops which are not available to Community producers. 
Consequently it was concluded that handloom products should be excluded 
from the scope, of the proceeding and, therefore, these products should be 
exempted from the payment of the duties if accompanied by a certificate of 
handloom origin (see Annex II of the present Regulation) issued by the 
appropriate authorities of the exporting country. 
2. Like product 
(8) Following the disclosure of provisional findings, certain parties repeated the 
claim, already made at the provisional stage, that there were such differences 
between all imported bed linen and all Community-produced bed linen that 
they could not be considered like product in the sense of Article 1(4) of 
Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (hereinafter referred to as the Basic 
Regulation). The Commission considered these claims but found that for the 
reasons already set out in recital (14) of the provisional Regulation they 
could not be accepted. 
3. Conclusion 
(9) It follows from the conclusions set out in recital (10) of the provisional 
Regulation as modified above with regard to handloom products that the 
product under consideration is bed linen of cotton fibres, pure or mixed with 
man-made fibres or flax, bleached, dyed or printed. It includes but is not 
limited to bed sheets, duvet covers and pillow cases. 
Bed linen of pure man-made fibres and bed linen where flax is the dominant 
fibre is not covered by this proceeding. Bed linen made from handloom 
woven fabric is also not covered by this proceeding. 
Based on the above exclusion and clarifications of the product scope, bed 
linen covered by the present proceeding falls within CN codes ex6302 21 00, 
ex6302 22 90, ex6302 31 10, ex6302 31 90 and ex6302 32 90. 
Subject to the above, and in the absence of any further arguments, the 
conclusions as set out in recitals (10) and (14) of the provisional Regulation 
concerning the product definition and the like product are hereby confirmed. 
C. EXPORTING PRODUCERS IN THE COUNTRIES CONCERNED 
1. Requests for status of co-operating parties 
(10) It was only after the selection of the samples of exporters and, in many cases, 
following the disclosure of the preliminary findings of the investigation to 
co-operating parties, that several exporting producers in the countries 
concerned made themselves known and requested the status of co-operating 
parties. 
(11) Given that all these exporting producers either did not make themselves 
known or did not provide the information deemed necessary for the 
investigation within the time limits set in the notice of initiation4, it is 
considered that the co-operating status requested should not be granted 
because to do otherwise would constitute a discrimination against other 
parties who had decided to co-operate since the outset of the investigation. 
2. New exporters 
(12) Following the adoption of provisional measures, a number of exporters in the 
countries concerned made themselves known, often at a very advanced stage 
of the investigation, and requested new exporter status. Some of them 
showed to the satisfaction of the Commission that they did not export the 
product concerned to the Community during the investigation period, that 
they started to export to the Community after this period or that they have 
entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant 
quantity to the Community, and that they were not related to any of the 
exporting producers in the respective exporting countries which are subject to 
the anti-dumping measures on the product concerned. Consequently, those 
exporting producers were considered to be new exporters and should be 
granted the same treatment, in terms of definitive measures, as the co­
operating exporting producers not included in the sample, i.e. an anti­
dumping duty calculated in accordance with Article 9(6) of the basic 
Regulation. 
OJ No C 266 of 13.9.96, p. 2 
(13) The same treatment should be granted to any new exporting producer which 
following the adoption of definitive measures will show to the satisfaction of 
the Commission that it fulfils the above mentioned criteria. 
D. DUMPING 
1. Normal value 
(a) Methodology for the construction of normal value 
(14) Three Egyptian exporting producers argued that if domestic sales were 
considered unrepresentative for assessing profit, they should be considered 
equally unrepresentative for assessing selling, general and administrative 
(SG&A) expenses. 
In this respect, it should be noted that the fact that some or all of the domestic 
sales of the like product appear to be loss-making does not on itself render 
the related SG&A expenses inappropriate to construct normal value if such 
sales were made in sufficient quantities when compared to the sales volume 
of the product under consideration sold for export to the Community. 
(b) Cost of production 
(15) As already explained in recital (36) of the provisional Regulation, two 
Pakistani exporting producers claimed that due to exceptional circumstances, 
resulting from civil disorder on a major scale in Karachi during the 
investigation period, costs corresponding to "idle capacity" should not be 
taken into account in constructing normal value. Following the imposition of 
provisional measures these companies repeated their claim and resubmitted 
their quantification of the idle costs concerned. 
In this respect, it should be noted that according to an extract of the 
International Accounting Standard No.2 (IAS-2), which one of the 
companies concerned quoted, although the amount of fixed overheads 
allocated to each unit of production is not to be increased as a consequence of 
low production or idle plant, unallocated overheads are in any event 
recognised as an expense in the period in which they are incurred. In other 
words, all costs incurred within a certain period should be fully absorbed 
within the same period by the total cost of production (manufacturing cost 
and SG&A expenses) irrespective of whether "idle capacity'' costs are 
classified as fixed overheads included in the manufacturing cost or as part of 
the SG&A expenses. Therefore, these claims could not be accepted since the 
total cost of production incorporated in the constructed normal value includes 
both manufacturing cost and SG&A expenses. 
(16) One Pakistani exporting producer claimed that the cost of initial material 
(grey cloth) it had reported in the cost of manufacturing included certain 
SG&A expenses. Therefore, when constructing its normal value, the SG&A 
expenses reported should have been deducted from the cost of production in 
order to avoid a double counting of SG&A expenses. The Commission, after 
reviewing the data of the company, accepted the claim and modified the 
dumping calculations accordingly. 
(c) Selling, General and Administrative expenses (SG&A) 
(17) One Egyptian exporting producer contested the inclusion of allegedly 
exceptional high financing expenses in the construction of its normal value. 
It argued that these high financing expenses were incurred by two state 
owned companies on their loss making domestic sales of the like product 
and, therefore, should not be used for calculating constructed normal value 
for a private owned company, but that a "reasonable" amount of SG&A 
expenses should be established for this purpose instead. It was further argued 
that this "reasonable" amount could be based on the SG&A expenses of the 
third state owned company investigated which had profitable domestic sales 
of the like product. 
In that respect, it has to be mentioned that, where all companies are operating 
in free market conditions, the consistent practice of the Community 
Institutions has been to include all costs incurred to produce and sell the 
product concerned on the domestic market, including financing expenses, in 
the construction of normal value irrespective of whether these costs are 
incurred by state or private owned companies. In addition, it is consistent 
practice when constructing normal value for companies without domestic 
sales to use the weighted average SG&A expenses of all investigated 
companies with domestic sales of the like product, as provided in Article 
2(6)(a) of the Basic Regulation. Therefore, for the company in question the 
methodology used and explained in recital (32) of the provisional Regulation 
is confirmed. 
12 
(d) Domestic profit margin 
(18) All Indian exporting producers contested the use of the actual profit margin 
. realised by one Indian company on its representative profitable domestic 
sales in the construction of normal value for other Indian companies. They 
argued that this profit margin is exceptionally high because, to a great extent, 
it relates to domestic sales of branded products and that since export sales 
always concerned non-branded products, such domestic sales do not permit a 
proper comparison within the terms of Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation. 
Four of these exporting producers also argued that this profit is not calculated 
by reference to. the weighted average profits of other exporters or producers 
. as provided for in Article 2(6)(a) of the Basic Regulation, but corresponds to 
only one exporting producer. It was further claimed in this respect that, in 
order to ensure that the amount for profits used is reasonable, the profits 
realised on sales of products of the same general category in India should in 
any event not be exceeded. 
It should be noted that the profit margin used in constructing normal value 
corresponds to the weighted average profit realised on domestic sales of 
profitable types of branded and non-branded products by the Indian company 
concerned and that, had this claim been accepted, this would have been to the 
disadvantage of the producers, the profit margin used being lower than the 
profit margin realised by the same company solely on its domestic sales of 
non-branded products. 
With regard to the use of the profit margin of only one company, it should be 
recalled that the investigation has been restricted to a sample of exporting 
producers in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation and that the 
vast majority of the co-operating Indian companies are export oriented 
companies with no domestic sales of the like product. The Commission 
selected for the sample five Indian exporting producers two of which had 
declared at the time of the selection that they had made domestic sales of the 
like product. However, as indicated in recital (23) of the provisional 
Regulation, the investigation revealed that only one had representative 
domestic sales of the like product during the investigation period. Moreover, 
the reference in Article 2(6)(a) of the basic Regulation to weighted average 
amount for profits determined for other exporters or producers, does not 
exclude that such amount can be determined by reference to a weighted 
average of transactions and/or product types of a single exporter or producer. 
Consequently, it is not considered justified to establish the amount for profits 
in accordance with Article 2(6)(b) or 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation, as 
claimed by the Indian companies concerned. 
(19) One Indian exporting producer argued that its domestic profitability should 
have been assessed only on the basis of those types of the product concerned 
sold both domestically and on the Community market. 
14 
It should be noted however, that Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation provides 
that the sales of the like product intended for domestic consumption shall 
normally be used to determine normal value if such sales volume constitutes 
5% or more of the sales volume to the Community of the product under 
consideration. Therefore, all domestic sales of the like product intended for 
domestic consumption were, where appropriate, used to establish the 
domestic profit margin, whether or not particular product types were also 
exported to the Community. 
It follows from the above that the methodology and the findings as set out in 
recitals (23) to (36) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 
2. Export price 
(20) One Pakistani exporting producer which sold part of its exports to a related 
importer based in the Community, argued that the export price for the 
transactions made through the related importer should not be constructed 
because all prices charged to the related importer were at "arm's length" and 
they are in line with prices charged to unrelated customers in the 
Community. Therefore it was argued that the actual export price charged to 
the related importer should be considered as reliable and that it should be 
used in the dumping calculations. 
It is the consistent practice of the Community Institutions, where it appears 
that the export price is unreliable because of an association or a 
compensatory arrangement between the exporter and the importer, to 
construct it in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation. In this 
particular case the investigation revealed that all subsequent resales by the 
15 
related importer to independent buyers were made at a loss. This was 
considered to be an indication that the prices charged by the exporter to its 
related importer are unreliable. Therefore, the methodology used to 
determine the export price as explained in recitals (37) and (38) of the 
provisional Regulation is confirmed. 
3. Comparison 
(21) One Indian exporting producer contested the Commission's refusal to grant 
an adjustment for level of trade. 
Article 2(10)(d) of the basic Regulation requires that it has to be shown that 
the export price is at a different level of trade from the normal value and that 
the difference has affected price comparability, which is demonstrated by 
consistent and distinct differences in functions and prices of the seller for the 
different levels of trade in the domestic market of the exporting country. 
Therefore, in the absence of any substantiated evidence to this effect, the 
claim was rejected as already explained in recital (40) of the provisional 
Regulation. 
(22) The same Indian company also contested the Commission's refusal to grant 
adjustments to normal value for certain selling expenses. 
The request was provisionally rejected because the adjustments requested 
exceeded the expenses incorporated in the constructed normal value. 
The company's renewed request showed the same shortcomings and could 
not, therefore, be accepted either. 
However, it was finally decided to grant an adjustment limited to those 
expenses (e.g. commissions and freight) which could be identified in the 
allocation of SG&A expenses as submitted by the company in its response to 
the Commission's questionnaire and which were verified during the 
investigation and incorporated in the constructed normal value. 
(23) This Indian company further challenged the Commission's refusal to grant an 
adjustment to normal value for credit costs. 
As explained in recital (44) of the provisional Regulation, this claim had to 
be rejected given that the delivery of all goods sold in the domestic market 
by the company concerned took place only after payment. Thus, since the 
seller did not pass on to the buyer the use or the possession of the goods in 
question until the time of payment, it cannot be argued that there was any 
credit granted by the seller. 
(24) One Pakistani exporting producer also challenged the Commission's refusal 
to grant an adjustment to normal value for credit costs. In order to support its 
argument, it was requested to submit additional information following the 
imposition of provisional measures. 
Since the information submitted did not contradict but satisfactorily 
supplemented the data previously verified by the Commission at the premises 
of the company concerned, the claim for an adjustment concerning credit 
costs was accepted and the calculations were revised accordingly. 
17 
(25) All Pakistani exporting producers contested the Commission's calculation of 
the adjustment for import charges and duties borne by the like product and in 
particular by certain materials physically incorporated therein, when intended 
for consumption in Pakistan and refunded on export of the product under 
consideration pursuant to the Pakistani legislation. They argued that the 
amount of the adjustment should be expressed as a percentage of the cost of 
production and that the same percentage should then be deducted from the 
normal value. 
The argument neglects that such a percentage calculated by reference to the 
cost of production should be applied on the appropriate basis and that the 
normal value, being the equivalent of a domestic price, cannot be considered 
as such. Therefore, the argument was not accepted. 
(26) One Pakistani company argued that the amount of the adjustment for import 
charges and duties borne by the like product, was underestimated in the 
Commission's dumping calculations for certain types of product. 
The Commission reviewed the calculations and accepted the claim where 
appropriate. 
(27) The Pakistani authorities were of the opinion that the duty drawback 
adjustment granted to the co-operating exporting producers was not 
sufficient. They concede that the relevant Pakistani legislation mentions only 
a limited number of imported materials (certain dyes and chemicals) which 
are eligible for refund if the finished product is exported and that the 
Commission has granted an adjustment in this respect. However, they argue 
that, upon proof of export performance, Pakistani exporters also receive a 
refund for a number of other indirect taxes and duties borne by sales of the 
like product in the domestic market and that this refund should also entitle to 
an adjustment. 
In this respectait should be noted that any adjustment under Article 2(10)(b) 
of the basic Regulation requires that it is demonstrated that there is a 
difference in factors which affects price comparability. As part of such 
demonstration, it has to be shown that the cost concerned, in this case import 
charges or indirect taxes, has actually been incurred by the exporting 
producer for the product concerned when intended for consumption in the 
exporting country and not collected or refunded in respect of the product 
exported to the Community. Neither the Pakistani exporting producers nor 
the Pakistani authorities could demonstrate a link between any other indirect 
taxes and duties paid and the amounts refunded. In addition, the Pakistani 
authorities could not specify the indirect taxes or duties for which the 
additional refund claimed was allegedly granted. Therefore, the request was 
not accepted. 
It follows that unless otherwise provided above the conclusions drawn in 
recitals (39) to (45) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 
4. Dumping margins 
(a) General methodology 
(28) The representatives of the Indian and the Egyptian co-operating exporting 
producers, which were not included in the sample and, therefore, were not 
investigated, argued that the dumping margins established for investigated 
state owned companies should not be taken into account when calculating the 
dumping margins to be attributed to private owned companies not 
investigated. 
As already explained above, the Commission cannot treat differently state 
and privately owned companies where all .companies are operating in free 
market conditions. Therefore, the claim cannot be accepted and the 
provisions of recitals (46) to (48) of the provisional Regulation are 
confirmed. 
(b) Dumping margins for companies in the sample 
(29) The comparison between the normal value and the export price, in 
accordance with the methodology of the provisional Regulation and after 
revisions, where appropriate, following the arguments made by interested 
parties, showed the existence of dumping in respect of all companies 
investigated. The definitive dumping margins expressed as a percentage of 
the CIF import price at the Community frontier are the following: 
20 
India 
Anglo French Textiles 
The Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co Ltd 
Nowrosjee Wadia & Sons Ltd 
Madhu Industries Ltd 
Madhu International 
Omkar Exports 
Prakash Cotton Mills Ltd 
Egypt 
Damietta Spinning & Weaving Co 
El Nasr Wool and Selected Textiles Co (STIA) 
Orient Linen & Cotton Co 
Stephanie Textile 
Pakistan 24,7% 
7,7% 
7,7% 
17,0% 
17,0% 
14,2% 
2,6% 
13,5% 
13,5% 
13.5% 
8,7% 
Al-Abid Silk Mills Ltd 6,7% 
AlAbid Export (Pvt) Ltd 
Al-Karam Textile Mills Ltd 
Fateh Textile Mills Ltd 6,7% 
1,3% (de minimis) 
6,3% 
Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd 
Excel Textile Mills Ltd 
Mohammad Farooq Textile Mills Ltd 0,1% (de minimis) 
0,1% (de minimis) 
1,8% (de minimis) 
21 
(c) Dumping margin for co-operating companies not in the sample 
(30) Co-operating companies not selected in the sample (see recitals (17) and (21) 
of the provisional Regulation and recitals (12) and (13) above) were 
attributed the average dumping margin of the companies in the sample, 
weighted on the basis of their export turnover to the Community. In 
accordance with Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation, when calculating this 
average dumping margin de minimis margins established have been 
disregarded. Expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the 
Community frontier, these definitive dumping margins are the following: 
India 11,6% 
Egypt 13,5% (for state-owned companies) 
Egypt 13,0% (for other companies) 
Pakistan 6,4%> 
The companies entitled to the reduced rates are set out in an annex to this 
Regulation. 
(d) Dumping margin for non-co-operating companies 
(31) For non co-operating companies a dumping margin was determined on the 
basis of the facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic 
Regulation. Since the level of co-operation was high, it was considered 
appropriate to set the dumping margin for non co-operating companies in 
each country concerned at the level of the highest dumping margin 
established for a company in each sample because it would constitute a bonus 
for non-co-operation to assume that the dumping margin attributable to 
exporting producers which did not make themselves known is lower than that 
found for a co-operating exporting producer. 
?? 
These definitive dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CI F 
import price at the Community frontier, are the following: 
India 24,7% 
Egypt 13,5% 
Pakistan 6,7% 
E. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY 
1. . Definition of the Community industry 
(32) Exporters from all three exporting countries observed that the complainant 
Community producers taken to be the Community industry made up just 
34% of total Community production. They claimed that this showed that a 
majority of bed linen producers in the Community did not support the 
complaint and should therefore be assumed not to be injured, and that the 
Community industry was not therefore representative of total Community 
production. 
However, in response to the provisional measures only two non-complainant 
Community producers, which originally expressed no opinion to the 
Commission on the complaint, expressed opposition to the duties. The 
combined production of these two producers was less than one third of the 
total production of the complainants. Throughout the proceeding, therefore, 
the complainants therefore represented considerably more than 50%) of the 
collective output of those producers expressing either support for or 
opposition to the complaint. 
23 
(33) Pakistani exporters also claimed that the Commission had not used the 
correct test in determining whether Community producers which also import 
bed linen from the countries concerned should be excluded from the 
Community industry (recitals (52) to (55) of the provisional Regulation). By 
way of clarification, it is confirmed that the test used in recital (54) was 
whether bed linen imported from the countries concerned accounted for 10% 
of the turnover in bed linen of the companies in question, rather than 10% of 
total company turnover. Under this test it was found and is hereby confirmed 
that none of the sampled companies retained in the list of 35 complainants 
made sufficient imports of the product concerned by this proceeding from the 
countries in question to be excluded from the definition of the Community 
industry. 
2. Conclusion 
(34) In conclusion, the finding that the 35 complainant companies represent a 
major proportion of total Community production within the meaning of 
Article 5(4) of the Basic Regulation and that they therefore constitute the 
Community industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Basic 
Regulation is confirmed. 
24 
F. INJURY 
1. Cumulative assessment of the effects of the dumped imports 
(35) Pakistani exporters argued that imports from Pakistan should not have been 
cumulated with those from India and Egypt for the assessment of injury. In 
support of this they pointed out that imports from Pakistan had grown less 
fast than those from the other two countries, that according to Eurostat the 
average price of the imports from Pakistan was higher and had risen while 
the others had fallen, and that the dumping margins calculated for Pakistan 
were on average about half those for the other two countries concerned. 
These arguments were examined. It was noted that imports from Pakistan, 
while rising less quickly than those from India and Egypt (in particular 
because of quota restraints), had nonetheless risen and remained the highest 
of the three exporting countries. As for the Eurostat data on average prices, it 
should be 'remembered that this data groups together a wide variety of 
different products. It was observed among the sampled Pakistani exporters 
that their product mix included a greater proportion of higher value products 
(e.g. satin and other products from finer cotton yarn) than sampled producers 
in India and Egypt. It was consequently found that the data on average prices 
was highly influenced by differences and changes in product mix and could 
not justify differential treatment in the overall analysis of injury. 
Finally, the size of dumping margins for a given country, provided they are 
more than de minimis, is not a criterion for the decision as to whether or not 
to make a cumulative assessment of the effects of the dumped imports. 
os 
(36) The cumulative assessment made in the provisional Regulation is therefore 
confirmed under the terms of Article 3(4) of the Basic Regulation. 
2. Prices of the dumped imports 
(37) Exporters and importers claimed that the Commission's analysis of the 
degree to which the imports concerned undercut the prices of the sampled 
Community producers, and the consequent calculation of injury margins, 
were flawed, for various reasons: 
firstly because the criteria for selection of the "reference products", on 
which the analysis was based, were claimed not to have been 
explained; 
secondly, because the reference products accounted, they claimed, in 
some cases for only a small proportion of EC sales of the sampled 
exporters in the countries concerned, allegedly indicating a lack of 
competition between imported and Community products and a lack of 
reliability of the analysis; 
thirdly, because it was claimed that in making the price comparisons 
inadequate account had been taken of the differences in sales channels 
between Community producers and exporters from the countries 
concerned; 
fourthly, because there were claimed to be quality differences which 
should be taken into account; 
26 
fifthly, because it was claimed that products imported and Community 
products falling within the same reference product definition could not 
be compared, there being other criteria besides size, weaving 
construction and finish by which the products differed or because the 
range of constructions considered to be comparable was too wide. 
(38) On the first point, it is confirmed that the reference products were selected, 
for each market studied, following consultation with the relevant national 
producers' association and using also information available to the 
Commission. Furthermore, it is confirmed that the investigation showed that 
the sizes, weaving constructions and finishes chosen as reference products 
were indeed among the most prevalent in the markets concerned. Finally, at 
no time did the exporters or their representatives define other products which 
in their view would have been more appropriate for an analysis of 
undercutting. 
On the second point, it was noted that the wide variety of bed linen products 
limited the proportion of each exporter's sales which could accurately be 
compared with sales by the sampled Community producers. Given the 
Commission's intention to conduct accurate comparisons (comparing prices 
only of products matching in size, weaving construction and finish) and the 
limits to the number of different such products for which accurate price 
information could be collected in the time available, it is unsurprising that the 
proportion of each exporter's sales in the Community which could 
reasonably be compared with the products of the sampled Community 
producers was in some exceptional cases as low as 5%. This was particularly 
27 
the case of exporters concentrating on simple, high volume products (a 
market segment from which the Community industry is how largely excluded 
by import penetration). This invalidated neither the finding that there were 
significant market segments where the dumped imports competed with 
Community production nor the method adopted for assessing undercutting, 
since the quantities overall were in all cases considered sufficiently 
representative and in several cases exceeded 30%. In any event, it should be 
noted that low export prices in one market segment, given the high 
interchangeability of the product concerned, will also have negative effects 
on prices in adjacent segments. 
On the third point, the exporters substantiated their claim with evidence that 
the total mark-up from the CIF export price to the ultimate retail price was 
much greater than the level of trade adjustment made by the Commission. 
The Commission considered however that this was not relevant information 
since prices were not being compared at the level of sale to the ultimate 
consumer but at the level of sale to the first independent customer. The 
exporters' claim is therefore rejected. 
On the fourth point, the claim for adjustment for quality differences was 
based on average weights per square metre of the Community and imported 
products. Since however the weight per square metre of fabric is a function 
of its weaving construction, and since products were compared only when 
they corresponded in terms of this construction, there was no justification for 
such an adjustment and the claim is therefore rejected. 
28 
On the fifth point, the Commission considered the arguments but could not 
accept it. This conclusion was reached bearing in mind the large number of 
reference products allowing a detailed analysis and the fact that remaining 
differences within each reference product definition were compensated by a 
price comparison carried out on an average per kilo basis. 
(39) The finding in recital (79) of the provisional regulation that the imported 
products undercut the products of the sampled Community producers, and 
the findings of the level of the undercutting, are therefore confirmed. 
3. Situation of the Community industry 
(40) Exporters from all the exporting countries claimed that the Commission's 
analysis of injury was defective in that it referred to the significant decline in 
total Community production of bed linen in assessing the situation of the 
Community industry. They claimed in particular that information concerning 
companies not included in the definition of the Community industry or which 
no longer produce bed linen cannot be used to construe a finding of material 
injury. 
These claims were examined carefully. It should however be remarked that 
the principal basis for the finding of material injury was the reduced 
profitability and price suppression of the Community industry as observed 
among the sampled companies. 
2() 
(41) In the assessment of injury pursuant to Article 3 of the Basic Regulation, the 
Community institutions have to assess the economic situation of the 
Community industry. This assessment usually covers the analysis of a time 
period of four to five years as in the present case ("assessment period"). Such 
an assessment is commonly based on an analysis of the complaining industry 
and not necessarily on companies accounting for the totality of Community 
production on the ground that 'the situation of a major proportion of the 
Community production is representative for its totality Such an assessment, 
however, also has to take into account the structure and the nature of the 
industry under consideration. In the present case this industry is characterised 
by a high number of operators, in many cases small and medium sized 
companies, and by the fact that it is a sector with relatively low barriers to 
exit. The latter is mainly due to the fact that machinery can be sold or used 
for other products relatively simply. This has the effect that material injury is 
likely to manifest itself through the exit of economic operators within the 
assessment period. 
Consequently, to limit the assessment of injury only to companies which are 
still operational at the end of the assessment period (i.e. at the time of the 
lodging of the complaint) and thus able actively to support a complaint 
would mean that any injury caused to companies which have closed down 
before this point in time would go unconsidered in the analysis. Furthermore, 
it should be noted that this distortion could even be aggravated as the 
surviving complaining companies of the Community industry may have 
benfited, possibly only temporarily, from the disappearance of other 
companies, causing their positive development to be overestimated. 
30 
In the present case, it should be noted that 29 companies of the bed linen 
industry have closed down or ceased production: that is, there has been a 
substantial number of companies that have ceased operation. Furthermore, 
given the substantial price undercutting established, the strong increase in the 
volumes of the imports concerned and their consequent rise in market share, 
any relatively positive development of the complaining producers must be 
seen as threatened in the absence of anti-dumping measures. 
4. Conclusion 
(42) The finding of material injury, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the 
Basic Regulation, is therefore confirmed. 
G. CAUSAL LINK 
(43) Exporters from all three countries concerned claimed that any material injury 
could be ascribed to the fall in consumption of 7% between 1992 and the 
investigation period. However, as noted in recital (105) of the provisional 
Regulation, the total fall in sales by all Community producers significantly 
exceeded the total fall in consumption. As to the exporters' argument that 
data concerning the totality of Community production were not relevant to 
the determination of whether the dumped imports caused material injury, this 
suggestion is rejected on the. grounds set out in recitals (40) and (41). The 
finding is therefore confirmed that the fall in consumption does not 
contradict the finding that the dumped imports, taken in isolation, have 
caused material injury to the Community industry. The findings concerning 
the causal link between the dumped imports and the material injury suffered 
by the Community industry as set out in recitals (109) to (111) of the 
provisional Regulation are therefore confirmed. 
H. COMMUNITY INTEREST 
1. Interests of consumers 
(44) Certain importers claimed that the impact on consumers would be greater 
than that assessed in the provisional Regulation. In its provisional findings 
(recital (124) of the provisional Regulation) the Commission had noted that 
the imports concerned by the proceeding were sold to the ultimate consumer 
at prices very much higher than the price at the Community frontier and 
considered that the duty would therefore represent a smaller proportion of the 
ultimate price to the consumer than the ad valorem percentage levied. Since 
subsequent costs (e.g. of transport, storage and retailing) would not be 
increased by the imposition of a duty, the impact on consumers of the 
proposed measures was evaluated as minor. 
(45) Certain parties challenged these arguments. Some claimed that retailers set 
prices to the consumer at a set percentage mark-up from their purchase price, 
so that the price to the consumer would rise by the same percentage as the 
duty imposed. Some retailers even claimed that the percentage increase in 
the price to the consumer could be higher than the duty level: they claimed 
that products were sold in particular price brackets and that if the duty 
increased the price of a given product above one bracket, it would be priced 
in the next bracket, an increase which might be as high as 20%. 
The Commission considered that these claims did not constitute a reason to 
depart from the provisional findings. It was concluded that pressure of 
competition between retailers should ensure that price increases to consumers 
would not exceed the cost increase attributable directly to the duty. The view 
reached by the Commission at the provisional stage that this duty would have 
only a minor impact on consumers, especially when compared with other 
factors such as currency fluctuations, is therefore confirmed. It should be 
noted in this context that this conclusion was not subsequently contested or 
commented on by any organisation representing consumers following the 
provisional measures. 
2. Interests of other users 
(46) Following the imposition of provisional duties, certain parties came forward 
claiming that the duties imposed would have a severe negative effect on their 
businesses. These were, in particular, companies involved in the rental of 
linen to hotels and other institutions. An association representing such users 
had come forward before provisional measures and had been invited by the 
Commission to supply relevant information but had not done so. 
The parties coming forward after the imposition of provisional duties were 
similarly asked to provide relevant information such as the proportion of 
their costs represented by purchases of bed linen but none did so within the 
time limits specified in the provisional Regulation. Some of them sought 
exclusion of certain types of bed linen from the scope of the current 
proceeding (see recitals (4) and (6) above). In doing so they indicated that 
the types of bed linen used were those capable of multiple use and frequent 
industrial washing. The Commission therefore took the view that while these 
businesses would suffer some impact from the imposition of measures, the 
original costs of purchasing the bed linen concerned would be minor when 
compared with the continuing service costs of laundry, collection and 
delivery. The claims therefore gave no compelling reason why measures 
should not be imposed. 
1. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 
1. Definitive duties 
(47) Injury margins remain above the level of the dumping margins in all cases. 
Therefore a definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed at the level of 
the dumping margins set out in recitals (29) to (31) above, with the exception 
of companies with de minimis dumping margins for which no duty should be 
imposed. 
2. Collection of provisional duties 
(48) The magnitude of the dumping margins found for the exporting producers 
and the seriousness of injury caused to the Community industry would 
normally justify the definitive collection of the provisional duties up to the 
level of the definitive duties. 
Some exporters and importers concerned argued however that the provisional 
Regulation was not imposed within the period specified in the last sentence 
of Article 7 (1) of the basic Regulation. In the light of the uncertainty which 
has arisen as to whether, when judged by reference to the provisions of 
Regulation (EEC) No 1182/71 determining the rules applicable to periods, 
dates and time limits5, the deadline was met, the Council considers that in 
order to avoid legal uncertainty, the provisional duties should not be 
definitively collected. 
3. Certification of handloom items 
(49) In order to benefit from the exemption for handloom products referred to in 
recital (7), a certificate of handloom origin should be required. The 
certificate should be of the form attached in Annex II and it should be issued 
by the competent authorities of the country of origin. The certificate 
foreseen in Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 3030/936 on common rules for 
imports of certain textile products from third countries should also be 
regarded as adequate for the granting of the exemption. 
(50) The Commission will monitor closely handloom bed linen imports from the 
countries concerned and if the circumstances so require will take all the 
appropriate measures. 
5 OJ No L 124, 8.6.71, p. 1 
6 OJNoL275, 8.11.93, p. 1 
35 
4. Future requests for new exporter treatment 
(51) Since sampling has been used in the investigation, a new exporters' review 
pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation with the objective of 
determining individual dumping margins cannot be initiated in this 
proceeding. However, as already explained in recitals (12) and (13), in order 
to ensure equal treatment between any genuine new exporting producer and 
the co-operating companies not included in the sample, it is considered that 
provision should be made for the weighted average duty imposed on the 
latter companies to be applied to any new exporting producers which would 
otherwise be entitled to a review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic 
Regulation, 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 
Article 1 
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of bed linen of 
cotton fibres, pure or mixed with man-made fibres or flax (flax not being the 
dominant fibre), bleached, dyed or printed originating in India, Pakistan and 
Egypt, not covered by the provisions of Article 2 and falling within the 
following CN codes: 
CN code Tariccode 
ex6302 21 00 6302 2100 81 
6302 21 00 89 
ex6302 22 90 6302 22 90 19 
_____ 6302 31 10 90 
ex6302 31 90 6302 3190 90 
ex6302 32 90 6302 32 90 19 
36 
2. Subject to paragraphs 3 and 4, the rates of the definitive anti-dumping duty 
applicable to the net, free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, shall be as 
follows for products originating in: 
Country Rate of duty Taric additional 
code 
Egypt 13,5% 8900 
India 24,7 % 8900 
Pakistan 6,7 % 8900 
3. Products manufactured and sold for export by the exporting producers listed in 
Annex I, shall be subject to the following anti-dumping duty rates: 
Country Rate of duty Taric additional 
code 
Egypt 13% 8041 
India 11,6% 8042 
Pakistan 6,4% 8043 
4. Products manufactured and sold for export by the companies listed below shall 
be subject to the following anti-dumping duty rates: 
37 
Country 
India Manufacturer 
Anglo French Textiles 
The Bombay Dyeing & 
Manufacturing Co Ltd 
Nowrqsjee Wadia & Sons Ltd 
Madhu Industries Ltd 
Madhu International 
Omkar Exports 
Prakash Cotton Mills Ltd Rate of duty 
24,7 % 
7,7 % 
7,7 % 
17,0 % 
17,0% 
14,2% 
2,6 % Taric additional 
code 
8044 
8045 
8045 
8046 
8046 
8047 
8048 
Country 
Egypt Manufacturer 
Stephanie Textile Rate of duty 
8,7 % Taric additional 
code 
8049 
Country 
Pakistan Manufacturer 
Al-Abid Silk Mills Ltd 
Al-Abid Export (Pvt) Ltd 
Al-Karam Textile Mills Ltd 
Fateh Textile Mills Ltd 
Mohammad Farooq Textile 
Mills Ltd 
Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd 
Excel Textile Mills Ltd Rate of duty 
6,7 % 
6,7 % 
0,0 % 
6,3 % 
0,0 % 
0,0 % 
0,0% Taric additional 
code 
8050 
8050 
8051 
8052 
8051 
8051 
8051 
38 
5. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties 
shall apply. 
Article 2 
Products classified under the CN codes mentioned in Article 1(1) above and 
made of fabrics woven on looms operated exclusively by hand or foot are 
exempted from the duty imposed in Article 1 of this Regulation (TARIC 
codes 6302 21 00 21; 6302 2100 29; 6302 22 90 11; 6302 31 10 10; 6302 
3190 10; 6302 32 90 11). 
The exemption is granted only to products accompanied on their release for 
free circulation in the Community by either 
(i) a certificate from the competent authorities of, the country of origin 
which conforms to the model attached as Annex II to this Regulation; or 
(ii) a certificate issued pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) 3030/93. 
Certificates issued pursuant to paragraph 2(i) shall only be valid if the 
countries of origin have informed the Commission of the names and 
addresses of the governmental authorities situated in their territory which are 
empowered to issue these certificates, together with specimens of stamps 
used by those authorities and the names and addresses of the relevant 
governmental authorities responsible for the control of the certificates. The 
stamps shall be valid as from the date of receipt by the Commission of the 
specimens. 
39 
4. Certificates issued pursuant to paragraph 2 shall only be valid if presented 
with options (a) and (c) in box 11 deleted and if they certify that the products 
concerned fulfil the description in option (b). 
5. The appropriate provisions implementing the Community Customs Code, 
and notably the provisions concerning administrative cooperation contained 
in Article 93 et seq of Regulation (EEC) 2454/937, as amended in particular 
by Regulation (EC) 12/978, shall apply mutatis mutandis. 
Article 3 
Where any new exporting producer from the countries concerned provides 
sufficient evidence to the Commission that 
- it did not export to the Community the products described in 
Article 1(1) during the investigation period (1 July 1995 to 30 June 
1996), 
7 OJ No L 253, 11.10.93, p. 1 
8 OJNoL9, 13.1.97, p. 1. 
40 
- it is not related to any of the exporters or producers in the 
exporting country which are subject to the anti-dumping measures 
imposed by this Regulation, 
- it has actually exported to the Community the products concerned 
after the investigation period on which the measures are based, or it 
has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a 
significant quantity to the Community, 
then the Council, acting by simple majority on a proposal submitted by the 
Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee, may amend Article 
1 (3) of this Regulation by adding that new exporting producer to the list in 
Annex I mentioned in that Article. 
Article 4 
Amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty imposed by 
Regulation (EC) 1069/97 shall be released. 
41 
Article 5 
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in 
the Official Journal of the European Communities. 
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member 
States. 
Done at Brussels, 
For the Council 
42 
ANNEX I 
EGYPT 
AMC Arab Metals Co., Cairo 
Dantèx Ltd., Cairo 
Egyptex, Cairo 
El Naggar Egyptian Co. For Furniture Elmahalla 
Nile Tex, Alexandria 
Wintex-Wahab International Textiles Ltd., Cairo 
Zahret El Mehalla for Weaving, Mehalla El Kubra - El-Seka El-Wosta 
INDIA 
A. Shashikant & Co., Mumbai (Bombay) 
Ajit Impex, Mumbai (Bombay) 
Akai Impex Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay) 
Alps Industries Ltd., Ghaziabad 
Amitara Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay) 
Anunay Fab. Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 
B.X. International, Mumbai (Bombay) 
Badridass Gauridatt Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay) 
Brijmohan Purusottamdas, Mumbai (Bombay) 
Bunts Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay) 
Chhaganlal Kasturchand & Co. Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay) 
43 
Classic Connections, Mumbai (Bombay) 
Concepts International India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon 
Cotfab Exports, Mumbai (Bombay) 
Country House, New Delhi 
Deepak Traders, Mumbai (Bombay) 
Dhanalakshmi Weaving Works, Cannanore 
Divya Textiles, Mumbai (Bombay) 
Dyna-Impex Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay) 
Elite Exports, Mumbai (Bombay) 
Emperor Trading Company, Tirupur 
Encore Themes, New Delhi 
Govindji Trikamdas & Co., Mumbai (Bombay) 
Hindustan Textiles, Cannanore 
Ibats, New Delhi 
Incotex, Mumbai (Bombay) 
Indo Euro Textiles Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 
Indo Export Corporation, New Delhi 
International Services, Chennai (Madras) 
Intex Exports, Mumbai (Bombay) 
Invitation Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay) 
Jindal India, Mumbai (Bombay) 
Jindal Worldwide Ltd., Ahmedabad 
K. Overseas, New Delhi 
Kanodia Fabrics (International), Mumbai (Bombay) 
Kaushalya Export, Ahmedabad 
Kitu Bhandari Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 
44 
Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd., Chennai (Madras) 
Lakshmi Apparels and Wovens Limited, Coimbatore 
Mahalaxmi Exports, Ahmedabad 
Maritex Exports, Mumbai (Bombay) 
Marwaha Exports, New Delhi 
Milano International (India) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai (Madras) 
Minar Exports, Mumbai (Bombay) 
Mridul Enterprises, New Delhi 
Niaz International, Farrukhabad 
P.J. Exports, Mumbai (Bombay) 
Patodia Syntex Ltd, Mumbai (Bombay) 
Pattex Exports, Mumbai (Bombay) 
Prem Textiles. Indore 
Punch Exporters, Mumbai (Bombay) 
Raghuvir Exim Ltd., Ahmedabad 
Rajka Designs Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 
Sanna Inttex, Mumbai (Bombay) 
Santex Exports, Mumbai (Bombay) 
S. D. Enterprises, Mumbai (Bombay) 
Shetty Garments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay) 
Shivani Exports, Mumbai (Bombay) 
Shorewala Exim Int'l, New Delhi 
Shrijee Enterprises, Mumbai (Bombay) 
Shruti Designs Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay) 
Sohanlal Balkrishna Export, Mumbai (Bombay) 
Southern Sales & Services, Bangalore 
45 
Standard Industries Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay) 
Starline Exports, Mumbai (Bombay) 
Sumangalam Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay) 
Sunil Impex, Mumbai (Bombay) 
Sunil Silk Mills, Mumbai (Bombay) 
Sunny Made Ups, Mumbai (Bombay) 
Suresh & Co., Mumbai (Bombay) 
Surya International, Panipat 
Syndicate Impex, Ahmedabad 
Syntex Corporation Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay) 
Tata Exports Limited, Mumbai (Bombay) 
Texcellence Overseas, Mumbai (Bombay) 
The Hindoostan Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay) 
The Ruby Mills Limited, Mumbai (Bombay) 
Trend Setters, Mumbai (Bombay) 
Trend Setters K.F.T.Z., Mumbai (Bombay) 
Vepar Private Limited, Ahmedabad 
Vigneshwara Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay) 
Wooltop Weaves, Chennai (Madras) 
PAKISTAN 
Adamjees Impex International, Karachi 
Afroze Textile Industries (Private) Ltd., Karachi 
Amer Fabrics Limited, Lahore 
46 
Anjum Textile Mills (Private) Ltd., Faisalabad 
Arzoo International (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad 
Arzoo Textile Mills Ltd., Faisalabad 
Asco International (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi 
Aziz Sons, Karachi 
B.I.L. Exporters, Karachi 
Be Be Jan Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad 
Bêla Textiles Limited, Karachi 
Dyer Textile & Printing Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi 
Eksons Sales Organisation, Karachi 
Elahi Enterprises Ltd., Lahore 
Elasta Amtex Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi 
Fairdeal Textiles (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi 
Faisal Industries, Karachi 
Fashion Knit Industries, Karachi 
Gohar Enterprises, Faisalabad 
Gohar International (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad 
H.A. Industries (Private) Ltd., Faisalabad 
Home Furnishings Ltd., Karachi 
Kam International, Karachi 
Kausar Textile Industries (Pty) Ltd., Faisalabad 
Kohinoor Textile Mills Ltd., Rawalpindi 
Latif Int'l (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad 
Liberty Mills Limited, Karachi 
Linex International (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi 
Lotus Textile Industries Limited. Karachi 
47 
Lucky Impex, Karachi 
Lucky Tex, Karachi 
Lucky Textile Mills, Karachi 
M.F.M.Y. Industries Ltd., Karachi 
M.R. Export (Private) Ltd., Lahore 
Mukaty Corporation, Karachi 
Nadia Textile International (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore 
Nakshbandi Industries Limited, Karachi 
Nash Garments (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi 
Nina Industries Ltd., Karachi 
Nishat Mills Limited, Karachi 
Nishitex Enterprises, Karachi 
Nu-tex (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi 
Parsons Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi 
S.P.R.L. Rehman Brothers, Lahore 
Sas Texexport (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi 
Shabbir Associates, Karachi 
Sharif Textile Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad 
Sitara Textile Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad 
Syncotex Sa Agencies, Karachi 
The Crescent Textile Mills Limited, Faisalabad 
Today's Sportswear Inc., Karachi 
Towellers Limited, Karachi 
Unibro Industries Limited, Karachi 
Union Exports (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi 
ZN Textiles (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad 
48 
ANNEXII 
1 Exporter (name, full address, country) 
Exportateur {nom, adresse complète, pays) ORIGINAL 2 N< 
Consignee (name, full address, country) 
Destinataire (nom, adresse complète, pays) 
Place and date of shipment - Means of transport 
Lieu et date d'embarquement - Moyen de transport CERTIFICATE in regard to HANDLOOMS, TEXTILE HANDICRAFTS and 
TRADITIONAL TEXTILE PRODUCTS, of the COTTAGE INDUSTRY, 
issued in conformity with and under the conditions regulating trade in 
textile products with the European Community 
CERTIFICAT relatif aux TISSUS TISSSES SUR METIERS A MAIN, aux 
PRODUITS TEXTILES FAITS A LA MAIN, et aux PRODUITS TEXTILES 
RELEVANT DU FOLKLORE TRADITIONNEL, DE FABRICATION ARTI­
SANALE, délivré en conformité avec et sous les conditions régissant 
les échanges de produits textiles avec la Communauté Européenne 
Country of origin 
Pays d'origine 
7 Supplementary details 
Données supplémentaires 5 Country of destination 
Pays de destination 
Marks and numbers - Number and kind of packages - DESCRIPTION OF GOODS 
Marques et numéros - Nombre et nature des colis - DESIGNATION DES MARCHANDISES 9 Quantity 
Quantité 10 FOB Value (1) 
Valeur FOB (1) 
11 CERTIFICATION BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY - VISA DE L'AUTORITE COMPETENTE 
I, the undersigned, certify that the consignment described above includes only the following textile products of the cottage industry of the country 
shown in box N°4 : 
a) fabrics woven on looms operated solely by hand of foot (handlooms) (2) 
b) garments or other textile articles obtained manually from the fabrics described under a) and sewn solely be hand without the aid of any machine 
(handicrafts) (2) 
c) traditional folklore handicraft textile products made by hand, as defined in the list agreed between the European Community and the country shown 
in box N° 4. 
Je soussigné certifie que l'envoi décrit ci-dessus contient exclusivement les produits textiles suivants relevant de la fabrication artisanale du pays 
figurant dans la case 4 : 
a) tissus tisssés sur des métiers actionnés à la main ou au pied (handlooms) (2) 
b) vêtements ou autres articles textiles obtenus manuellement à partir de tissus décrits sous a) et cousus uniquement à la main sans l'aide d'une 
machine (handicrafts) (2) 
c) produits textiles relevant du folklore traditionnel fabriqués à la main, comme définis dans la liste convenue entre la Communauté européenne et le 
pays indiqué dans la case 4. 
12 Competent authority (name, full address, country) 
Autorité compétente (nom, adresse complète, pays) At- A. On - le 
Signature Stamp - Cachet 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(97) 591 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 02 11 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-97-605-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-27451-8 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
JTC o