WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3464/97 by Allan MACARTNEY to the Commission. Anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of unbleached cotton fabrics originating in China, Egypt, India, Pakistan and Turkey
Date: 1997-10-31
Institutions: European Parliament, MACARTNEY
Subjects: anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, application of EU law, complaint to the Commission, cotton, economic survey, general budget (EU), import, third country

25. 5. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 158/121

(98/C 158/157)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3464/97

by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission

(31 October 1997)

Subject: Anti-dumping  proceedings  concerning  imports  of  unbleached  cotton  fabrics  originating  in  China,

Egypt, India, Pakistan and Turkey

On  21  February  1996,  Commission  proceedings  were  instigated  following  a  complaint  of  dumping  from  the
above countries by Eurocoton. A provisional an ti-dumping duty was imposed as of 20 November 1996 to allow
investigations  to  be  carried  out.  In  May  1996  to  allow  investigations  to  be  carried  out.  In  May  1997,  the
Commission concluded that the proceedings were not substantiated and monies levied under the anti-dumping
measures from 20 November 1996 were refunded to the relevant importers. Eurocoton then issued a second,
similar complaint-.

Is there any mechanism within the EU for objecting to a complaint being judged competent by the Commission
where  that  complaint  is  very  similar,  if  not  identical,  in  substance  to  another  very  recently  investigated
complaint?

What was the cost of investigating, deliberating on, and administering the original complaint by Eurocoton?

With reference to the second complaint lodged by Eurocoton, will the Commission repeat all the procedures of
the recently completed case?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 1997)

The  Commission  would  first  of  all  wish  to  point  out  that,  for  definitive  determinations  the  Commission
concluded its previous investigation by establishing that there was injurious dumping by the exporting countries
concerned.  A  proposal  was  subsequently  made  to  the  Council  that  it  would  be  in  the  Community  interest  to
impose definitive measures. However, since a majority of Member States opposed the Commission(cid:146)s proposal,
no  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  was  imposed  and  the  provisional  measures  lapsed.  Shortly  after  this,  the
complainants, Eurocoton, filed a new complaint.

As a result of this new complaint, the Commission decided to open a new anti-dumping proceeding on 11 July
1997. It should be recalled that the Commission is obliged under Community anti-dumping legislation to open an
anti-dumping proceeding, should an admissible complaint be lodged by a sufficiently representative proportion
of Community producers and showing prima facie evidence of dumping and resulting injury. Since this was the
case, the Commission was under the legal obligation to initiate the proceeding. There is in fact no provision in
that legislation that allows the Commission to reject a sufficiently substantiated complaint even if the Council did
not accept the Commission(cid:146)s proposal to impose definitive duties in a previous proceeding covering a different
time period.

The current proceeding will follow the normal procedure established in the Community anti-dumping legislation,
that is examination of the dumping, injury, causation and Community interest aspects of the case.

Interested  parties,  are  entitled,  in  exercising  their  rights,  to  comment  on  any  aspect  of  the  proceeding.  If  the
investigation reveals that these comments are well founded, due account is taken by the Commission in reaching
its provisional or definitive determinations.

The actual cost of investigating, deliberating on and administering the original complaint by Eurocoton cannot be
provided  as  the  Commission  does  not  cost  cases  on  an  individual  basis  and  staff  costs  come  out  of  the
Commission(cid:146)s overall staff budget. Assurance can however be given that the case was completed well within the
tight statutory deadlines imposed and thus in an efficient and cost effective manner.