Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of leather handbags originating in the People's Republic of China and collecting definitively the corresponding provisional anti-dumping duty and terminating the proceeding concerning imports of plastic and textile handbags originating in the People's Republic of China
Date: 1997-07-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, dumping, import, personal effects

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels,  02.07.1997 
COM(97)  348  final 

Proposal  for  a 

COUNCIL  REGULATION  (EC) 

imposing  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  leather  handbags 

originating  in the  People's  Republic  of  China  and collecting  definitively 

the  corresponding  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  and  terminating  the 

proceeding concerning imports of ptastic and textile handbags originating 

in the People's Republic of China 

(presented  by  the  Commission) 

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

Subject: 

Anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of handbags 

originating in the People's Republic of China 

1.  Please  find  enclosed  a  proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  imposing 

definitive  anti-dumping  measures  concerning 

imports  of 

leather 

handbags originating in the People's Republic of China and terminating 

the proceeding concerning imports of plastic and textile handbags. 

2.  The  anti-dumping  proceeding  was  initiated  at  the  request  of  the 

Community  industry  (CEDIM)  and  opened  by  the  Commission  in May 

1996. The product covered was handbags made of leather,  plastic and 

textile, as forming one product under consideration. 

3.  Provisional anti-dumping measures on the product  under  consideration 

were  imposed by the  Commission  in  February  1997,  after  it  had been 

determined that dumped imports of handbags originating in the People's 

Republic of China had caused material injury to the Community industry. 

4.  Further to the  investigation of the Commission's  services,  it was found 

that  the  there  are  two  different  products  under  consideration:  leather 

handbags  on  the  one  hand  and  plastic  and  textile  handbags  on  the 

other.  For each one of the products separately,  it was determined that 

the  Community  industry  had  suffered  material  injury  as  a  result  of 

dumped  imports  of  respectively  handbags  of  leather  and  handbags  of 

plastic and textile originating in the People's Republic of China. 

CL 

The  Commission's  services  found  that  while  the  Community  interest 

calls  for  intervention  with  respect  to  leather  handbags,  there  are 

compelling  reasons  not  to  impose  definitive  anti-dumping  duties  with 

respect  to  imports  of  plastic  and  textile  handbags  originating  in  the 

People's Republic of China. 

Given  the  above  findings,  it  is  considered  that  definitive  anti-dumping 

measures should be imposed concerning leather handbags and that the 

prpceeding  should  be  terminated  without  the  imposition  of  definitive 

anti-dumping measures for what concerns plastic and textile handbags. 

\b 

1c 

Council Regulation (EC) No 

/97 

of 

imposing  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  leather  handbags 

originating 

in  the  People's  Republic  of  China  and  collecting  definitively 

the  corresponding  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  and  terminating  the 

proceeding  concerning  imports  of  plastic  and textile  handbags  originating 

in the People's Republic of China 

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, and in particular Articles 9(2), 9(4) and10(2)  thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal presented by the Commission after consulting the 

Advisory  Committee, 

Whereas: 

1  O J N o L 5 6,  6.3.1996, p. 1 

A. 

PROVISIONAL  MEASURES 

(1)  By Regulation  (EC)  No 209/972 the Commission  imposed a  provisional 

anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  into  the  Community  of  handbags 

originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China  and  falling  within  CN 

codes  4202  21  00  (leather),  4202  22  10  (plastic)  and  4202  22  90 

(textiles). 

B. 

SUBSEQUENT  PROCEDURE 

(2)  Subsequent  to the  imposition of the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty,  the 

interested  parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to  be 

heard  by  the  Commission.  A  number  of  these  parties  also  made 

written submissions making their views on the findings known. 

(3)  The  Commission's  services 

investigated  further 

aspects  of  the 

Community  interest  and  sought  and  verified  all  information  deemed 

necessary for the definitive findings. Due to the large number of  parties 

which  made  themselves  known  well  after  the  expiry  of  the  deadline 

and  the  arguments  raised  by  interested  parties  at  a  very  advanced 

stage  of  the  investigation  and  immediately  after  the  imposition  of 

provisional  measures,  the  Commission  exceptionally  accepted  to 

include  these  parties  in  the  investigation 

regarding  Community 

interest. 

2  O J N o L 3 3,  4.2.1997, p.11, 

(4)  Upon  request  parties  were  informed  in  writing  of  the  essential  facts 

and  considerations  on  the  basis  of  which 

it  was 

intended 

to 

recommend  both  the  imposition  of  definitive  duties  and  the  definitive 

collection  of  the  amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  duty  with 

respect  to  leather  handbags,  and  further  to  terminate  the  proceeding 

with respect to plastic and textile handbags. 

(5)  The  oral  and  written  comments  presented  by  the  parties  were 

considered,  and,  where  appropriate,  the  Commission's  findings  were 

modified to take account of them. 

C.  Support for the complaint 

(6)  Some  interested  parties  have  claimed  that  the  complaint  did  not 

receive  support from a major proportion  of total Community  production 

because  there  was  no  evidence  that  individual  producers  accounting 

for  a  major  proportion  gave  such  support.  They  also  pointed  out  that 

the  opposition  of  several  National  Associations  affects 

the 

representativity  of the complainant. 

(7)  After  examination  prior  to  the  initiation  of  the  proceeding,  it  was 

determined that the National Associations  of Belgium, France, Greece, 

Italy,  Portugal,  Spain  and  United  Kingdom  supported  the  complaint. 

The  production  of  their  associated  members  accounts  for  a  major 

proportion  (around  70%)  of  total  Community  production  under  the 

terms of Article 5 (4) of Council Regulation  (EC) No 384/96  (hereinafter 

referred to as "the basic regulation"). 

(8)  The  support  of  the  members  of  the  National  Associations  (i.e.  the 

, 

individual  companies)  was  obtained  by  CEDIM  through  the  above-

mentioned  National  Associations,  which  have  the  legal  capacity  to 

represent their members. 

(9)  No  opposition  was  registered  prior  to  initiation  of  the  investigation  as 

three  other  National  Association  members  of  CEDIM 

(Austria, 

Germany  and  The  Netherlands)  agreed  within  CEDIM  not  to  oppose 

the  complaint.  Finally,  no  company  or  National  Association  from  the 

remaining  five  other  Member  States  (Denmark,  Finland,  Ireland, 

Luxembourg and Sweden) expressed opposition to the complaint. 

(10)  Subsequent  to  the  initiation  of  the  proceeding, the  British  Association 

decided  to  withdraw  its  support.  The  Austrian,  German  and  Dutch 

Associations,  which  initially  abstained,  also  decided  to  oppose  the 

proceeding.  This  change  in  position  -cannot  throw 

into  question 

retrospectively  the validity  of the  initiation of the  proceeding. Given the 

low  production  in  these  countries  (less  than  7%  of  total  Community 

production)  such opposition does not put into question the fact that the 

complainant  continues 

to  represent  a  major  proportion  of 

total 

Community production. 

(11)  Finally,  almost  all  companies  which  expressed  opposition  to  the 

proceeding  are  importers  and  retailers  of  handbags,  which  are  not 

producing 

the  product  concerned.  Their  opposition 

is 

therefore 

irrelevant for evaluating the representativity  of the complaint. 

(12)  It  can  therefore  be  concluded  that,  prior  to  the  initiation  of  the 

proceeding, 

the  Commission  sought  and  obtained, 

from 

the 

complainant,  evidence  that  it fulfilled the  requirement  of  Article  5(4)  of 

the  basic  regulation  with  regard  to  representativity  and  that  the 

required degree of support was maintained Throughout the proceeding. 

D. 

Investigation 

(13)  Some  interested  parties  have  claimed  that  the  sample  of  Community 

producers  as  described  in  recital  5  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  209/97  is 

neither  representative  nor  statistically  valid  because  the  sampled 

companies  were  selected from a separate  list of companies  submitted 

by the  respective  National  Associations  and  not from the  membership 

lists used to assess the representativity of the complaint. These  parties 

claim  that  the  National  Associations  were  thus  allowed  to  pre-select 

either  only  Community  producers  who  supported  the  complaint,  or 

those  whose  financial  indicators  facilitated  findings  of  injury  or  those 

willing to cooperate. 

(14)  The  sample  of  Community  producers  was  based  on  detailed 

information  previously  not  available  to  the  National  Associations  with 

that  degree  of  detail  or  for  the  period  in  question.  Therefore,  it  is 

considered  that  a  valid  sample  of  Community  producers  could  not 

have  been  selected  on  the  basis  of  the  list  of  members  submitted  by 

the National Associations as the basis for the complaint. 

(15)  The  argument  that  the  National  Associations  could  have  pre-selected 

those  Community  producers  whose  indicators  facilitated  findings  of 

injury  is  also  incorrect.  Indeed, it should  be  recalled that  general  data 

concerning  production, sales, consumption  and employment  has  been 

assessed  at  total  Community  industry  level  where  no  pre-selection  is 

possible. As far as data concerning the sampled Community  producers 

is  concerned,  this  information  is  of  such  a  detailed  and  confidential 

nature  that  it  is  not  normally  submitted  to  the  National  Associations 

and  therefore  leaves  no  scope  for  any  pre-selection  by  any  National 

Associations. Thus, this argument should also be rejected. 

(16)  Some  parties  have  also  argued that  the  non  disclosure  of the  identity 

of the  sampled  Community  producers  has  resulted  in a  denial  of  their 

right of defence. 

(17)  The  threat  of  commercial  retaliation  is  considered  to  be  a  serious 

commercial  pressure justifying  the non disclosure  of the  identity  of  the 

Community  producers.  Moreover,  it  is  not  considered  that  the  lack  of 

knowledge  of  the 

identity  of  the  sample  Community  producers 

hampers the rights of defence of interested parties who have access to 

the  non-confidential  versions  of  the  responses  to  the  questionnaires 

submitted by other interested parties during the proceeding. 

(18)  One 

interested  party  has  claimed  that  the  sample  of  unrelated 

importers  is  distorted  by  the  fact  that  only  large  unrelated  importers 

have  been  sampled.  Due  to  their  bargaining  power  these  importers 

tend to  import  at  lower  prices which  has  resulted  in a  distortion  in  the 

dumping margins found. 

(19)  This  allegation 

is  unfounded;  unrelated  importers  were  sampled 

according  to their volume  of  imports  and  employment,  to  reflect  large, 

medium and small importers. 

The names of the sampled unrelated importers in France in recital (10) 

of  Regulation  (EC)  No 209/97 should  be amended  as follows:  instead 

of  Dane  et  Galliay,  it  should  read  Pollyconcept.  This  does  not  affect 

the  validity  of  the  findings  of  the  Commission  since  the  data  of  the 

latter has been used consistently. 

8 

(20)  Subsequent 

to 

the 

imposition  of 

the  provisional  anti-dumping 

measures,  a  producer/exporter  (Gebr.  Picard  International  Ltd.)  was 

sent  on  its  request  an  exporters'  questionnaire  and  it  submitted  a 

complete  reply. This producer/exporter  had not been investigated  prior 

to  Regulation  (EC)  No 209/97  as  it  had  initially  focused  on  its  role  as 

an  importer,  and  not  as  a  related  exporter,  although  it  had  as  such 

manifested itself within the time limits established in paragraph 7 of the 

Notice of Initiation. 

(21)  A  large  number  of  producers/exporters  manifested  themselves  and 

offered to co-operate  immediately  before or following the publication of 

Regulation  (EC)  No 209/97, i.e. well  beyond  the time  limit  established 

in  paragraph  7  of  the  Notice  of 

Initiation.  Accordingly,  these 

companies  have  not  been  considered  to  be  interested  parties  in  the 

proceeding  and  their  requests  for  individual  treatment  have  been 

dismissed as being inadmissible on these grounds. 

E. 

PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION - LIKE  PRODUCT 

1. 

Product under  consideration 

(22)  For 

the  purpose  of 

the  preliminary 

findings, 

the  Commission 

considered  leather,  plastic  and  textile  handbags  to  be  one  product, 

given  the  fact  that  they  were  considered  to  possess  the  same 

characteristics and be intended for the same use. 

(23)  After the  imposition  of  provisional  measures, several interested  parties 

claimed  that  a  distinction  should  be  made  between  leather  handbags 

on the one hand and synthetic handbags (plastic/textile)  on the other. 

Some  parties  have  also  claimed  that  a  distinction  should  further  be 

made  between 

leather  handbags,  patch 

leather  handbags  and 

polyurethane  (PU) coated split leather  handbags  in view of the  alleged 

differences  in style, quality, finish, use, price and consumer  perception 

differences. 

(24)  It should be recalled that  it is the standard  practice of the Commission, 

as confirmed  by the  European  Court of Justice, that the  product  under 

consideration  be defined according to its basic physical characteristics, 

use, interchangeability  and consumer perception. 

10 

(25)  In this  respect,  the  investigation  has  shown  that  the  different  types  of 

raw  materials  used  in  the  manufacture  of  leather  and  synthetic 

handbags  confer  on 

the  product  distinctly  different  physical 

characteristics. 

While  their  general  use  is  the  same,  it  has  now  been  found  that  the 

consumer  has  a  clearly  different  perception  of  leather  handbags  and 

synthetic  handbags  respectively,  consumer  choice  being  governed 

mainly by the type of external raw material of the handbag. 

(26)  The  investigation  has  also  shown  that  in  the  handbag  market  stable 

consumer  preferences  exist.  Therefore,  the  interchangeability  of  the 

two types  of  handbags  is almost  non-existent,  except to  a very  limited 

extent  in the sector of  leather-look  plastic  handbags. This  has  allowed 

a  notable  price  differential  between  leather  handbags  and  synthetic 

handbags,  resulting  in  two  different  market  segments,  separated  by 

clear  dividing 

lines  between  which 

it 

is  not  considered 

that 

interchangeability  can take place to a significant degree. 

(27)  Therefore  and  in  accordance  with  the  well-established  practice  of  the 

institutions  concerning  the  product  definition,  leather  and  synthetic 

handbags are to be considered different  products. 

11 

2. 

Like product 

(28)  Several  parties  have  argued  that  the  leather  handbags  manufactured 

in  the  Community  and  those  imported  from  the  People's  Republic  of 

China  are  not  like  products  in  the  sense  of  Article  1(4)  of  the  basic 

regulation due to the differences  in quality, design and use. It has  also 

been  argued  that  the  differences  in  quality  between  the  imported 

handbags  and  those  manufactured  in  the  Community  are  such  that 

both products are not in competition. 

(29)  The  investigation  has  further  shown  that,  within  each  one  of  the  two 

products  under  consideration  (leather  handbags/synthetic  handbags) 

imported  handbags  cover the full  range  of types, from  higher  to  lower 

quality,  and  as  such  are  in direct  competition  with  the  entire  range  of 

the  Community  production.  These  findings  are  supported  by  the 

information  supplied  on  this  issue  by  several  cooperating  importing-

Community  producers  on  this  issue  showing  that  the  handbags 

manufactured  in the Community  and those  imported from the  People's 

Republic of China do not have quality differences, both items belong to 

the  same  collections  and  are  sold  to  the  same  customers.  Therefore, 

across  the  range  there  are  no  quality  differences  for  comparable 

models. 

(30)  Concerning  differences  in  design,  it  cannot  be  concluded  that  these 

would  be  such  as to  constitute  a different  like  product.  In this  respect, 

some  importers  have  even  acknowledged  that  they  design  their 

handbags  in the Community, following the fashion of the  season, as is 

the 

case 

with 

Community 

manufacturers. 

12 

F.  DUMPING 

1. 

Normal value 

(31)  As  to  the  selection  of  the  analogue  country,  one  importer  alleged  that 

neither  the  Regulation  (EC)  No  209/97  nor  the  disclosure  documents 

sufficiently  explained  why  India  or  Taiwan  were  not  selected  as 

analogue  countries.  The Council considers  however that  recitals 24 to 

26 of  Regulation  (EC) No 209/97 are sufficiently  precise on this point. , 

(32)  Several  interested  parties  have  requested  that  the  names  of  the  two 

co-operating  Indonesian  companies  be  disclosed  alleging  that  this 

would  be necessary to exercise their  rights of defence effectively.  The 

Council,  however,  does  not consider  it  possible to  disclose  the  names 

of these companies  as the co-operation  of these companies  could only 

be  secured  provided  a strict  guarantee  of  confidential  treatment  of  the 

identity  of  the  companies  was  given  by  the  Commission. 

In  addition, 

supplying  the  actual  names  of  the  companies  involved  would  not  add 

to  the  rights  of  defence  of these  interested  parties.  In this  regard, the 

essential  economic  facts  characterising  the  situation  of  these  two 

exporters  have  been  set  out  in  recitals  28  and  29  of  Regulation  (EC) 

No 209/97. 

13 

(33)  In view  of the fact that  leather handbags and synthetic  handbags  have 

been considered to be different  products, separate  normal values were 

constructed  for  leather  and  synthetic  handbags,  in  accordance  with 

Article  2  (7)  of  the  basic  regulation,  on  the  basis  of  the  cost  of 

production  for  these  two  products  of  the  two  co-operating  Indonesian 

producers, to which a reasonable amount for profit and selling, general 

and administrative costs ("SGA")  was added.  The findings  in recital 28 

(fourth  indent)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 209/97 on the  representativity  of 

the  two  Indonesian  producers  are  confirmed  in  respect  of  both  like 

products. 

(34)  It  has  been  alleged  that  the  cost  of  production  of  the  co-operating 

Indonesian  producers  should  be adjusted to take  into  account  the  fact 

that  the  Chinese  exporters  predominantly  import  raw  materials  under 

inward  processing  relief  procedures.  In this respect, it should be  noted 

that,  the  raw  materials  for  both  like  products  used  by the  co-operating 

Indonesian  producers  were  found  to  be  of  non-Indonesian  origin  and 

imported  into  Indonesia  free  of  customs  duties  under  a  procedure  of 

inward  processing  relief. 

It  follows  that  the  procurement  patterns  in 

Indonesia  and in China are the same and that therefore  no  adjustment 

is warranted in this respect. 

(35)  It was  submitted  by one  exporter that the  percentage  of  SGA  used  by 

the  Commission  was  not  representative  of  the  SGA  incurred  by  the 

Chinese  exporters.  Accordingly,  the  SGA  has  been  reviewed  on  the 

basis  of  the  actual  SGA  incurred  by  the  Indonesian  exporters  of 

handbags  at the level of trade comparable to that of sales made by the 

Chinese exporters. 

14 

2. 

Export  price 

(36)  In view of the  low  level of co-operation  of Chinese  exporters  (including 

exports  of  Gebr.  Picard  International  Ltd)  in  this  proceeding,  which 

amounts  to  only  1,58%  of  all  exports  from  the  People's  Republic  of 

China,  the  export  prices  of  the  co-operating  exporters  could  not  be 

considered  representative  of the prices charged by exporters which did 

not co-operate. 

(37)  For  the  purpose  of  the  definitive  findings,  export  prices  of  the  co 

operating  companies  Shilton  and  Lee & Man  in  respect  of the two  like 

products  were  established  using  the  same  method  as  for 

the 

provisional  findings. 

In  respect  of  these  companies,  the  findings  set 

out in recitals 33 and 34 of Regulation (EC) No 209/97 are confirmed. 

(38)  The  third  co-operating  exporter  (Gebr.  Picard  International  Ltd),  not 

granted  individual treatment  by  Regulation  (EC)  No 209/97, was  found 

to  make  all of  its  exports  to the  EC via a  related company  established 

in the  Community; thus  its export  prices were constructed  on the  basis 

of  Article  2  (9)  of  the  basic  regulation  by  deducting  from  the  prices 

charged  by  the  related  importer  to  its  first  independent  customers  its 

SGA  and  a  profit  margin  based  on  the  average  profit  of  unrelated 

importers. 

(39)  Export  prices  of 

the  non-cooperating  Chinese  exporters  were 

established  as  explained  under  recital  32  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 

209/97.  This methodology  is herewith confirmed. 

15 

3. 

Comparison 

(40)  The  weighted  average  normal  value  FOB  Indonesia  for  each  of  the 

leather  and  synthetic  handbags  was  compared  with  the  weighted 

average  export  price  FOB  China  with  respect  to  each  of  the  two  like 

products  concerned.  For  the  purpose  of  ensuring  a  fair  comparison 

between  normal value  and the export  price, due  allowance  in the  form 

of adjustments was made in accordance with Article 2  (10) of the  basic 

regulation,  where  claims  were  made  and  satisfactory  evidence  was 

supplied  demonstrating 

that  such  differences  affected  price 

comparability. 

(41)  It was argued by one exporter that the comparison of normal value and 

export  price should be made in respect of every single  handbag  model 

or  catalogue  number  (commonly  referred  to  as  "style  number")  rather 

than  on  the  basis  of  averages  of  each  like  product.  The  Council 

considers  however 

that,  as  a  practical  matter,  a  comparison  at  this 

level  is  not  possible  in view  of  the  extreme  variety  of  model  numbers, 

each  having  different  physical  characteristics  and  combinations  of 

features  and accessories.  In addition, no objective  criteria  were  found 

to  exist  for  distinguishing  particular  categories  or  models  within  the 

respective  like  product;  for  similar  reasons,  it was  not  possible  for  the 

Commission  to compare  normal value  and export  price  on the  basis of 

categories  regrouping  model or catalogue  numbers.  It follows that  the 

only  reasonable  method  for  the  Commission  was  to  compare  normal 

value  and  export  price  in  respect  of  averages  for  each  of  the  two 

products concerned  (i.e. separately for leather  handbags  and  synthetic 

handbags). 

16 

4. 

Dumping  margins 

(42)  As 

indicated  above,  three  co-operating  producers/exporters  -  all 

privately-owned  companies  based 

in  Hong  Kong  with  handbag 

factories  in  China  -  presented  admissible  requests  for  individual 

treatment  i.e.  the  establishment  of  separate  export  prices  and thus  of 

individual dumping and injury margins. 

(43)  The findings  set  out  in  recitals 37 to 40 of  Regulation  (EC)  No 209/97, 

with  respect  to  the  two  companies  having  been  provisionally  granted 

individual treatment are confirmed. 

(44)  In  addition, 

the  claim 

for 

individual 

treatment  of  a 

third 

exporter/producer  (Gebr.  Picard  International  Ltd)  was  investigated.  It 

was  found  that  its  factual  situation  was  very  similar  to  that  of  the  two 

companies  having  been  provisionally  granted  individual  treatment  and 

described in recitals 38 and 39 of Regulation (EC)  No 209/97. 

17 

(45)  The  Council  considers  that the three  co-operating  companies  claiming 

individual treatment  enjoyed  a degree  of  genuine  independence  from 

the  public  Chinese  authorities  comparable  to  that  which  would  prevail 

in  a  market  economy  country,  and thus  that  the  risk  of  channelling  of 

exports  through  these  sources  with  individual  anti-dumping  duty  rates 

would  seem  to  be  very  limited.  Accordingly,  separate  export  prices 

and  individual  dumping  and  injury  margins  have  been  established  for 

the  three  exporters  concerned,  as  an  exception  to  the  principle  of 

calculating  country-wide  dumping  margins  in  respect  of  non-market 

economy  countries  (Article  9  (5)  of the  basic  regulation). 

It  should  be 

pointed  out  that  individual  treatment  is  granted  only  in  respect  of  the 

like  product  which  was  actually  produced  and  exported  to 

the 

Community  by the  exporter  concerned  during  the  investigation  period, 

i.e. 

leather  handbags 

in  respect  of  Shilton  and  Gebr.  Picard 

International  Ltd and synthetic handbags in respect of Lee & Man. 

(46)  The dumping  margins established for the companies  granted  individual 

treatment  have been established as follows: 

• 

• 

Shilton, in respect of leather handbags: nil 

Gebr.  Picard  International  Ltd,  in  respect  of  leather  handbags: 

7,7% 

• 

Lee & Man, in respect of synthetic handbags: 64,7 %. 

(47)  The  weighted  average  dumping  margin  for  the  exporters  not  granted 

individual treatment  has been established at: 

• 

• 

83,5% in respect of leather handbags, and 

151 % in respect of synthetic  handbags 

of the CIF export price Community frontier duty unpaid. 

18 

G. 

LEATHER  HANDBAGS 

(1) 

Injury 

1. 

Consumption  in the Community  market 

(48)  Between  1992 and the investigation period, the consumption  of  leather 

handbags  in the  Community  increased from  around  51  million  units  to 

52,3 million units, i.e. an increase of approximately 2,5%. 

2. 

Volume and market share of imports 

(49)  Between  1992  and  the 

investigation  period,  imports  of 

leather 

handbags originating  in the People's  Republic of China increased from 

8,2  million  units  to  10,4  million  units,  i.e.  by  27%. When  measured  in 

value, the  increase amounts to  15%, from  ECU 43,6  million  in  1992 to 

ECU 50 million in the investigation period. 

(50)  The  share  of  the  Community  market  taken  up  by  imports  of  leather 

handbags originating  in the People's  Republic  of China increased from 

16% in 1992 to 20% in the investigation period. 

19 

3. 

Prices of dumped imports and  undercutting 

(51).  As  already  mentioned  in  the  provisional  regulation,  due  to  the  non-

cooperation  by the Chinese exporters, official statistical  data  has  been 

used  for  the  analysis  of  the  price  evolution  of  imported  leather 

handbags.  Thus,  the  average  CI F  import  price  of  leather  handbags 

has decreased by 9%, from ECU 5,29 per unit in 1992 to  ECU 4,79  per 

unit in the investigation period. 

(52)  The calculation of the price undercutting has followed the  methodology 

used  in  Regulation  (EC)  No 209/97, that  is, the  CIF  imports  prices  of 

the  sampled  unrelated  importers,  adjusted  to  customer  deliver  level, 

were  compared  to  the  selling  prices  in  the  Community  of  those 

Community  producers  whose  production  comprised  the  most  baisc 

types sold, at the same level of trade 

(53)  When  expressed as a percentage of the Community  producers'  selling 

prices,  the  comparison  with  import  prices  of  unrelated  importers,  as 

recalculated following substantiated arguments submitted by  interested 

parties  after 

the 

imposition  of  provisional  measures,  show  an 

undercutting for leather handbags amounting to 31,4%. 

20 

4. 

Situation of the Community  industry 

(a)  Production 

(54)  Production  of  leather  handbags  by the  Community  industry  increased 

from  an estimated 26,5  million units in  1992 to 30,3 million  units  in the 

investigation  period.  When  measured  in  value,  production  increased 

from an estimated 905 million ECU in 1992 to  1.100 million  ECU in the 

investigation period, i.e. by  21%. 

(b) Sales  volume 

(55)  A decline  in sales volume in the Community of output manufactured  by 

the  Community  industry  between  1992  and  the  investigation  period 

has  been established. Indeed, sales decreased from around 21  million 

units  in  1992  to  20  million  units  in  the  investigation  period.  When 

measured  in value,  sales  decreased  by  around  8%,  from  around  600 

million  ECU in 1992 to 550 million ECU in the investigation period. 

(c)  Market  share 

(56)  The  share  of  the  Community  market  occupied  by  the  Community 

industry  when  measured  in units decreased from  around  4 1%  in  1992 

to around 39% during the investigation period. 

(d) Profitability  and employment 

21 

(57)  Following  Article • 3(8)  of  the  basic  regulation,  profitability  and 

employment  of  Community  producers  has  been  calculated  for  the 

narrowest  group of products for which  information  has  been  provided 

by the sampled Community producers, that is, handbags made of both 

leather and synthetics. 

The  revised weighted average  profitability shows a decline from 5,9% 

in 1992 to 1,3% during the investigation period. 

(58)  Employment  figures  in the  handbag  sector  as  extrapolated  from  the 

information  received  by  Community  producers  in  the  Community 

interest  analysis  show  that  employment  declined  from  about  18.600 

people  in  1992 to  14.000  people  in the  investigation  period, a drop of 

25%. 

22 

5.  Conclusion on injury 

(59)  The  economic  indicators  of  the  Community  industry  examined  in 

conjunction  with  the  conclusions  drawn  in  respect  of  the  volume  of 

imports  and their  prices show that the Community  producers'  situation 

has deteriorated between  1992 and the  investigation  period  in  respect 

of  leather  handbags.  As  has  been  demonstrated,  the  Community 

industry  as  a  whole  suffered  declining  sales  volume,  loss  of  market 

share, declining employment and declining  profitability. 

(60)  As  far  the  increase  in  production  is  concerned,  reference  is  made  to 

the 

fact 

that  exports  of 

the  Community  producers 

increased 

significantly. 

(61)  It is therefore the view of the Commission that the Community  industry 

has  suffered  injury, which  can  be  considered  as  material  within  the 

meaning of Article 3 of the basic regulation. 

23 

(2)  Causation 

1. 

Effects of the dumped  imports 

(62)  The  penetration  of  the  Community  market  by  imports  of  leather 

handbags from the People's Republic of China at dumped prices which 

significantly  undercut  the  prices  of  Community  producers  coincided 

with a loss of market share and a deterioration of the financial  situation 

of the  Community  industry.  Given the  increasing volume  of  low priced, 

dumped  handbags,  it  became  apparent  during  the  investigation  that 

many  Community  producers  were  unable  to  compete  against  the 

dumped imports. 

(63)  Moreover,  due  to  the  fact  that  competition  takes  place  across  the 

range and to the fact that the distribution system is shared by  products 

both  manufactured  in the  Community  and  imported  from  the  People's 

Republic of China, the high price differential  in the form of  undercutting 

is a direct cause of the injury suffered by the Community  industry. 

(64)  Accordingly,  it  is  considered  that  dumped  imports  from  the  People's 

Republic  of  China  had  a  negative  impact  on  the  situation  of  the 

Community  industry  to  a  degree  which  enables  it  to  be  classified  as 

material. 

24 

2. 

Effects of other factors 

(65)  Care  was taken to  ensure that  any  impact  on the  Community  industry 

caused by other factors was not attributed to the imports concerned. 

(66)  In  this  respect,  particular  reference  was  made  by  certain  interested 

parties to imports into the Community of handbags originating in India. 

Available  Eurostat  data  shows  that  the  volume  of  imports  of  leather 

handbags  from  India  has  remained  stable  between  1992  and  the 

investigation  period at around  5 million  units. As  regards  the  prices  of 

these  imports,  these  have  increased  from  around  8  ECU  in  1992  to 

around  9,2  ECU  in the  investigation  period, an  increase  of  15%,  well 

above  the  prices  of  Chinese  handbags.  The  share  of  volume  of  the 

Community  market  occupied  by  imports  of  handbags  from  India  has 

decreased by 4% from  1992 fo the investigation period. 

25 

(67)  As to imports of leather handbags from Hong Kong, when measured in 

units,  these  have  increased  from  around  400.000  units  in  1992  to 

around 750.000  units in the  investigation  period. With  respect to total 

imports  of  handbags  into  the  Community,  Hong  Kong  increased  its 

share of the volume of Community handbag imports from 1,9% in 1992 

to  3,3%  in  the  investigation  period.  However,  the  share  of  the 

Community  market  occupied  by  imports  of  handbags  originating  in 

Hong Kong has remained at relatively low levels, increasing from 0,6% 

in 1992 to 1,4% in volume in the investigation period. 

(68)  As to imports from other third countries, their share of total imports has 

decreased  from 32%  in  1992  to 30%  in the  investigation  period. The 

share  of  the  Community  market  occupied  by  these  imports  has 

decreased  from  12%  of  volume  in  1992  to  11%  in  the  investigation 

period. 

It should be noted that the Community market share of imports from all 

third  countries,  excluding  the  People's  Republic  of  China,  has 

remained  stable  from  1992  to the  investigation  period, at  23%,  when 

measured in units. 

26 

3.  Conclusion on causation 

(69)  Although  certain  other  factors  may  have  contributed  to  the  injury 

suffered  by  the  Community  industry,  taken  in  isolation,  the  high 

volumes  of dumped imports from the  People's  Republic  of China  have 

caused  material  injury  to  the  Community  industry.  This  conclusion  is 

based on the various elements set out above and in particular the level 

of price  undercutting, the market share gained by imports  of  handbags 

from  this  country,  at  the  expense  of  the  Community  industry,  and  the 

deterioration of the profitability of the Community producers. 

(3)  Community  Interest 

1.  General  considerations 

(70)  It  should  be  recalled  from  recitals  76  et  seq.  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 

209/97  that  an  appreciation  of  the  various  interests,  including  the 

interests  of  the  Community 

industry, 

importers,  distributors  and 

retailers  was  made,  and that  the  Commission  provisionally  concluded 

that  there  were  no  compelling  reasons  not  to  take  action  against  the 

imports  in  questions.  Furthermore,  the  Commission  undertook  to 

conduct  an  examination  of  certain  issues  concerning  Community 

interest which had not been sufficiently  substantiated  at the time of the 

provisional determination. 

27 

2. 

Impact on the Community  industry 

(a) 

Current situation of the industry 

(71)  The 

information,  received 

from 

the  50  Community  producers 

responding  to  the  questionnaire  on  Community  interest  addressed  to 

interested  parties  and  representing  around  20%  of  total  handbag 

Community  production,  shows 

that  a  major  proportion  of 

the 

production  in the Community  is of leather handbags.  In terms of value, 

93% of the total Community  production is of leather handbags. 

(72)  Substantial  creative value  is added to the product  in the Community  in 

the form of design, innovation  and quality. Community  producers  have 

a special know-how  in working the leather, which is the  result  of a long 

tradition  in this sector in the Community. 

(73)  The  share  of  the  Community  leather  handbag  market  held  by  the 

Community  industry  was  39% in the  investigation  period, a  sign  of  its 

economic  importance. 

(74)  The  viability  of  the  Community  industry  is  also  evident  from  its 

performance  on  the  export  markets,  significant  and  increasing  due  to 

the  locomotive  effect  of  the  brand  names  promoting  handbags  "made 

in  Europe".  Exports  of  leather  handbags  by  the  Community  industry 

have increased from around 6 million units in 1992 to around  10 million 

units in the investigation period. 

28 

(b) 

Effects of the imposition/non-imposition of measures 

(75)  In  the  absence  of  anti-dumping  measures,  there  is  no  element  that 

indicates  that  the  negative  situation  of  the  Community  industry  would 

not  continue,  to  the  detriment  of  an  industry  that  is  inherently  both 

viable and competitive. 

(76)  The  situation  of  importing  producers  in  the  Community  has  been 

examined  and  it  is  concluded  that  the  majority  of  the  companies 

investigated  by the  Commission  manufacture  leather  handbags  in  the 

Community  and import synthetic  handbags from the  People's  Republic 

of  China.  In  those  cases  where  such  importing  producers  imported 

leather  handbags, such imports are, in general, ancillary. 

3. 

Impact on  importers-traders 

(77)  Further  investigation  has shown that the full  amount  of the  provisional 

anti-dumping  duty  (39.2%)  is  being  shared,  generally  in  an  equal 

proportion,  by the  different  steps  in the  distribution  chain:  in  particular 

the  importer,  the  retailer  and, finally,  the  consumer.  This  seems  to  be 

possible  due  to  the  average  mark  up  of  importers  and  retailers 

respectively  of  around  70%  on  C|F  including  a  profit  of  14%  on 

turnover. 

(78)  The  impact  of any definitive  measures on importers  and traders  has to 

be seen  in the  light of the findings of the product concerned. Indeed, a 

reduction  in  the  scope  of  application  of  the  measures  to  leather 

handbags  only  (see  recitals  118  et  seq)  will  minimise  the  impact  of 

measures  on these interested parties. 

29 

(79)  Some importers have claimed to having had to cease their activity or to 

be  experiencing  financial  difficulties.  Since  importers  are  generally 

purchasing  in US Dollars, they are currently suffering from the  strength 

of  the  US  Dollar  against  European  currencies.  It  is  concluded, 

therefore,  that  the  weak  financial  situation  of  certain  importers/traders 

is also attributable to currency fluctuations. 

(80)  As  to  the  argument  that  the  imposition  of  anti-dumping  duties  will  not 

have  the  effect  of  increasing  sales  of  the  Community  producers  but 

would make importers purchase from other third countries, it should be 

mentioned  that  it  is  not  the  purpose  of  any  anti-dumping  measure  to 

limit  imports from third countries  at  non-dumped  prices.  Moreover,  the 

investigation  has  confirmed  that  it  is  not  likely  that  a  major  proportion 

of  importers  will  source  leather  handbags  from  other  third  countries, 

due  to  the  skilled  labour  and  know-how  necessary  to  manufacture 

leather handbags currently available in the People's  Republic of China. 

(81)  Given  the  above,  measures  on  imports  of  leather  handbags  are  not 

likely to endanger the business performance of the distribution chain. 

30 

4. 

Impact on consumers 

(82)  As  has  been mentioned  above, the full amount  of the  duty  is currently 

being shared by the different  steps  in the distribution  chain. Therefore, 

the effect of the duty on the consumer in the form of a price increase is 

not likely to exceed 9%. 

(83)  Furthermore,  leather handbags  being a fashion  product  not  purchased 

on a regular  basis, a moderate  increase  in the prices for the consumer 

should  be  seen  in  the  light  of  the  lack  of  a  clear  perception  of  the 

appropriate  price  for  a  handbag  for  a consumer,  which  is  not  likely  to 

affect demand substantially  in the long term. 

(84)  In view  of this, it is not expected that definitive measures  on imports of 

leather handbags will have a significant  impact on the consumer. 

5.  Conclusion on Community  interest 

(85)  In the  light of the above, it is considered that the conclusions drawn  by 

the  Commission 

in  the  Regulation  (EC)  No  209/97  concerning 

Community 

interest  should  be  confirmed  with  respect  to  leather 

handbags.  There  are  no  compelling  reasons  which  would  lead  to  the 

conclusion  that  adopting  definitive  measures  would  not  be  in  the 

interest of the Community. 

31 

H.  Synthetic  handbags 

(A) 

Injury 

1.  Consumption in the Community  market 

(86)  Between  1992  and  the  investigation  period,  the  consumption  of 

synthetic  handbags  in  the  Community  increased  from  73  million  units 

to 96 million units, i.e. an increase of approximately  31%. 

2. 

Volume and market share of imports 

(87)  Between  1992  and  the  investigation  period,  imports  of  synthetic 

handbags  originating in the People's  Republic  of China  increased from 

53  million  units  to  78  million  units,  i.e.  by  47%.  When  measured  in 

value,  the  increase  amounts  to  31%,  from  ECU  152  million  in  1992 to 

ECU  199 million in the investigation period. 

(88)  The  share  of  the  Community  market  taken  by  imports  of  handbags 

originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China  increased  from  73%  in 

1992 to  8 1%  in the investigation period. 

32 

3. 

Prices of dumped imports and undercutting 

(89)  The  average  CI F  import  price  of  synthetic  handbags  as  reported  by 

Eurostat  has  decreased  by  10%,  from  ECU  2,8  per  unit  in  1992  to 

ECU 2,5 per unit in the investigation period. 

(90)  The undercutting margin amounts to 27,8 % for synthetic  handbags. 

4. 

Situation of the Community  industry 

(a) 

Production 

(91)  The  estimated  production  of  synthetic  handbags  by  the  Community 

industry  has  remained stable  at around  14 million  units  between  1992 

and the investigation period. 

(b) 

Sales volume 

i 

(92)  A  decline 

in  sales  volume 

in 

the  Community  of  handbags 

manufactured  by  the  Community  industry  of  around  70%  between 

* 

1992 and the  investigation  period has  been established.  Indeed, sales 

decreased from around 6 million units in 1992 to around 2 million  units 

in the investigation period. 

(c)  Market share 

(93)  The  share  of  the  Community  market  occupied  by  the  Community 

industry when measured in units decreased from around 9% in  1992 to 

around 3% during the investigation period. 

(d) 

Profitability and employment 

(94)  The overall profitability  of Community  producers declined  progressively 

from 5,9% in 1992 to  1,3%  during the investigation period. 

(95)  Employment  figures  in the handbag sector declined from about  18.600 

people  in  1992 to  14.000  people  in the  investigation  period, a drop  of 

25%. 

33 

5.  Conclusion on injury 

(96)  It  is  considered  that  the  Community  industry  of  synthetic  handbags 

suffered  material  injury  within  the  sense  of  Article  3  of  the  basic 

regulation. 

(97)  This  stems  from  the  deterioration  of  the  economic  factors  of  the 

Community  industry during the period  1992 to the  investigation period, 

namely  declining  sales  volume,  loss  of  market  share,  declining 

employment  and  declining  profitability,  as  seen  in  the  light  of  the 

increase  in  the  volume  of  imports  of  synthetic  handbags  from  the 

People's  Republic of China and its prices. 

(B)  Causation 

1. 

Effects of the dumped  imports 

(98)  Given  the  above findings,  it is considered that the  imports  of  synthetic 

handbags from the  People's  Republic  of China  had, taken  in  isolation 

a material impact on the situation of the Community  industry. 

(99)  Indeed, given that synthetic handbags manufactured in the  Community 

and  those  imported  from  the  People's  Republic  of  China  compete 

across  the  range,  where  the  distribution  system  is  common  to  both 

products,  the  undercutting  found  indicates  that,  taken  in  isolation, 

imports  of  synthetic  handbags  from  the  People's  Republic  of  China 

caused material injury to the Community  industry. 

34 

2. 

Effects of other factors: imports from third countries 

(100)The  Commission  has examined the  impact on the Community  industry 

of  factors  other  than  imports  of  synthetic  handbags  from the  People's 

Republic of China, namely, imports from other third countries. 

(101)Conceming  India,  available  Eurostat  data  shows  that  even  if  the 

volume  of  imports  from  India  has  increased  from  1,6  million  units  in 

1992 to  3,4  million  units  in the  investigation  period, their  share of  total 

imports  of  synthetic  handbags  into the  Community  has  only  increased 

from 2,6% in  1992 to 3,6% in the investigation period. The share of the 

Community  synthetic  handbag  market  occupied  by  these  imports  has 

remained at a low level, being 3,5% in the investigation period. 

(102)Regarding  imports  of  synthetic  handbags  from  Hong  Kong,  when 

measured  in units these  have  increased  from  1,5  million  units  in  1992 

to  6,5  million  units  in the  investigation  period. However,  their  share  of 

the  Community  synthetic  handbag  market  has remained at a  relatively 

« 

low level, increasing from 2% in 1992 to 7% in the investigation period. 

(103)As  to  imports  from  other  third countries, their  share  of the total  import 

of synthetic  handbags  into the Community  has decreased from  11%  in 

1992  to  5,5%  in the  investigation  period. The  share  of  the  Community 

synthetic  handbags  market  occupied  by these  imports  has  decreased 

from 9,7% in 1992 to 5% in the investigation period. 

35 

3.  Conclusion on causation 

(104)The  above  analysis  shows  that,  even  if  certain  other  factors  might 

have contributed to the  injury suffered  by the Community  industry,  it is 

considered  that  taken  in  isolation,  the  high  volume  of  synthetic 

handbags  imported  from  the  People's  Republic  of  China  at  dumped 

price have caused material injury to the Community  industry. 

(C)  Community  Interest 

1. 

Community  industry 

(105)The indicators  of the Community  synthetic  handbag  industry  show that 

it  is  not  likely  that  the  Community  industry  would  benefit  from  any  anti 

dumping  measure  imposed. The  imposition  of  measures  would  not  have 

the  effect  of  increasing  the  sales  of  the  Community  synthetic  handbags 

manufacturers,  given  that  it  is  likely  that  synthetic  handbags  will  be 

sourced  from  other  third  countries  in  the  medium  term.  Indeed,  it  has 

been ascertained that the  production  process  in the synthetic  sector  is of 

such  a  nature  that  it can  be transferred  to  another  third  country  within  a 

relatively  short  period  of  time.  In  this  respect,  evidence  has  been 

provided  by  some  interested  parties  showing  that  this  has  already  taken 

place  in  some  instances.  There  are, therefore,  strong  reasons  to  expect 

that  most  of the volume  and price benefits which anti-dumping  measures 

may have will not go to the Community  industry  but to  imports from  other 

third countries. 

36 

(106)ln  addition,  the  consequences  of  the  non-imposition  of  measures  on 

the employment  levels of the Community  synthetic  handbag  producers  is 

relatively  limited,  given  the  low  sales  volume  in  the  Community  of 

Community  produced synthetic  handbags and the estimated  employment 

figures  for  synthetic  handbags  of  around  500  employees.  While  these 

jobs  may  be  exposed  to  competition  from  dumped  imports  of  handbags 

from the  People's  Republic  of China, this figure has to  be compared to  a 

total  employment  figure  for  the  entire  Community  handbags  sector  of 

around  14.000 employees.  In this  respect,  it is expected that  an  increase 

in the sales volume of the Community  manufacturers  of leather  handbags 

may have the effect of offsetting this negative impact, if any. 

2. 

Impact on  importers/traders 

(107)ln view  of the  high share  of the  Community  synthetic  handbag  market 

held  by  imports  from  the  People's  Republic  of  China,  if  definitive  anti 

dumping  measures  of  the  provisional  amount  were  to  be  imposed,  a 

substantial 

impact  on  Community 

importers  and  traders  would  be 

expected. 

(108)lndeed,  a  comparison  of  the  market  shares  held  respectively  by  the 

Community  industry  (around  2%  irl  the  investigation  period)  and  the 

imports  from  the  People's  Republic  of  China  (around  80%  in  the 

investigation  period) indicate that the negative impact on importers  and 

traders  of 

the  product 

that  would 

result, 

would  be  clearly 

disproportionate  to  any  possible  benefit  in  the  short  term  to  the 

Community  industry  which  would  be  gained  through  the  imposition  of 

anti-dumping  measures. 

37 

(109)The  estimated  employment  for  the  distribution  chain  of  synthetic 

handbag  has  been  estimated  at  around  4.100  employees.  It  is 

considered that the imposition of anti-dumping measures on imports of 

synthetic  handbags  will have, at  least  in the  medium  term, a  negative 

impact  on this  employment.  Indeed, since  the  expected  switch  in the 

source  of  supply to  other third countries  will take  place  in the  medium 

term,  it  is  expected  that  in the  meantime  a  certain  number  of  jobs  in 

the  distribution  sector  will  be  at  risk.  On  the  other  hand  it  is  not 

expected  that  the  employment  levels  of  the  Community  synthetic 

handbags  manufacturers  will  decrease  to  a  significant  extent,  in  view 

of  the  fact  that  the  Community  industry  is concentrating  on the  export 

markets. 

3. 

Impact on consumers 

(110)ln  this  respect,  it  has  to  be  recalled  that,  should  a  definitive  duty  be 

imposed, a shortage in supply will occur, at least in the short term, thus 

restricting consumer choice. 

The  effect  on  the  consumer  in  the  form  of  a  certain  price  increase 

should also  be seen  in the  light of the  likely  absence  of any  benefit  for 

the  Community  producer  and  the  negative  impact  on  the  distribution 

chain. 

38 

4.  Conclusion on Community  interest 

(111)ln  view  of  the  above  mentioned  facts  and  trends  which  differ 

significantly from those established in respect of leather handbags, it is 

considered  that  there  are  compelling  reasons  why  the  imposition  of 

definitive  measures  on  imports  of  synthetic  handbags  is  not  in  the 

interest  of  the  Community.  The  negative  impact  of  definitive  anti 

dumping  measures  on  imports  of  synthetic  handbags 

from 

the 

People's  Republic  of  China  would  be  disproportionate  to  any  actual 

benefit to the Community  industry. 

I. 

Duty 

1. 

Leather  handbags 

(112)Some  interested  parties  have  argued  that  the  duty  should  take  the 

form  of  a  variable  duty.  However,  given  the  wide  variety  of  leather 

handbags  and  the  fact  that  it  is  considered  that  competition  is  taking 

place  across  the  whole  range  of  leather  handbags  and  not  among 

those  in  the  lower  price  range,  it  is  considered  that  measures  should 

take the form of an ad valorem duty. 

The  provisional  conclusions  with  respect  to  the  type  of  duty  to  be 

applied are therefore confirmed. 

(113)As for the calculation of the injury threshold, i.e.  price underselling, the 

Council  confirms  the  methodology  followed  by  Regulation  (EC)  No 

209/97  (recitals  103  to  105).  Thus, 

to  the  percentage  of  the 

undercutting  found,  the  weighted  average  profit  shortfall  of 

the 

sampled  Community  producers  during  the  investigation  period  was 

added.  On  this  basis,  the  weighted  average  injury  margin  for  leather 

handbags,  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  free-at-the-Community-

frontier price the injury margin amounts to 38%. 

39 

(114)For  the  companies  which  requested  and  were  granted  individual 

treatment, their  injury  margin, when expressed  as a percentage  of  the 

free-at-the-Community-frontier  price amounts to the following: 

•  For  Shilton,  given  that  the  dumping  margin  found  is  nil,  in 

accordance  with  Article  7  (2),  it  was  not  considered 

necessary to calculate an individual injury margin. 

•  For Picard, the injury margin amounts to 32,7%. 

(115)ln  accordance  with  Article  7(2)  of  the  basic  regulation,  as  the  injury 

elimination  level  is below the dumping  margin found, the  anti-dumping 

duty calculated on the basis of the free-at-frontier  price should  amount 

to 38%. 

(116)For  the  companies  which  requested  and  were  granted  individual 

treatment, the anti-dumping duty should amount to the following: 

•  For Shilton: nil. 

•  For  Picard: 7,7%,  which  is the  dumping  margin  established 

for this company. 

40 

2. 

Synthetic  handbags 

(117)ln  view  of  the  fact  that  it  is  considered  that  there  are  compelling 

reasons  not  to  adopt  anti-dumping  measures  concerning  synthetic 

handbags, the  proceeding with  respect to  imports  of  plastic  handbags 

(4202 22  10) and textile handbags (4202 22 90) should be terminated. 

J. 

Collection of provisional duties 

(118)Concerning  leather  handbags,  since  the  Commission's  provisional 

findings  are,  for  the  most  part,  definitively  confirmed,  the  Council 

considers  it appropriate to decide that,  pursuant  to  Article  10(2)  of  the 

basic  regulation, 

the  amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti 

dumping  duty  under  Regulation  (EC)  No 209/97  for  leather  handbags 

be  definitively  collected  at  the  rate  definitively  imposed,  i.e.  38% 

except  for  imports  from  Picard. As  far  as  this company  is concerned, 

the  collection  of  provisional  duties  is  limited  to  the  rate  of  duty 

definitively imposed, i.e. 7,7%. 

(119)The  provisional  duties  secured  with  respect  to  plastic  and  textile 

handbags should be released 

41 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. A definitive anti-dumping  duty is hereby  imposed on imports of  handbags 

with  outer  surface  of  leather,  of  composition  leather  or  patent  leather 

falling within CN code 4202 21  00 originating  in the  People's  Republic  of 

China. 

2.  For the  purpose of this  Regulation, leather handbags shall be  understood 

to mean, bags whether or not with shoulder strap, including those without 

handle,  with  outer  surface  of  leather,  of  composition  leather  or  patent 

leather,  designed  primarily to contain small objects for personal  use such 

as  keys,  purses,  make-up,  cigarettes,  etc.,  regardless .of  their  size  and 

form. 

3. The  rate of the duty shall be 38% of the  net, free-at-frontier  price,  before 

duty  (Taric  8900),  with  the  exception  of  imports  of  leather  handbags 

which  are  manufactured  by  the  following  companies,  which  shall  be 

subject to the following rates of the duty: 

Jane Shilton (Pacific)  Ltd.: 

0,0  % 

(Taric  additional  code 

8961) 

8087) 

Gebr.  Picard International Ltd. 

7,7  % 

(Taric  additional  code 

4.  The  amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  under 

Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  209/97  on  leather  handbags  shall  be 

definitively  collected  at  the  rate  corresponding  to  the  definitive  duty. 

Amounts secured in excess of the definitive duty shall be released. 

42 

Article 2 

1. The  anti-dumping  proceeding  concerning  imports of  handbags  with  outer 

surface  of  plastic  sheeting or with outer surface of textile  materials  falling 

within CN codes 4202 22 10 and 4202 22 90 is hereby terminated. 

2. The  amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  under 

Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No 209/97  on  plastic  and textile  handbags 

shall be released. 

Article 3 

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, 

1997. 

For the  Council 

The  President 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(97) 348  final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

12  02 

Catalogue  number  :  CB-CO-97-340-EN-C 

ISBN  92-78-21993-2 

Office  for Official  Publications of the European  Communities 

L-2985  Luxembourg