WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2252/96 by Elly PLOOIJ-VAN GORSEL to the Commission. Imports of non-refillable lighters
Date: 1996-08-09
Institutions: European Parliament, PLOOIJ-VAN GORSEL
Subjects: Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan, anti-dumping duty, customs fraud, customs regulations, import, manufactured goods













EUR-Lex - 91996E2252 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2252

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2252/96 by Elly PLOOIJ-VAN GORSEL to the Commission. Imports of non-refillable lighters  


Official Journal C 365 , 04/12/1996 P. 0099 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2252/96 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission (9 August 1996)Subject: Imports of non-refillable lighters1. What is the reason for the enormous increase in imports into the EU of non-refillable gas lighters from Taiwan, Macao and Hong Kong? Does this increase reflect a (corresponding) increase in production in those three countries?2. Are there systematic checks on the stated origin of these goods - from countries which are all near China - and when will the Commission initiate an anti-dumping procedure in respect of these countries?3. If the Commission itself does not take the initiative, what EU policy justifies such a selective approach towards the imposing of anti-dumping duties?4. Has the Commission conducted an independent inquiry into the total consumption of non-refillable gas lighters in the EU, so that a comparison can be made between production within the EU, exports from the EU and imports into the EU in order to establish and check whether smuggling is taking place to avoid the anti-dumping measures?Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1996)1. The Commission does not have the necessary information to answer the Honourable Member's question regarding the reasons for the increase in imports of non-refillable lighters from Taiwan, Macao and Hong Kong and those countries' production capacities.2. The detailed check on the origin of goods imported from non-EU countries, which falls within the remit of the Member States' customs authorities, is not carried out systematically, according to the information available to the Commission, the aim being both to ensure that the checks are effective and also to avoid creating barriers to trade.The Commission does not consider that it has the data on the basis of which it might examine the possibility of using its right of initiative in launching anti-dumping proceedings.It should be borne in mind that the right of complaint which Community legislation accords the Community industry concerned presents certain guarantees which the Commission would find it difficult to provide. Under the Community's international commitments, an anti-dumping proceeding may be initiated only if sufficient proof has been obtained regarding not only dumping practices but also the resulting injury to the Community industry. The Community industry itself has essential information which the Commission generally lacks.3. The Commission is always anxious to prevent anti-dumping proceedings from being selective and makes sure, before launching investigations, that the complaints are non-discriminatory.4. The anti-fraud units, irrespective of whether they are answerable to the Commission or the Member States' authorities, usually carry out studies, cross-checks or surveys the effectiveness of which depends largely on the discretion with which they are conducted. The Honourable Member will understand, therefore, that in such a delicate area the Commission cannot go into the details referred to in his question.