WRITTEN QUESTION E-2319/01

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Duty on energy-saving light bulbs from China

The Commission has imposed an anti-dumping duty on the import of cheap energy-saving light bulbs from China. These light bulbs use extremely low amounts of energy and would therefore have a significant impact on the Community's climate and energy policies. The duty penalises European consumers and may mean that new power stations will need to be built as the unnaturally high prices oblige consumers to buy inefficient light bulbs rather than the energy-saving variety.

Is the Commission aware of how this duty is undermining the chances of meeting the targets set in the Kyoto agreement on the climate, and is this duty compatible with the desire to achieve energy efficiency, sustainable production and consumption? Does the Commission intend to remove this anti-dumping duty, and if so, when?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2001)

By Council Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 of 16 July 2001 imposing a definitive antidumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People's Republic of China(1), the Council, following a proposal by the Commission, imposed definitive anti-dumping duties, ranging from 0 to 66,1 %, on imports of energy saving lamps originating in the People's Republic of China.

The Commission fully supports the aims and objectives set in the Kyoto Agreement. However, anti-dumping measures are taken in order to counteract unfair trade practices which are actionable both in terms of World Trade Organisation (WTO) and Community legislation. In the present case, the investigation showed the existence of injurious dumping by Chinese exporting producers.

The anti-dumping instrument, in conformity with the relevant WTO Agreement, is intended to combat unfair trade practices. As such, it is a part of the Community's trade policy and cannot be a means to achieve other Community policy objectives. Therefore, the Community industry producing energy saving lamps cannot be expected to bear the costs of the Community's energy and environmental policies through suffering from unfair trade practices.

In this context, the Honourable Member's attention is drawn to the fact that the Commission's investigation did include an extensive evaluation of allegations made by interested parties, viz. that anti-dumping duties are contrary to Community energy saving policies, as they could result in increases of the retail prices for consumers and thus reduce the sales volume of energy saving lamps.

However, it was established in the investigation that any possible price increases following the imposition of the measures may depend on several factors, e.g. the pricing behaviour of the Chinese exporting producers, the ability of importers to pass on any increases in import prices to retailers and the extent to which the import trade pattern will change due to the fact that there are some Chinese exporting producers with relatively low duties and that no duty was imposed on imports of the largest known Chinese exporting producer, as this latter producer was found not to have dumped its products on the Community market. Before this background, it was concluded that the measures are very unlikely to lead to a shortage of supply, and that consumers will continue to have access to cost advantageous energy saving lamps.

Given the above, the Commission concluded that it was not against the interest of the Community to impose anti-dumping measures on energy saving lamps, thus eliminating unfair competition. The Commission therefore sees no reason to propose a change to or withdrawal of the duties.

(1) OJ L 195, 19.7.2001.