Amended 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 terminating the proceeding concerning imports of plastic and textile handbags originating in the People's Republic of China
Date: 1997-07-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, fancy leather goods and glove-making industry, import, restriction on competition

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 

Brussels,  30.07.1997 
COM(97) 431 final 

Amended 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  terminating  the 

proceeding  concerning  imports of plastic and textile  handbags  originating 

in the People's Republic of China 

(presented by the Commission pursuant to Article  189 a (2) 
of the EC-Treaty) 

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

In  the  original  proposal  of  the  Commission,  it  was  stated  that  provisional  duties  paid 
should be collected. After discussion in COREPER on 25 July, changes have to be made 
to  this  proposai  in  order  to  satisfy  requests  by  Member  States  that  provisional  anti 
dumping duties should not be collected but be released. Only on this basis a majority of 
the Member States could be achieved. 

In order to proceed to this release, it is now proposed to base definitive  duties on "threat 
of  injury*'.  In  such  "threat  of  injury"  cases, Article  10 (2)  of  the  Basic  Anti-Dumping 
Regulation  provides  that  provisional  duties  are  released  ex  lege,  which  leaves  no 
discretion to the Council as far as this release is concerned. 

For these reasons, the following major changes regarding the original proposal have been 
made in the proposed Council Regulation: 

- 

in the title, the reference to the collection of provisional measures has been deleted 

- 

in recital 55, the decrease in sales quantities is expressed as a percentage 

- 

in recital 57, the overall profitability (all sales included) has been established at around 
5% 

-  recital 61 has been adapted to show a precarious situation of the Community industry 

-  recital 63 now refers to the precarious situation (and not to material injury) 

-  recital  64 now  shows that imports from  China have increased  considerably  and will 
probably happen at such prices that price increases of the Community industry will be 
prevented 

-  recital 69 now refers to the precarious situation 

-  recital  118 refers to Article 10 (2) of the Basic Regulation and releases the provisional 

duties 

- 

the operative part has been adapted accordingly. 

A  OU 

Amended proposal  for a 

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  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  OJ No L 56, 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  OJ No L 33, 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. 

6 

(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. 

(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  CIF  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,  i.e.  a 

decrease of around 5%. 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 41%  in 1992 

to around 39% during the investigation period. 

21 

(d) Profitability and employment 

(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  concerning  sales  in  the 

Community  shows  a  decline  from  5,9%  in  1992  to  1,3%  during  the 

investigation period. 

On  all  sales,  the  Community  industry  achieved  an  overall  profit  of 

around  5%. 

(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 

in 

the 

Community market. 

(60)  As far as production is concerned, further reference is made to the fact 

that exports of the Community producers increased significantly. 

(61)  It  is  therefore  the  view  of  the  Council  that  the  situation  of  the 

Community  industry  is  clearly  precarious,  and  the  trend  points  to  a 

further deterioration. 

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 precarious situation of the  Community industry. 

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

Republic of China increased at a significant  rate and are likely to enter 

at prices which will prevent price increases. 

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 to 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  1 1%  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 

precarioussituation of  the  Community  industry, taken  in  isolation, the 

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

are  threatening  to  cause  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  CIF  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 81%  in the investigation period. 

32 

3. 

Prices of dumped imports and undercutting 

(89)  The  average  CIF  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 

(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)Concerning  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)Sn  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)Indeed,  a  comparison  of  the  market  shares  held  respectively  by  the 

Community  industry  (around  2%  in  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 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  Community 

industry 

is 

suffering a threat of material injury, 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 released . 

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

handbags should also 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 

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 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 

V3 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(97) 431  final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

02  11 

Catalogue number  :  CB-CO-97-435-EN-C 

ISBN 92-78-23862-7 

Office  for Official  Publications of the European Communities 

L-2985 Luxembourg