COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Brussels, 04.07.2001
COM(2001) 367 final
Proposal for a
&281&,/5(*8/$7,21
LPSRVLQJDGHILQLWLYHDQWLGXPSLQJGXW\DQGFROOHFWLQJGHILQLWLYHO\WKH
SURYLVLRQDOGXW\LPSRVHGRQLPSRUWVRILQWHJUDWHGHOHFWURQLFFRPSDFW
IOXRUHVFHQWODPSV&)/LRULJLQDWLQJLQWKH3HRSOH¶V5HSXEOLFRI&KLQD
(presented by the Commission)
2(;3/$1$725<0(025$1’80
On 17 May 2000, the Commission opened an anti-dumping investigation with regard
to imports into the Community of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lampsoriginating in the People's Republic of China.
The investigation revealed the existence of injurious dumping and consequently the
Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 255/2001
1, imposed provisional anti-dumping
duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps originating in thePeople's Republic of China.
The attached proposal for a Council Regulation is based on the definitive findings on
dumping, injury, causation and Community interest which basically confirmed theprovisional findings.
It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation
which should be published in the Official Journal no later than 8 August 2001.
                                                
1 OJ L 38, 8.2.2001, p.8.
3Proposal for a
&281&,/5(*8/$7,21
LPSRVLQJDGHILQLWLYHDQWLGXPSLQJGXW\DQGFROOHFWLQJGHILQLWLYHO\WKH
SURYLVLRQDOGXW\LPSRVHGRQLPSRUWVRILQWHJUDWHGHOHFWURQLFFRPSDFW
IOXRUHVFHQWODPSV&)/LRULJLQDWLQJLQWKH3HRSOH¶V5HSXEOLFRI&KLQD
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 EuropeanCommunity 
1, and in particular Article 9 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the
Advisory Committee,
WHEREAS :
$3529,6,21$/0($685(6
(1) The Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 255/20012 (“provisional
Regulation”), imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on imports ofintegrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps ("CFL-i") falling within CNcode ex 8539 31 90 originating in the People’s Republic of China ("PRC").
%68%6(48(17352&(’85(
(2) Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the
basis of which it was decided to impose provisional measures on imports ofCFL-i originating in the PRC and following the publication of the provisionalRegulation, several interested parties submitted comments in writing. Theparties who so requested were also granted an opportunity to be heard orally.
(3) The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed
necessary for its definitive findings.
                                                
1 OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2238/2000, OJ L 257, 11.10.2000,
p.2.
2 OJ L 38, 8.2.2001, page 8.
4(4) All 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 of amounts secured by way ofprovisional duties. They were also granted a period within which they couldmake representations subsequent to this disclosure.
(5) The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were considered, and,
where appropriate, the provisional findings have been modified accordingly.
&7+(,1,7,$7,212)7+(352&((’,1*
(6) Some interested parties claimed that certain third countries, namely Poland
and Hungary, should have been included in the anti-dumping proceeding as anon-inclusion of these countries would be discriminatory.
(7) In this respect, it is confirmed that no parallel proceeding could be initiated
against Poland and Hungary since, on the basis of the information available atthe stage of initiation, no evidence of injurious dumping by these imports wasavailable to the Commission. This claim was therefore rejected.
’352’8&7&21&(51(’$1’/,.(352’8&7
(8) Some exporting producers submitted that CFL-i produced in the PRC were not
comparable with those produced in the Community, as Chinese producersexported only CFL-i with a lifetime of less than 6000 hours, which were notproduced by the Community industry.
(9) In this respect, the investigation has shown that both Chinese and Community
producers manufacture CFL-i with a lifetime of less than 6000 hours, as wellas CFL-i with a lifetime of more than 6000 hours. In addition, it is confirmedthat comparisons made for the purpose of calculating injury and undercuttingmargins were based on CFL-i with comparable lifetimes. The claim wastherefore rejected.
(’803,1*
1RUPDO9DOXH
(10) Various interested parties objected to the choice of Mexico as an appropriate
market economy third country for the purpose of establishing normal value forthe PRC.
(11) Some interested parties proposed the use of the normal values determined on
the basis of the domestic sales made by the two Chinese exporting producerswhich had been granted market economy treatment, instead of determiningnormal value on the basis of a market economy third country. Article 2(7) ofCouncil Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (“Basic Regulation”) provides that in thecase of imports from countries like the PRC, the normal values be establishedon the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy thirdcountry unless an exporting producer meets the criteria set out in subparagraph(c) of the aforementioned provision. Therefore, it was not possible to complywith this request.
5(12) As a consequence, and as no new arguments were put forward regarding the
choice of Mexico as an analogue country, the findings set out in recital 32 ofthe provisional Regulation concerning the selection of Mexico are confirmed.
(13) It is thus confirmed that normal values for each product type exported to the
Community by the Chinese exporting producers were established on the basisof information supplied by the co-operating producer in the analogue country 
(14) In the absence of any new evidence, under this heading, the provisional
findings, as set out in recitals 14 to 34 of the provisional regulation, areconfirmed.
([SRUW3ULFH
(15) One exporting producer claimed that one product type had been incorrectly
coded and provided proof of this mistake. The claim was verified and acceptedand a correction was consequently made.
(16) One exporting producer claimed that there was a clerical mistake with regard
to the reporting of some CIF prices of some of its Community sales. The claimwas verified and accepted and the prices were consequently revised.
(17) In the absence of any other comments under this heading, the provisional
findings, as set out in recitals 35 to 38 of the provisional Regulation, areconfirmed.
&RPSDULVRQ
(18) In the absence of any comments under this heading, the provisional findings,
as set out in recitals 39 to 41 of the provisional Regulation, are confirmed.
’XPSLQJPDUJLQ
(19) The dumping calculations have been reviewed, in order to determine whether
there was a pattern of export prices which differed significantly amongdifferent purchasers, regions or time periods and whether a comparison of theweighted average normal value and weighted average export price (hereafterreferred to as "the average-to-average method") reflected the full degree ofdumping being practised. A detailed analysis of the Community exporttransactions has revealed with regard to one Chinese exporting producer apattern of export prices that differed significantly among purchasers andregions, as well as time periods. In particular it was found that export prices bythis exporting producer to Denmark, to a specific importer, and at the end ofthe investigation period were substantially lower. Moreover, the average-to-average method would not have reflected the full degree of dumping beingpractised by this exporting producer. The calculation of the margin of dumpingfor this exporting producer has consequently been based on a weightedaverage normal value compared to all individual export transactions to theCommunity. For all other exporting producers the calculation of dumping wasbased on the average-to-average method.
6(20) As a result of these changes, the individual dumping margins are:
Changzhou Hailong Electronics & Light Fixtures Co. Ltd.,
Changzhou59.5%
City Bright Lighting (Shenzhen) Ltd., Shenzhen 17.1%
Deluxe Well Enterprises Ltd., Shenzhen 37.1%
Lisheng Electronic & Lighting (Xiamen) Co. Ltd., Xiamen GHPLQLPLV
Philips & Yaming Lighting Co. Ltd., Shanghai 61.8%
Sanex Electronics Co. Ltd., Suzhou 20.2%
Shenzhen Zuoming Electronic Co. Ltd., Shenzhen 8.4%
Zhejiang Yankon Group Co., Ltd. (previously known as
Zhejiang Sunlight Group Co., Ltd.), Shangyu35.3%
(21) The country-wide dumping margin for the PRC established on this basis is
66.1%.
),1-85<
3UHOLPLQDU\UHPDUNV
(22) It was examined whether the exclusion of the imports attributable to the
exporting producer found not to have dumped would have had any significantimpact on the analysis of the injury and causation aspects. It has been foundthat, even if such imports were to be excluded from the analysis, theconclusions as to the existence of material injury caused by dumped importswould remain unchanged, notably in view of the considerable priceundercutting and the substantial increase in volume and market shares as wellas the decrease in the sales prices, which would be even more significant.
’HILQLWLRQRIWKH&RPPXQLW\LQGXVWU\
(23) The European Lighting Companies Federation ("the complainant) claimed that
data relating to Philips Lighting B.V. ("Philips") should have been taken intoaccount in the injury analysis, as this company had also suffered injury. Itreferred to the WTO Panel report on bed linen from India
3, arguing that the
Panel found that the EC had wrongly based its injury analysis on differentgroups of Community producers.
(24) It is to be noted that the Panel report is not relevant in this respect. Indeed, the
Panel report ruled on a case where sampling methodology was applied. In this
                                                
3 World Trade Organisation, EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON
IMPORTS OF COTTON-TYPE BED LINEN FROM INDIA, Report of the Panel, WT/DS141/R,30 October 2000
7context, contrary to what the complainant claims, the Panel report concluded
that producers which are not part of the Community industry should not betaken into consideration for the purpose of assessing the situation of thedomestic industry of the importing country. Considering that Philips withdrewfrom the complaint after the initiation of the proceeding and that it stoppedmanufacturing CFL-i in the Community shortly after the IP, it could no longerbe considered as part of the Community industry in accordance with Art. 4(1)and 5(4) of the Basic Regulation. Therefore, the claim had to be rejected.
(25) Several interested parties reiterated the argument that companies constituting
the Community industry were themselves importing the product concernedfrom the PRC and should therefore not be part of the Community industry. Itwas also alleged that imports of CFL-i by the complainants accounted for atleast 10% of total imports into the Community from the PRC during the IP.
(26) The further investigation confirmed that, during the IP, on average 14.6% of
the total sales of CFL-i by the Community producers originated in the countryconcerned. However, these trading activities did not affect their status asCommunity producers since the primary activity of the latter producersremained in the Community and their trading activity is explained by the needto complete the product range so as to be able to satisfy demand, as well as bythe attempt to defend themselves against low priced imports due to dumping.As to the claim that during the IP the complainants accounted for at least 10%of total imports into the Community from the PRC, it should be noted that,firstly, the claim was not substantiated and, secondly, that the investigationshowed in fact that these imports accounted for a much lower percentage. Theclaims were therefore rejected and the findings set out in recitals 51 to 53 ofthe provisional Regulation are confirmed.
,PSRUWVIURPWKH35&
8QGHUFXWWLQJ
(27) As regards the price undercutting margins, some exporting producers claimed
that the Community industry prices used for the calculations were inconsistentbecause, in some cases, Community prices for CFL-i with a certain wattagewere higher than the prices for CFL-i with a higher wattage, while they shouldhave been lower.
(28) In this respect, it is confirmed that in some cases the Community industry sold
CFL-i with a certain wattage at prices which were higher than the ones ofCFL-i having a higher wattage. However, the same holds true for CFL-iproduced by the exporting producers that submitted this argument. Obviously,prices do not only depend on the wattage but also on other factors such as, forinstance, the unit production costs that can widely vary, depending, LQWHUDOLD,
on the number of pieces produced per type of CFL-i, or the quantity sold.
(29) One interested party submitted that retail prices in the Community remained
almost stable between 1996 and the IP while, in the same period, import pricesdecreased. It was alleged that, as a consequence, the price undercutting margin
8calculations were misleading since they were based on the import prices which
do not reflect the situation of the market.
(30) In this respect it should be recalled that price undercutting margins are usually
established by comparing the exporting producers' prices, adjusted to a CIFlevel, and the actual ex-works Community industry's prices to the firstindependent customer, at the same level of trade. In the current case, sinceboth the exporting producers and the Community industry sold to the samecategories of customers during the IP, no adjustments were needed to comparethose prices at the same level of trade. In addition, a comparison based onactually charged retail prices would not have reflected the pricing behaviour ofthe exporting producers in relation to that of the Community industry, butrather that of distributors and retailers of CFL-i of all origins in theCommunity.
(31) Before the above background, price undercutting margins were reviewed and
amended on the basis of the revised export prices, as explained above, and ofthe correction of an error that occurred in the currency used for one exportingproducer. The revised weighted average price undercutting margins expressedas a percentage of the Community industry's prices are as follows:
&RXQWU\35& 3ULFH8QGHUFXWWLQJ
Undercutting margins of co-operating
exporting producersBetween 13.7% and 45.1%
6LWXDWLRQRIWKH&RPPXQLW\LQGXVWU\
(32) In the absence of new evidence, the provisional findings as set out in recitals
64 to 83 of the provisional Regulation, i.e. that the Community industry hassuffered material injury during the IP, are confirmed.
&DXVDWLRQ
(33) One interested party claimed that, contrary to what is stated in recital 90 of the
provisional Regulation, the prices of products originating in Poland were at thesame level or were even lower than the prices of imports originating in thePRC, during the IP.
(34) In this respect, the prices of the imports originating in Poland were established
on the basis of Eurostat data in terms of import prices per unit, as it has beendone for imports originating in the PRC, and not, as done by the partysubmitting the claim, in terms of import prices per tonne. The claim wastherefore rejected.
(35) In the absence of any new evidence, the findings on causation set out in
recitals 84 to 99 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed, i.e. that thedumped imports caused the material injury suffered by the Communityindustry.
&RPPXQLW\LQWHUHVW
9(36) Some interested parties argued that anti-dumping measures would increase
import prices from the country concerned, with a significant impact on thefinancial situation of importers of CFL-i in the Community.
(37) As to the increase of the import prices in the Community market, it appears
unlikely that average prices will increase significantly, in view of the low levelof duties for certain Chinese exporting producers and in particular the fact thatfor the largest known exporter, in terms of export volume, no duty is imposed.Nevertheless, even with possible import price increases, measures are stilljustified, as they will re-establish fair competition in the Community market.In addition, it is unlikely that imports will decrease significantly, given thateven if cost increases are passed on to consumers, the latter still have a strongeconomic incentive to purchase energy saving lamps. As to the effect of theimposition of anti-dumping duties on the importers' financial situation, it isconfirmed, in the absence of new evidence, that, although a negative impactcannot be excluded for those importers whose business is very muchdominated by CFL-i, the financial situation of importers dealing with a widerange of other products or trading exclusively with an exporting producer forwhom no duties are imposed, will not be significantly affected by the duties.The provisional findings summarised in recitals 106 to 109 of the provisionalRegulation are thus confirmed.
(38) Some interested parties argued that the duties would substantially increase
retail prices, thus having a negative impact on consumers.
(39) In this respect, any possible increase will indeed depend on several factors,
e.g. the market behaviour of the Chinese exporting producers, the ability ofimporters to pass on any increases in import prices to retailers or consumersand the extent to which the import trade pattern changes due to the fact thatthere are some Chinese exporting producers with low duties or with no duty atall.
(40) One importer claimed that national users’ and consumers' associations should
have been contacted by the Commission in order to evaluate the Communityinterest in the measures.
(41) In this respect it should be recalled that, according to Article 21(2) of the Basic
Regulation, it is for the interested parties to make themselves known and toprovide their submissions to the Commission. Nevertheless, in the current casethe Commission had contacted the European consumers' organisation (BEUC)which is the representative of 32 independent national consumer organisationsin Europe. Following publication of the provisional Regulation, the EuropeanProperty Federation (EPF), which represents the industry managing, LQWHUDOLD,
the lighting in residential and commercial buildings, came forward andsubmitted that the price is the main criterion for users when choosing theirsource of supply of CFL-i. However, no specific information was provided byEPF as to how the duties would influence retail prices and consequently theusers’ and consumers’ behaviour.
(42) Several interested parties submitted that anti-dumping duties are contrary to
Community energy saving policies, as they would result in the increase of the
10retail prices for consumers and thus reduce the sales of energy saving lamps
(CFL-i).
(43) In this respect, the Community industry cannot be expected to bear the costs of
the Community energy saving policies through suffering from unfair tradepractices. In addition, it should be considered that, on average, CFL-i, ascompared to incandescent lamps, consume 20% of the energy and last 5 timeslonger as compared to an incandescent lamp, which consequently gives CFL-ia considerable cost advantage. Thus, even in the event of moderate priceincreases there will still be a strong economic incentive for consumers to buyCFL-i.
(44) Some interested parties argued that the imposition of anti-dumping measures
would be against the Community interest on the grounds that competition wasimpeded due to an exchange of information on price. This anti-competitiveeffect would be exacerbated by the disappearance of Chinese CFL-i from theCommunity market.
(45) The investigation showed that, while there was a decision by a national
competition authority relating to the exchange of price information betweenCommunity producers, this decision did not relate to the product concerned.As to the product concerned, no evidence of illegal competitive practicesbetween Community producers was found. Furthermore, the Commission isnot aware of any competition problems pertaining to the product concerned onthe Community market. Finally, given the level of the duties for certainChinese exporting producers, it is likely that a significant number of Chinesecompetitors will remain active on the Community market and alternativesources of supply from the Community producers and other third countrieswith no duties, particularly Poland and Hungary with a market share of around15% in the IP, will remain available.
(46) On the basis of the above, the findings set out in recitals 100 to 118 of the
provisional Regulation are confirmed, i.e. there are no compelling reasons onthe grounds of Community interest against the imposition of anti-dumpingduties.
)$17,’803,1*0($685(6
,QMXU\HOLPLQDWLRQOHYHO
(47) In accordance with Article 9(4) of the Basic Regulation, the anti-dumping duty
should correspond to the dumping margin unless the injury margin is lower.For the purposes of establishing the level of measures to be definitivelyimposed, an injury elimination level has been established.
(48) One exporting producer claimed that the profit margin of 8% used to calculate
the non-injurious Community industry price was too high, as a decline of theprofit margins was normal, in view of the conditions of a market whichbecomes more mature 
11(49) It should be noted, firstly, that the market of CFL-i is expanding, consumption
having increased by 117% between 1996 and the IP, and therefore a decliningprofit does not appear to be justified in such circumstances. It should also berecalled that the Community industry reached a profitability level of around8% in 1997, the year after which the situation of the Community industrystarted to deteriorate, coinciding with the increase of the import volumes andthe decrease of the import prices from the PRC. Secondly, as stated in recital105 of the provisional Regulation, CFL-i are high-tech products whichnecessitate important R&D efforts. In order to stay competitive, it is necessaryto develop new, more sophisticated models on a continuous basis. Taking intoaccount the aforementioned factors, a profit margin of 8% appears to be onethat could reasonably be reached in the absence of injurious dumping.
(50) Given the above, the methodology used for establishing the injury elimination
level as described in recitals 121 and 122 of the provisional Regulation isconfirmed.
(51) As mentioned above in relation to price undercutting margins, injury margins
were also reviewed and amended.
)RUPDQGOHYHORIGHILQLWLYHPHDVXUHV
(52) In the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in accordance with Article
9(4) of the Basic Regulation, a definitive anti-dumping duty should beimposed at the level of the injury margin found for Philips & Yaming and atthe level of the dumping margins found for the remaining exporting producers.
(53) The individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation
were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation.Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that investigation withrespect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the country-wideduty applicable to ‘all other companies’) are thus exclusively applicable toimports of products originating in the country concerned and produced by thecompanies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported productsproduced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operativepart of this Regulation with its name and address, including entities related tothose specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall besubject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’.
(54) Any claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-
dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity orfollowing the setting up of new production or sales entities) should beaddressed to the Commission
4 forthwith with all relevant information, in
                                                
4European Commission
Directorate-General for TradeDirectorate BTERV 0/10
12particular any modification in the company's activities linked to production,
domestic and export sales associated with e.g. that name change or that changein the production and sales entities. The Commission, if appropriate, will, afterconsultation of the Advisory Committee, amend the Regulation accordingly byupdating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.
&ROOHFWLRQRISURYLVLRQDOGXWLHV
(55) In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and in the light of the
level of the injury caused to the Community industry, it is considerednecessary that the amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumpingduty, imposed by the provisional Regulation, i.e. Regulation (EC) No255/2001, should be definitively collected at the rate of the duty definitivelyimposed. In cases where the rate of the definitive duty imposed is higher thanthe rate of the provisional duty, only the amounts secured at the level of theprovisional duty should be definitively collected.
0RGLILFDWLRQRIWKHQDPHRIDFRPSDQ\VXEMHFWWRDQLQGLYLGXDODQWLGXPSLQJ
GXW\UDWH
(56) The provisional Regulation, i.e. Regulation (EC) No 255/2001, imposed an
individual duty rate of 35,4% to the exporting producer Zhejiang SunlightGroup Co., Ltd. This company has informed the Commission that it haschanged its name to Zhejiang Yankon Group Co., Ltd. The company has askedthe Commission to amend the Regulation to ensure that the change of namedoes not affect the right of the company to benefit from the individual dutyrate applied to that company under its previous name.
(57) The Commission has examined the information supplied, which demonstrates
that all the company’s activities linked to the manufacturing, sales and exportsof the product concerned are unaffected by the change of name. TheCommission therefore concludes that the change of name in no way affects thefindings of Council Regulation (EC) No 255/2001.
(58) Therefore the amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty
imposed by Regulation (EC) No 255/2001 in respect of goods manufacturedby Zhejiang Sunlight Group Co., Ltd. should be definitively collected at therate of the duty definitively imposed on goods manufactured by ZhejiangYankon Group Co., Ltd., and the Taric additional code A241 previouslyattributed to Zhejiang Sunlight Group Co., Ltd., shall apply to ZhejiangYankon Group Co., Ltd.
                                                                                                                                           
Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200
B-1049 Brussels / Belgium
13HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
$UWLFOH
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of electronic compact
fluorescent discharge lamps with one or more glass tubes, with all lighting elementsand electronic components fixed to the lamp foot or integrated in the lamp foot,falling within CN code ex 8539 31 90 (TARIC code 8539 31 9091), and originating inthe People’s Republic of China.
2. The rate of duty applicable to the net free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty,
for products produced by the following manufacturers shall be as follows:
0DQXIDFWXUHU 5DWHRIGXW\
7DULF
DGGLWLRQDOFRGH
Changzhou Hailong Electronics & LightFixtures Co., Ltd.Luoyang, Changzhou, JiangsuChangzhou 213104People’s Republic of China59.5 A234
City Bright Lighting (Shenzhen) Ltd.
ShenzhenPeople’s Republic of China17.1 A235
Deluxe Well Enterprises Ltd.
Block 17-18, Hong Qiao Tao Industrial Zone,Bao An Yuan,ShenzhenPeople’s Republic of China37.1 A236
Lisheng Electronic & Lighting (Xiamen) Co.,
Ltd. XiamenPeople’s Republic of China0.0 A237
Philips & Yaming Lighting Co., Ltd.
1805 Hu Yi Highway,Malu Jia Ding District,Shanghai 201801People’s Republic of China32.3 A238
Sanex Electronics Co., Ltd.
Xin Su Industrial Area, JiangsuSuzhou 215001People’s Republic of China20.2 A239
Shenzhen Zuoming Electronic Co. Ltd.,
Shenzhen, GuangdongPeople’s Republic of China8.4 A240
Zhejiang Yankon Group Co., Ltd. (previously
known as Zhejiang Sunlight Group Co., Ltd.).129 Fengshan Road, ZhejiangShangyu 213104People’s Republic of China35.3 A241
All other companies 66.1 A999
143. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall
apply.
$UWLFOH
1. The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant to
Regulation (EC) No 255/2001 on imports of electronic compact fluorescent dischargelamps with one or more glass tubes, with all lighting elements and electroniccomponents fixed to the lamp foot or integrated in the lamp foot originating in thePeople’s Republic of China shall be collected at the rate of the duty definitivelyimposed. The amounts secured by way of provisional duties pursuant to Regulation(EC) No 255/2001 on imports manufactured by Zhejiang Sunlight Group Co., Ltd.shall be collected at the rate of duty definitively imposed on imports manufactured byZhejiang Yankon Group Co., Ltd. (TARIC additional code A241).
2. Amounts secured in excess of the rate of definitive anti-dumping duty shall be
released. In cases where the rate of the definitive duty imposed is higher than the rateof the provisional duty, only the amounts secured at the level of the provisional dutyshould be definitively collected.
$UWLFOH
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 CouncilThe President