WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2918/97 by Arlene McCARTHY to the Council. Inquiry into anti-dumping duties on exports of unbleached cotton from India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, China and Egypt
Date: 1997-09-08
Institutions: European Parliament, MCCARTHY
Subjects: European industrial area, anti-dumping duty, cessation of trading, cotton, dismissal, economic recession, economic survey, export, textile industry, third country

3. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 102/149

Answer

(10 November 1997)

The General Secretariat of the Council took note of an article which appeared in the newspaper (cid:147)De Morgen(cid:148) on
20 August 1997, containing implicit allegations against some officials in the Council(cid:146)s security service.

In view of the serious nature of those allegations and also if its duty of concern regarding its own officials, the
General Secretariat of the Council decided to organize an inquiry to ascertain whether or not the allegations in
question are justified.

(98/C 102/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2918/97

by Arlene McCarthy (PSE) to the Council

(8 September 1997)

Subject: Inquiry  into  anti-dumping  duties  on  exports  of  unbleached  cotton  from  India,  Pakistan,  Indonesia,

Turkey, China and Egypt

With regard to the new inquiry into anti-dumping duties on exports of unbleached cotton from India, Pakistan,
Indonesia, Turkey, China and Egypt, would the Council please clarify why it has approved a third such inquiry so
soon  after  the  previous  Commission  inquiry  expired  ›  without  being  officially  terminated  ›  following  the
Council(cid:146)s rejection in May 1997 of the proposed duties?

The  Council  rejected  the  previous  complaint  as  it  felt  duties  would  create  more  harm  than  good  to  the
Community as a whole. Does the Council not appreciate that this apparently political decision to initiate a new
inquiry does all harm and no good? Would the Council not agree that this new, but essentially identical, case not
only  threatens  those  parties  directly  concerned  ›  by  creating  renewed  uncertainty  during  the  period  of  the
complaint,  with  the  prospect  of  much  more  drastic  repercussions  in  the  form  of  factory  closures  and  heavy
redundancies across the EU(cid:146)s textiles finishing industry and wholesale sector should the duties be introduced ›
but that it also wastes a considerable amount of EU taxpayers(cid:146) money?

Answer

(10 November 1997)

1.
The Council would remind the Honourable Member that, under Article 5 of Council Regulation No 384/96
(basic  anti-dumping  Regulation),  it  is  for  the  Commission  alone  to  decide  whether  to  initiate  anti-dumping
proceedings.

According to the Council(cid:146)s information, Eurocoton brought a complaint on 26 May 1997 in connection
2.
with imports of unbleached cotton from several non-Union countries.  Following submission of that complaint
the  Commission,  acting  in  accordance  with  Article  5  of  the  abovementioned  Regulation,  decided  to  initiate
anti-dumping  proceedings  and  also  an  investigation  (the  notice  was  published  in  the  Official  Journal  of
11 July 1997).

3.
It should be noted that, pursuant to Article 6(9) of the basic Regulation, anti-dumping investigations must,
whenever possible, be concluded within one year.  They must in any event be concluded within fifteen months of
initiation.

4.

The Council is awaiting the outcome of the investigation before adopting a position on the matter.