Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan
Date: 1997-11-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Egypt, South Asia, anti-dumping duty, import, natural fibre

11,1».  «1  ^ ( F P < H I V " I », 

t  >l 

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels,  13.11.1997 
COM(97) 591  final 

Proposal  for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION ŒC) 

imposing a definitive  anti-dumping  duty on imports of cotton-type  bed linen 
originating  in Egypt, India and Pakistan 

(presented  by the  Commission) 

Explanatory  memorandum 

Subject:  Proposal  for  a Council  Regulation  imposing  a definitive  anti-dumping 
duty  on  imports  of  cotton-type  bed  linen  originating  in  Egypt,  India 
and Pakistan 

1. 

On  13  September  1996,  the  Commission  announced  the  initiation  of  an 

anti-dumping  proceeding  concerning  imports of cotton-type  bed  linen  from 

Egypt, India and Pakistan. 

2. 

The  Commission  began  an  investigation  and  advised  parties  known  to  be 

concerned  of  the  initiation. 

In  view  of  the  large  numbers  of  exporting 

producers  in  the  countries  concerned  and  of  Community  producers 

supporting  the  complaint,  sampling  techniques  were  applied  to  these  two 

groups.  Questionnaires  were  sent to  the  companies  thus  sampled  and  also 

to  other  parties  (notably  importers),  in  order 

to  obtain  the  information 

which the Commission deemed necessary for its investigation. 

3. 

The  Commission  found  that  imports  from  all  three  countries  were  being 

sold  at  dumped  prices,  were  undercutting  the  prices  of  the  sampled 

Community  producers  and  had  caused  injury  to  the  Community  industry. 

The  Commission  also  found  that  anti-dumping  measures  were  in  the 

interest  of the  Community  and  imposed  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  in 

June  1997. 

4. 

Interested  parties  in the  proceeding  were  given  one  month  to  comment  on 

the findings  on which the provisional measures were based. 

5. 

In the light of all the information  obtained  and representations  made during 

the  proceeding,  the  Commission  proposes  the  imposition  of  definitive 

measures.  Certain  adjustments  have  been  made  to  the  level  of  the 

provisional  duty  rates  and  bed  linen  of  fabrics  woven  by  hand  (handloom) 

are excluded from the scope of the definitive  measures. 

6. 

The  Commission  accordingly  proposes  that  the  Council  adopt  the  attached 

proposal  for  a  Regulation  which  imposes  definitive  anti-dumping  duties 

ranging  from  2,6% to  24,7% on  imports  from  India,  from  0%  to  6,7%  on 

imports from  Pakistan and from  8,7% to  13,5% on imports from  Egypt. 

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 

191 

of.... 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen 
originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan 

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, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2331/96 of 2 December  19962. and 
in particular Articles 9(4) and 10(2) thereof, 

Having  regard  to  the  proposal  submitted  by  the  Commission  after  consulting  the 
Advisory Committee, 

Whereas: 

1 

2 

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

OJNoL317,  6.12.1996, p. 1, 

A.  PROCEDURE 

(1) 

By  Regulation  (EC) No  1069/973  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  'the  provisional 

Regulation')  the  Commission  imposed  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on 

imports into the Community of cotton-type bed linen falling  within CN codes 

6302 21 00, 6302 22 90, 6302 31  10, 6302 31 90 and 6302 32 90 originating 

in Egypt, India and Pakistan. 

(2) 

Following  the  imposition  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty,  certain 

interested  parties  submitted  comments  in  writing.  Those  parties,  who  so 

requested,  were  granted  an  opportunity  to  be  heard  by  the  Commission. 

Parties were informed  of the essential  facts and considerations on the basis of 

which  it  was  intended  to  recommend  the  imposition  of  definitive  anti 

dumping  duties  and  the  definitive  collection,  at  the  level  of  these  duties,  of 

amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  duties.  They  were  also  granted  a 

period  within which to make representations subsequent to this disclosure. 

(3) 

The  oral  and  written  comments  submitted  by  the  interested  parties  were 

analysed  and, where deemed appropriate, taken into account  for the  definitive 

findings. 

OJNoL  156,  13.6.97, p.  II. 

B.  PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE PRODUCT 

1. 

Requests for exclusion from the proceeding 

(4) 

Following  the disclosure  of provisional  findings,  the  Commission  received 

various requests for exclusion of certain product types from the proceeding: 

-  Certain parties repeated their request for exclusion of "seersucker", a type 

of bed linen produced with the use of chemicals, claiming there to be no 

more production of such items in the Community. 

-  Some  parties  repeated  the  request  for  exclusion  of  bleached  bed  linen 

which  is  intended  for  institutional  use  (i.e.  hospitals,  hotels  etc.). 

Moreover, one party claimed the exclusion of institutional dyed bed linen. 

In support of their requests, they claimed that the user institutions require 

a  special  quality of the product in question, namely products  made  from 

fabric  of  particularly  heavy  weaving  constructions,  which  they  claimed 

were not produced in the Community. 

-  A request was also received to exclude items made from  fabric  woven on 

looms operated purely by hand or foot ("handloom"). 

(5) 

On  "seersucker",  since  no  new  arguments  were  advanced  in  support  of  the 

request  following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  and  despite  the 

absence  of production  of  identical  products  by the  Community  industry,  the 

request  could  not  be  accepted  . It  was  therefore  concluded  that  this  product 

type 

is  subject 

to 

the  proceeding  as 

it  shares  sufficient  physical 

characteristics  and  uses  with  other  types  of  bed  linen  to  put  them  in 

competition with each other.. 

(6) 

On the request to exclude certain types of bed linen intended  for  institutional 

use,  and  in particular  to  exclude  products  of  weaving  constructions  above  a 

certain weight threshold,  it was found  that bed linen of heavier  constructions 

was produced  in the Community  (notably  but not exclusively  a specific  type 

known  as  flannel).  In  addition,  no  clear  dividing  line  could  be  established 

between  bed  linen produced  and sold  in the Community  for  institutional  and 

private  use  and  the  imported  types: 

all  shared  sufficient  physical 

characteristics, functions  and uses to be considered  like products. 

The  request  to  exclude  bed  linen  for  institutional  use  from  the  scope  of  the 

proceeding  could  not  therefore  be  accepted  and  the  findings  of  the 

investigation  and the conclusions of the Commission as set out in recital  (13) 

of the provisional Regulation are  confirmed. 

(7) 

As  regards  the  request  to  exclude  handloom  products,  while  the  use  of 

different  production methods is not in itself a reason relevant to the definition 

of  the  like  product,  it  was  found  that  handloom  items  had  physical 

characteristics different  from those of other bed linen, notably through a less 

regular  and  looser  weave.  This  difference  led  to  a  different  consumer 

perception  of  handloom  products  which  was  reinforced  by  the  fact  that 

handloom  products are often  sold through particular  sales channels  such as 

charity shops which are not available to Community producers. 

Consequently  it was concluded that handloom products  should be excluded 

from  the  scope, of  the  proceeding  and, therefore,  these  products  should  be 

exempted from  the payment of the duties if accompanied  by a certificate  of 

handloom  origin  (see  Annex  II  of  the  present  Regulation)  issued  by  the 

appropriate authorities of the exporting country. 

2. 

Like product 

(8) 

Following the disclosure of provisional findings, certain parties repeated the 

claim, already made at the provisional stage, that there were such  differences 

between all imported  bed linen and all Community-produced  bed linen that 

they  could  not  be  considered  like  product  in  the  sense  of  Article  1(4)  of 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  Basic 

Regulation).  The Commission considered these claims but found that for the 

reasons  already  set  out  in  recital  (14)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  they 

could not be accepted. 

3. 

Conclusion 

(9) 

It  follows  from  the  conclusions  set  out  in  recital  (10)  of  the  provisional 

Regulation  as  modified  above  with  regard  to  handloom  products  that  the 

product under consideration is bed linen of cotton fibres, pure or mixed with 

man-made  fibres  or flax,  bleached,  dyed  or printed.  It  includes  but  is not 

limited to bed sheets, duvet covers and pillow cases. 

Bed linen of pure man-made fibres and bed linen where flax is the dominant 

fibre  is  not  covered  by  this  proceeding.  Bed  linen  made  from  handloom 

woven fabric is also not covered by this proceeding. 

Based  on the  above  exclusion  and  clarifications  of  the  product  scope, bed 

linen covered by the present proceeding falls within CN codes ex6302 21 00, 

ex6302 22 90, ex6302 31 10, ex6302 31 90 and ex6302 32 90. 

Subject  to  the  above,  and  in  the  absence  of  any  further  arguments,  the 

conclusions as set out in recitals (10) and (14) of the provisional  Regulation 

concerning the product definition and the like product  are hereby confirmed. 

C. 

EXPORTING PRODUCERS IN THE COUNTRIES CONCERNED 

1. Requests for status of co-operating parties 

(10) 

It was only after the selection of the samples of exporters and, in many cases, 

following  the disclosure  of the preliminary  findings  of the  investigation  to 

co-operating  parties,  that  several  exporting  producers  in  the  countries 

concerned made themselves known and requested the status of co-operating 

parties. 

(11) 

Given  that  all  these  exporting  producers  either  did  not  make  themselves 

known  or  did  not  provide  the  information  deemed  necessary  for  the 

investigation  within  the  time  limits  set  in  the  notice  of  initiation4,  it  is 

considered  that  the  co-operating  status  requested  should  not  be  granted 

because  to  do  otherwise  would  constitute  a  discrimination  against  other 

parties who had decided to co-operate since the outset of the investigation. 

2. New exporters 

(12) 

Following the adoption of provisional measures, a number of exporters  in the 

countries  concerned  made themselves known, often  at a very  advanced  stage 

of  the  investigation,  and  requested  new  exporter  status.  Some  of  them 

showed  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Commission  that  they  did  not  export  the 

product  concerned  to  the  Community  during  the  investigation  period, 

that 

they  started  to  export  to  the  Community  after  this  period  or  that  they  have 

entered  into  an  irrevocable  contractual  obligation  to  export  a  significant 

quantity  to  the  Community,  and  that  they  were  not  related  to  any  of  the 

exporting producers in the respective exporting countries which are subject  to 

the  anti-dumping  measures  on  the  product  concerned.  Consequently,  those 

exporting  producers  were  considered  to  be  new  exporters  and  should  be 

granted  the  same  treatment,  in  terms  of  definitive  measures,  as  the  co 

operating  exporting  producers  not  included  in  the  sample,  i.e.  an  anti 

dumping  duty  calculated  in  accordance  with  Article  9(6)  of  the  basic 

Regulation. 

OJ No C 266 of  13.9.96, p. 2 

(13) 

The same treatment  should  be  granted  to any  new exporting producer  which 

following  the adoption of definitive  measures will  show to the satisfaction  of 

the Commission that it fulfils  the above mentioned  criteria. 

D. 

DUMPING 

1. Normal value 

(a) Methodology for  the construction of normal value 

(14) 

Three  Egyptian  exporting  producers  argued  that  if  domestic  sales  were 

considered  unrepresentative  for  assessing  profit,  they  should  be  considered 

equally  unrepresentative  for  assessing  selling,  general  and  administrative 

(SG&A) expenses. 

In this respect, it should be noted that the fact that some or all of the domestic 

sales  of  the  like  product  appear  to  be  loss-making  does  not  on  itself  render 

the  related  SG&A  expenses  inappropriate  to  construct  normal  value  if  such 

sales  were  made  in  sufficient  quantities  when  compared  to  the  sales  volume 

of the product under consideration sold for export to the Community. 

(b) Cost of production 

(15) 

As  already  explained  in  recital  (36)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  two 

Pakistani  exporting producers claimed that due to exceptional  circumstances, 

resulting  from  civil  disorder  on  a  major  scale  in  Karachi  during  the 

investigation  period,  costs  corresponding  to  "idle  capacity"  should  not  be 

taken  into account  in constructing  normal  value. Following  the  imposition  of 

provisional  measures  these  companies  repeated  their  claim  and  resubmitted 

their quantification  of the idle costs concerned. 

In  this  respect,  it  should  be  noted  that  according  to  an  extract  of  the 

International  Accounting  Standard  No.2  (IAS-2),  which  one  of 

the 

companies  concerned  quoted,  although  the  amount  of  fixed  overheads 

allocated to each unit of production is not to be increased as a consequence of 

low  production  or  idle  plant,  unallocated  overheads  are  in  any  event 

recognised  as an  expense  in the period  in  which  they  are  incurred.  In  other 

words,  all  costs  incurred  within  a  certain  period  should  be  fully  absorbed 

within  the  same  period  by  the  total  cost  of  production  (manufacturing  cost 

and  SG&A  expenses)  irrespective  of  whether  "idle  capacity''  costs  are 

classified  as fixed  overheads  included  in the manufacturing  cost  or as part of 

the  SG&A  expenses. Therefore, these claims could not be accepted  since the 

total cost of production incorporated  in the constructed  normal value  includes 

both manufacturing  cost and SG&A expenses. 

(16) 

One  Pakistani  exporting  producer  claimed  that  the  cost  of  initial  material 

(grey  cloth)  it  had  reported  in  the  cost  of  manufacturing  included  certain 

SG&A  expenses.  Therefore,  when  constructing  its normal  value,  the  SG&A 

expenses  reported  should  have been deducted  from  the cost  of  production  in 

order to avoid  a double counting of SG&A expenses. The  Commission,  after 

reviewing  the  data  of  the  company,  accepted  the  claim  and  modified  the 

dumping calculations accordingly. 

(c) Selling,  General and Administrative  expenses (SG&A) 

(17) 

One  Egyptian  exporting  producer  contested  the  inclusion  of  allegedly 

exceptional  high  financing  expenses  in the  construction  of  its  normal  value. 

It  argued  that  these  high  financing  expenses  were  incurred  by  two  state 

owned  companies  on  their  loss  making  domestic  sales  of  the  like  product 

and,  therefore,  should  not  be  used  for  calculating  constructed  normal  value 

for  a  private  owned  company,  but  that  a  "reasonable"  amount  of  SG&A 

expenses should be established  for this purpose instead. It was further  argued 

that  this  "reasonable" amount  could be based  on the  SG&A  expenses  of  the 

third  state  owned  company  investigated  which  had profitable  domestic  sales 

of the like product. 

In that respect, it has to be mentioned that, where all companies are operating 

in  free  market  conditions,  the  consistent  practice  of  the  Community 

Institutions  has  been  to  include  all  costs  incurred  to  produce  and  sell  the 

product  concerned  on the  domestic  market,  including  financing  expenses,  in 

the  construction  of  normal  value  irrespective  of  whether  these  costs  are 

incurred  by  state  or  private  owned  companies.  In  addition,  it  is  consistent 

practice  when  constructing  normal  value  for  companies  without  domestic 

sales  to  use  the  weighted  average  SG&A  expenses  of  all  investigated 

companies  with  domestic  sales  of  the  like  product,  as  provided  in  Article 

2(6)(a)  of  the  Basic  Regulation.  Therefore,  for  the  company  in  question  the 

methodology  used and explained  in recital  (32) of the provisional  Regulation 

is  confirmed. 

12 

(d) Domestic profit margin 

(18) 

All Indian exporting producers contested the use of the actual profit  margin 

. realised  by  one  Indian  company  on  its  representative  profitable  domestic 

sales  in the construction  of normal  value for  other  Indian  companies. They 

argued that this profit margin is exceptionally high because, to a great extent, 

it relates to  domestic  sales of branded  products  and  that  since  export  sales 

always concerned non-branded products, such domestic sales do not permit a 

proper comparison within the terms of Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation. 

Four of these exporting producers also argued that this profit is not calculated 

by reference  to. the weighted average profits  of other exporters or producers 

. as provided for in Article 2(6)(a) of the Basic Regulation, but corresponds to 

only  one exporting  producer.  It was further  claimed  in this  respect  that, in 

order  to  ensure  that  the  amount  for  profits  used  is  reasonable,  the  profits 

realised on sales of products of the same general category in India should in 

any event not be exceeded. 

It should  be noted  that the profit  margin used  in constructing  normal  value 

corresponds  to  the  weighted  average  profit  realised  on  domestic  sales  of 

profitable types of branded and non-branded products by the Indian company 

concerned and that, had this claim been accepted, this would have been to the 

disadvantage  of the producers, the profit  margin  used being  lower  than the 

profit  margin realised  by the same company  solely  on its domestic  sales of 

non-branded products. 

With regard to the use of the profit  margin of only one company, it should  be 

recalled  that  the  investigation  has  been  restricted  to  a  sample  of  exporting 

producers  in accordance  with Article  17 of the basic  Regulation  and  that  the 

vast  majority  of  the  co-operating  Indian  companies  are  export  oriented 

companies  with  no  domestic  sales  of  the  like  product.  The  Commission 

selected  for  the  sample  five  Indian  exporting  producers  two  of  which  had 

declared  at the time of the selection that they had made domestic  sales of the 

like  product.  However,  as  indicated  in  recital  (23)  of  the  provisional 

Regulation,  the  investigation  revealed  that  only  one  had  representative 

domestic  sales of the like product during the  investigation  period.  Moreover, 

the  reference  in  Article  2(6)(a)  of the  basic  Regulation  to  weighted  average 

amount  for  profits  determined  for  other  exporters  or  producers,  does  not 

exclude  that  such  amount  can  be  determined  by  reference  to  a  weighted 

average of transactions and/or product types of a single exporter  or producer. 

Consequently, it is not considered justified  to establish the amount  for  profits 

in  accordance  with  Article  2(6)(b)  or  2(6)(c)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  as 

claimed by the Indian companies concerned. 

(19) 

One  Indian  exporting  producer  argued  that  its  domestic  profitability  should 

have been assessed  only on the basis of those types of the product  concerned 

sold both domestically  and on the Community market. 

14 

It should be noted however, that Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation  provides 

that  the  sales  of  the  like  product  intended  for  domestic  consumption  shall 

normally be used to determine normal value if such sales volume  constitutes 

5%  or  more  of  the  sales  volume  to  the  Community  of  the  product  under 

consideration.  Therefore,  all  domestic  sales  of the  like  product  intended  for 

domestic  consumption  were,  where  appropriate,  used  to  establish  the 

domestic  profit  margin,  whether  or  not  particular  product  types  were  also 

exported to the Community. 

It follows from the above that the methodology  and the findings  as set out in 

recitals (23) to (36) of the provisional Regulation are hereby  confirmed. 

2. Export price 

(20) 

One Pakistani  exporting  producer  which  sold  part  of  its  exports  to  a  related 

importer  based  in  the  Community,  argued  that  the  export  price  for  the 

transactions  made  through  the  related  importer  should  not  be  constructed 

because  all prices charged to the related importer were at "arm's  length" and 

they  are  in  line  with  prices  charged  to  unrelated  customers 

in  the 

Community.  Therefore  it was argued  that  the  actual  export  price  charged  to 

the  related  importer  should  be  considered  as  reliable  and  that  it  should  be 

used in the dumping calculations. 

It  is the  consistent  practice  of the  Community  Institutions,  where  it  appears 

that  the  export  price 

is  unreliable  because  of  an  association  or  a 

compensatory  arrangement  between  the  exporter  and  the  importer,  to 

construct  it  in  accordance  with  Article  2(9)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  In  this 

particular  case  the  investigation  revealed  that  all  subsequent  resales  by  the 

15 

related  importer  to  independent  buyers  were  made  at  a  loss.  This  was 

considered  to  be  an  indication  that  the prices  charged  by  the  exporter  to  its 

related 

importer  are  unreliable.  Therefore, 

the  methodology  used 

to 

determine  the  export  price  as  explained  in  recitals  (37)  and  (38)  of  the 

provisional Regulation is  confirmed. 

3.  Comparison 

(21) 

One  Indian  exporting  producer  contested  the  Commission's  refusal  to  grant 

an adjustment  for level of trade. 

Article  2(10)(d) of the basic Regulation  requires  that  it has  to be  shown  that 

the export price is at a different  level of trade from  the normal  value  and  that 

the  difference  has  affected  price  comparability,  which  is  demonstrated  by 

consistent and distinct differences  in functions  and prices of the  seller  for  the 

different  levels  of  trade  in  the  domestic  market  of  the  exporting  country. 

Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  any  substantiated  evidence  to  this  effect,  the 

claim  was  rejected  as  already  explained  in  recital  (40)  of  the  provisional 

Regulation. 

(22) 

The  same  Indian  company  also contested  the Commission's  refusal  to  grant 

adjustments  to normal value for certain selling expenses. 

The  request  was  provisionally  rejected  because  the  adjustments  requested 

exceeded the expenses incorporated  in the constructed normal value. 

The  company's  renewed  request  showed  the  same  shortcomings  and  could 

not, therefore, be accepted either. 

However,  it  was  finally  decided  to  grant  an  adjustment  limited  to  those 

expenses  (e.g.  commissions  and  freight)  which  could  be  identified  in  the 

allocation of SG&A expenses as submitted  by the company  in its response to 

the  Commission's  questionnaire  and  which  were  verified  during 

the 

investigation and incorporated in the constructed normal value. 

(23) 

This Indian company further  challenged the Commission's  refusal  to grant an 

adjustment  to normal value for credit costs. 

As  explained  in recital  (44)  of the  provisional  Regulation,  this  claim  had  to 

be  rejected  given  that  the  delivery  of  all  goods  sold  in  the  domestic  market 

by  the  company  concerned  took  place  only  after  payment.  Thus,  since  the 

seller  did  not pass  on to  the  buyer  the use  or the  possession  of the  goods  in 

question  until  the  time  of  payment,  it  cannot  be  argued  that  there  was  any 

credit granted by the seller. 

(24) 

One  Pakistani  exporting  producer  also  challenged  the  Commission's  refusal 

to grant an adjustment  to normal value for credit costs. In order to support  its 

argument,  it  was  requested  to  submit  additional  information  following  the 

imposition of provisional measures. 

Since  the  information  submitted  did  not  contradict  but  satisfactorily 

supplemented the data previously verified  by the Commission  at the  premises 

of  the  company  concerned,  the  claim  for  an  adjustment  concerning  credit 

costs was accepted and the calculations were revised  accordingly. 

17 

(25) 

All  Pakistani  exporting producers contested  the Commission's  calculation  of 

the adjustment  for import charges and duties borne by the like product and in 

particular by certain materials physically incorporated therein, when  intended 

for  consumption  in  Pakistan  and  refunded  on  export  of  the  product  under 

consideration  pursuant  to  the  Pakistani  legislation.  They  argued  that  the 

amount  of the adjustment  should be expressed  as a percentage  of the cost  of 

production  and  that  the  same  percentage  should  then  be  deducted  from  the 

normal value. 

The  argument  neglects  that  such a percentage  calculated  by  reference  to  the 

cost  of  production  should  be  applied  on  the  appropriate  basis  and  that  the 

normal  value, being the equivalent  of a domestic price, cannot  be  considered 

as such. Therefore, the argument was not accepted. 

(26) 

One Pakistani  company  argued that the amount  of the adjustment  for  import 

charges  and  duties  borne  by  the  like  product,  was  underestimated  in  the 

Commission's dumping calculations for certain types of product. 

The  Commission  reviewed  the  calculations  and  accepted  the  claim  where 

appropriate. 

(27) 

The  Pakistani  authorities  were  of  the  opinion  that  the  duty  drawback 

adjustment  granted 

to  the  co-operating  exporting  producers  was  not 

sufficient.  They concede that the relevant Pakistani  legislation  mentions  only 

a  limited  number  of  imported  materials  (certain  dyes  and  chemicals)  which 

are  eligible  for  refund  if  the  finished  product  is  exported  and  that  the 

Commission  has granted  an adjustment  in this  respect.  However,  they  argue 

that,  upon  proof  of  export  performance,  Pakistani  exporters  also  receive  a 

refund  for  a number  of  other  indirect  taxes  and  duties  borne  by  sales  of  the 

like product in the domestic market and that this refund  should  also entitle to 

an  adjustment. 

In this respectait  should  be noted that any adjustment  under  Article  2(10)(b) 

of  the  basic  Regulation  requires  that  it  is  demonstrated  that  there  is  a 

difference  in  factors  which  affects  price  comparability.  As  part  of  such 

demonstration,  it has to be shown that the cost concerned,  in this case  import 

charges  or  indirect  taxes,  has  actually  been  incurred  by  the  exporting 

producer  for  the  product  concerned  when  intended  for  consumption  in  the 

exporting  country  and  not  collected  or  refunded  in  respect  of  the  product 

exported  to  the  Community.  Neither  the  Pakistani  exporting  producers  nor 

the Pakistani  authorities  could demonstrate  a link  between  any  other  indirect 

taxes  and  duties  paid  and  the  amounts  refunded.  In  addition,  the  Pakistani 

authorities  could  not  specify  the  indirect  taxes  or  duties  for  which  the 

additional  refund  claimed  was  allegedly  granted.  Therefore,  the  request  was 

not accepted. 

It  follows  that  unless  otherwise  provided  above  the  conclusions  drawn  in 

recitals (39) to (45) of the provisional Regulation are hereby  confirmed. 

4. Dumping margins 

(a) General methodology 

(28) 

The  representatives  of  the  Indian  and  the  Egyptian  co-operating  exporting 

producers,  which  were  not  included  in  the  sample  and,  therefore,  were  not 

investigated,  argued  that  the  dumping  margins  established  for  investigated 

state owned companies should not be taken into account when calculating the 

dumping  margins 

to  be  attributed 

to  private  owned  companies  not 

investigated. 

As  already  explained  above,  the  Commission  cannot  treat  differently  state 

and  privately  owned  companies  where  all .companies  are  operating  in  free 

market  conditions.  Therefore, 

the  claim  cannot  be  accepted  and 

the 

provisions  of  recitals  (46)  to  (48)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are 

confirmed. 

(b) Dumping  margins for  companies in the sample 

(29) 

The  comparison  between  the  normal  value  and  the  export  price,  in 

accordance  with  the  methodology  of  the  provisional  Regulation  and  after 

revisions,  where  appropriate,  following  the  arguments  made  by  interested 

parties,  showed  the  existence  of  dumping  in  respect  of  all  companies 

investigated.  The  definitive  dumping  margins  expressed  as  a  percentage  of 

the CIF import price at the Community frontier  are the  following: 

20 

India 

Anglo  French  Textiles 

The Bombay Dyeing  & Manufacturing  Co Ltd 

Nowrosjee  Wadia & Sons Ltd 

Madhu Industries Ltd 

Madhu  International 

Omkar Exports 

Prakash  Cotton Mills Ltd 

Egypt 

24,7% 

7,7% 

7,7% 

17,0% 

17,0% 

14,2% 

2,6% 

Damietta Spinning  & Weaving Co 

13,5% 

El Nasr  Wool and Selected  Textiles Co (STIA) 

13,5% 

Orient Linen & Cotton Co 

Stephanie Textile 

Pakistan 

Al-Abid Silk Mills Ltd 

AlAbid  Export  (Pvt) Ltd 

13.5% 

8,7% 

6,7% 

6,7% 

Al-Karam  Textile Mills Ltd 

1,3% (de minimis) 

Fateh  Textile Mills Ltd 

6,3% 

Gul Ahmed  Textile Mills Ltd 

0,1% (de minimis) 

Excel  Textile Mills Ltd 

0,1% (de minimis) 

Mohammad  Farooq  Textile Mills Ltd 

1,8% (de minimis) 

21 

(c) Dumping  margin for  co-operating companies not in the sample 

(30) 

Co-operating companies not selected in the sample (see recitals (17) and (21) 

of  the  provisional  Regulation  and  recitals  (12)  and  (13)  above)  were 

attributed  the  average  dumping  margin  of  the  companies  in  the  sample, 

weighted  on  the  basis  of  their  export  turnover  to  the  Community.  In 

accordance  with  Article  9(6)  of the  basic  Regulation,  when  calculating  this 

average  dumping  margin  de  minimis  margins  established  have  been 

disregarded.  Expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  CIF  import  price  at  the 

Community  frontier,  these definitive  dumping margins are the  following: 

India 

11,6% 

Egypt 

13,5% (for state-owned companies) 

Egypt 

13,0% (for other companies) 

Pakistan 

6,4%> 

The  companies  entitled  to  the  reduced  rates  are  set  out  in  an  annex  to  this 

Regulation. 

(d) Dumping  margin for  non-co-operating companies 

(31) 

For  non  co-operating  companies  a  dumping  margin  was  determined  on  the 

basis  of  the  facts  available  in  accordance  with  Article  18  of  the  basic 

Regulation.  Since  the  level  of  co-operation  was  high,  it  was  considered 

appropriate  to  set  the  dumping  margin  for  non  co-operating  companies  in 

each  country  concerned  at  the  level  of  the  highest  dumping  margin 

established for a company in each sample because it would constitute a bonus 

for  non-co-operation  to  assume  that  the  dumping  margin  attributable  to 

exporting producers which did not make themselves known is lower than that 

found  for a co-operating exporting producer. 

?? 

These  definitive  dumping  margins  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  CI F 

import price at the Community frontier,  are the  following: 

India 

24,7% 

Egypt 

13,5% 

Pakistan 

6,7% 

E. 

COMMUNITY  INDUSTRY 

1. 

.  Definition  of the Community  industry 

(32) 

Exporters  from  all  three  exporting  countries  observed  that  the  complainant 

Community  producers  taken  to  be  the  Community  industry  made  up  just 

34%  of total  Community  production.  They  claimed  that  this  showed  that  a 

majority  of  bed  linen  producers  in  the  Community  did  not  support  the 

complaint  and  should  therefore  be  assumed  not  to  be  injured,  and  that  the 

Community  industry  was  not  therefore  representative  of  total  Community 

production. 

However,  in response to the provisional  measures only two  non-complainant 

Community  producers,  which  originally  expressed  no  opinion  to  the 

Commission  on  the  complaint,  expressed  opposition  to  the  duties.  The 

combined  production  of  these  two  producers  was  less  than  one  third  of  the 

total production  of the  complainants.  Throughout  the  proceeding,  therefore, 

the  complainants  therefore  represented  considerably  more  than  50%)  of  the 

collective  output  of  those  producers  expressing  either  support  for  or 

opposition to the complaint. 

23 

(33) 

Pakistani  exporters  also  claimed  that  the  Commission  had  not  used  the 

correct test in determining whether Community  producers  which  also  import 

bed  linen  from  the  countries  concerned  should  be  excluded  from  the 

Community  industry  (recitals (52) to (55) of the provisional  Regulation).  By 

way  of  clarification,  it  is  confirmed  that  the  test  used  in  recital  (54)  was 

whether bed linen imported  from  the countries concerned  accounted  for  10% 

of the turnover in bed linen of the companies  in question, rather than  10% of 

total company turnover.  Under this test it was found  and is hereby  confirmed 

that  none  of  the  sampled  companies  retained  in  the  list  of  35  complainants 

made sufficient  imports of the product concerned by this proceeding  from  the 

countries  in  question  to  be  excluded  from  the  definition  of  the  Community 

industry. 

2. 

Conclusion 

(34) 

In  conclusion,  the  finding  that  the  35  complainant  companies  represent  a 

major  proportion  of  total  Community  production  within  the  meaning  of 

Article  5(4)  of  the  Basic  Regulation  and  that  they  therefore  constitute  the 

Community  industry  within  the  meaning  of  Article  4(1)  of  the  Basic 

Regulation is  confirmed. 

24 

F. 

INJURY 

1. 

Cumulative assessment of the effects  of the dumped  imports 

(35) 

Pakistani  exporters  argued  that  imports  from  Pakistan  should  not  have  been 

cumulated  with those from India and Egypt  for  the assessment  of  injury.  In 

support  of  this  they  pointed  out  that  imports  from  Pakistan  had  grown  less 

fast  than  those  from  the  other  two  countries,  that  according  to  Eurostat  the 

average  price  of  the  imports  from  Pakistan  was  higher  and  had  risen  while 

the  others  had  fallen,  and  that  the  dumping  margins  calculated  for  Pakistan 

were on average about half those for the other two countries concerned. 

These  arguments  were  examined.  It  was  noted  that  imports  from  Pakistan, 

while  rising  less  quickly  than  those  from  India  and  Egypt  (in  particular 

because  of  quota  restraints), had nonetheless  risen  and  remained  the  highest 

of the three exporting countries.  As for the Eurostat data on average prices, it 

should  be  'remembered  that  this  data  groups  together  a  wide  variety  of 

different  products.  It  was  observed  among  the  sampled  Pakistani  exporters 

that their product  mix  included  a greater proportion  of higher  value  products 

(e.g. satin and other products from finer cotton yarn) than sampled  producers 

in India and Egypt.  It was consequently found that the data on average prices 

was  highly  influenced  by  differences  and  changes  in product  mix  and  could 

not justify  differential  treatment in the overall analysis of  injury. 

Finally,  the  size  of  dumping  margins  for  a given  country,  provided  they  are 

more than  de minimis, is not a criterion  for  the decision  as to whether  or not 

to make a cumulative assessment of the effects  of the dumped  imports. 

os 

(36) 

The  cumulative  assessment  made  in  the  provisional  Regulation  is  therefore 

confirmed  under the terms of Article 3(4) of the Basic Regulation. 

2. 

Prices of the dumped imports 

(37) 

Exporters  and  importers  claimed  that  the  Commission's  analysis  of  the 

degree  to  which  the  imports  concerned  undercut  the  prices  of  the  sampled 

Community  producers,  and  the  consequent  calculation  of  injury  margins, 

were flawed,  for various reasons: 

firstly  because the criteria for  selection  of the "reference  products", on 

which  the  analysis  was  based,  were  claimed  not  to  have  been 

explained; 

secondly,  because  the  reference  products  accounted,  they  claimed,  in 

some  cases  for  only  a  small  proportion  of  EC  sales  of  the  sampled 

exporters  in  the  countries  concerned,  allegedly  indicating  a  lack  of 

competition  between  imported  and  Community  products  and  a  lack  of 

reliability of the analysis; 

thirdly,  because  it  was  claimed  that  in  making  the  price  comparisons 

inadequate  account  had  been taken  of the differences  in  sales  channels 

between  Community  producers  and  exporters  from  the  countries 

concerned; 

fourthly,  because  there  were  claimed  to  be  quality  differences  which 

should be taken into account; 

26 

fifthly, because it was claimed  that products  imported  and  Community 

products falling  within the same reference  product  definition  could  not 

be  compared, 

there  being  other  criteria  besides  size,  weaving 

construction  and  finish  by  which  the  products  differed  or  because  the 

range of constructions considered to be comparable was too wide. 

(38) 

On the  first  point,  it  is confirmed  that  the  reference  products  were  selected, 

for  each  market  studied,  following  consultation  with  the  relevant  national 

producers'  association  and  using  also 

information  available 

to 

the 

Commission.  Furthermore, it is confirmed  that the investigation  showed  that 

the  sizes,  weaving  constructions  and  finishes  chosen  as  reference  products 

were indeed among the most prevalent  in the markets  concerned.  Finally, at 

no time did the exporters or their representatives  define  other products  which 

in  their  view  would  have  been  more  appropriate  for  an  analysis  of 

undercutting. 

On the second point, it was noted that the wide variety of bed linen  products 

limited  the  proportion  of  each  exporter's  sales  which  could  accurately  be 

compared  with  sales  by  the  sampled  Community  producers.  Given  the 

Commission's  intention  to  conduct  accurate  comparisons  (comparing  prices 

only  of  products  matching  in size, weaving  construction  and  finish)  and  the 

limits  to  the  number  of  different  such  products  for  which  accurate  price 

information  could be collected in the time available, it is unsurprising that the 

proportion  of  each  exporter's  sales  in  the  Community  which  could 

reasonably  be  compared  with  the  products  of  the  sampled  Community 

producers was in some exceptional cases as low as 5%. This was  particularly 

27 

the  case  of  exporters  concentrating  on  simple,  high  volume  products  (a 

market segment from which the Community industry is how largely  excluded 

by  import  penetration).  This  invalidated  neither  the  finding  that  there  were 

significant  market  segments  where  the  dumped  imports  competed  with 

Community  production  nor  the  method  adopted  for  assessing  undercutting, 

since  the  quantities  overall  were  in  all  cases  considered  sufficiently 

representative  and  in several  cases exceeded  30%. In any  event,  it  should  be 

noted  that  low  export  prices  in  one  market  segment,  given  the  high 

interchangeability  of  the  product  concerned,  will  also  have  negative  effects 

on prices in adjacent  segments. 

On the third point, the exporters  substantiated  their claim  with  evidence  that 

the  total  mark-up  from  the  CIF  export  price  to the  ultimate  retail  price  was 

much  greater  than  the  level  of  trade  adjustment  made  by  the  Commission. 

The  Commission  considered  however  that this was  not  relevant  information 

since  prices  were  not  being  compared  at  the  level  of  sale  to  the  ultimate 

consumer  but  at  the  level  of  sale  to  the  first  independent  customer.  The 

exporters' claim is therefore  rejected. 

On  the  fourth  point,  the  claim  for  adjustment  for  quality  differences  was 

based  on  average  weights  per  square metre of the  Community  and  imported 

products.  Since however  the weight per  square metre  of fabric  is a  function 

of  its  weaving  construction,  and  since  products  were  compared  only  when 

they corresponded  in terms of this construction, there was no justification  for 

such an adjustment  and the claim is therefore  rejected. 

28 

On  the  fifth  point,  the  Commission  considered  the  arguments  but  could  not 

accept  it.  This  conclusion  was reached  bearing  in mind  the  large  number  of 

reference  products  allowing  a  detailed  analysis  and  the  fact  that  remaining 

differences  within  each  reference  product  definition  were  compensated  by a 

price comparison carried out on an average per kilo basis. 

(39) 

The  finding  in  recital  (79)  of  the  provisional  regulation  that  the  imported 

products  undercut  the  products  of  the  sampled  Community  producers,  and 

the findings  of the level of the undercutting, are therefore  confirmed. 

3. 

Situation of the Community  industry 

(40) 

Exporters  from  all  the  exporting  countries  claimed  that  the  Commission's 

analysis of injury  was defective  in that it referred  to the significant  decline in 

total  Community  production  of  bed  linen  in  assessing  the  situation  of  the 

Community industry.  They claimed in particular that information  concerning 

companies not included in the definition  of the Community  industry or which 

no longer produce bed  linen cannot be used to construe  a finding  of  material 

injury. 

These  claims  were  examined  carefully.  It  should  however  be  remarked  that 

the  principal  basis  for  the  finding  of  material  injury  was  the  reduced 

profitability  and  price  suppression  of  the  Community  industry  as  observed 

among the sampled companies. 

2() 

(41) 

In the assessment of injury  pursuant to Article 3 of the Basic Regulation,  the 

Community  institutions  have  to  assess  the  economic  situation  of  the 

Community  industry.  This  assessment  usually  covers  the  analysis  of  a  time 

period of four to five years as in the present case ("assessment  period"). Such 

an assessment  is commonly based on an analysis of the complaining  industry 

and not  necessarily  on companies  accounting  for  the  totality  of  Community 

production  on  the  ground  that 'the  situation  of  a  major  proportion  of  the 

Community  production  is representative  for  its totality  Such  an  assessment, 

however,  also  has  to  take  into  account  the  structure  and  the  nature  of  the 

industry under consideration. In the present case this industry  is characterised 

by  a  high  number  of  operators,  in  many  cases  small  and  medium  sized 

companies,  and  by  the  fact  that  it  is  a  sector  with  relatively  low  barriers  to 

exit.  The  latter  is mainly  due to the fact  that  machinery  can be  sold  or  used 

for other products relatively  simply. This has the effect  that material  injury  is 

likely  to  manifest  itself  through  the  exit  of  economic  operators  within  the 

assessment  period. 

Consequently, to limit the assessment  of injury  only to companies  which  are 

still  operational  at  the  end  of  the  assessment  period  (i.e.  at  the  time  of  the 

lodging  of  the  complaint)  and  thus  able  actively  to  support  a  complaint 

would  mean  that  any  injury  caused  to  companies  which  have  closed  down 

before this point in time would go unconsidered  in the analysis. Furthermore, 

it  should  be  noted  that  this  distortion  could  even  be  aggravated  as  the 

surviving  complaining  companies  of  the  Community  industry  may  have 

benfited,  possibly  only  temporarily,  from 

the  disappearance  of  other 

companies, causing their positive development to be overestimated. 

30 

In  the  present  case,  it  should  be  noted  that  29  companies  of  the  bed  linen 

industry  have  closed  down  or  ceased  production: 

that  is,  there  has  been  a 

substantial  number  of  companies  that  have  ceased  operation.  Furthermore, 

given the substantial price undercutting established, the strong increase in the 

volumes  of the imports concerned  and their consequent  rise in market  share, 

any  relatively  positive  development  of  the  complaining  producers  must  be 

seen as threatened in the absence of anti-dumping measures. 

4. 

Conclusion 

(42) 

The  finding  of  material  injury,  within  the  meaning  of  Article  3(1)  of  the 

Basic Regulation, is therefore  confirmed. 

G. 

CAUSAL LINK 

(43) 

Exporters from  all three countries concerned  claimed  that any material  injury 

could  be  ascribed  to  the  fall  in  consumption  of  7%  between  1992  and  the 

investigation  period.  However,  as  noted  in  recital  (105)  of  the  provisional 

Regulation,  the  total  fall  in  sales  by  all  Community  producers  significantly 

exceeded  the  total  fall  in  consumption.  As  to  the  exporters'  argument  that 

data  concerning  the  totality  of  Community  production  were  not  relevant  to 

the determination  of whether the dumped  imports caused  material  injury,  this 

suggestion  is  rejected  on  the. grounds  set  out  in  recitals  (40)  and  (41).  The 

finding 

is  therefore  confirmed 

that  the  fall  in  consumption  does  not 

contradict  the  finding  that  the  dumped  imports,  taken  in  isolation,  have 

caused  material  injury  to  the  Community  industry.  The  findings  concerning 

the causal  link between the dumped  imports  and the material  injury  suffered 

by  the  Community  industry  as  set  out  in  recitals  (109)  to  (111)  of  the 

provisional Regulation are therefore  confirmed. 

H. 

COMMUNITY  INTEREST 

1. 

Interests of consumers 

(44) 

Certain  importers  claimed  that  the  impact  on  consumers  would  be  greater 

than  that  assessed  in the  provisional  Regulation.  In its  provisional  findings 

(recital  (124)  of the provisional  Regulation)  the  Commission  had  noted  that 

the imports concerned  by the proceeding were sold to the ultimate  consumer 

at  prices  very  much  higher  than  the  price  at  the  Community  frontier  and 

considered that the duty would therefore represent a smaller proportion of the 

ultimate  price to the consumer than the ad valorem  percentage  levied.  Since 

subsequent  costs  (e.g.  of  transport,  storage  and  retailing)  would  not  be 

increased  by  the  imposition  of  a  duty,  the  impact  on  consumers  of  the 

proposed measures was evaluated as minor. 

(45) 

Certain  parties  challenged  these  arguments.  Some  claimed that  retailers  set 

prices to the consumer at a set percentage mark-up from  their purchase price, 

so  that  the  price  to  the  consumer  would  rise  by  the  same  percentage  as  the 

duty  imposed.  Some  retailers  even  claimed  that  the  percentage  increase  in 

the price  to the consumer  could  be higher  than the duty  level:  they  claimed 

that  products  were  sold  in  particular  price  brackets  and  that  if  the  duty 

increased  the price  of a given product  above one bracket,  it  would  be  priced 

in the next bracket, an increase which might be as high as 20%. 

The  Commission  considered  that  these  claims  did  not  constitute  a reason  to 

depart  from  the  provisional  findings.  It  was  concluded  that  pressure  of 

competition between retailers should ensure that price increases to consumers 

would not exceed the cost increase attributable directly to the duty. The view 

reached by the Commission at the provisional  stage that this duty would have 

only  a  minor  impact  on  consumers,  especially  when  compared  with  other 

factors  such  as  currency  fluctuations,  is  therefore  confirmed.  It  should  be 

noted  in this  context  that  this  conclusion  was not  subsequently  contested  or 

commented  on  by  any  organisation  representing  consumers  following  the 

provisional measures. 

2. 

Interests of other  users 

(46) 

Following  the  imposition  of provisional  duties, certain  parties  came  forward 

claiming that the duties imposed would have a severe negative effect  on their 

businesses.  These  were,  in  particular,  companies  involved  in  the  rental  of 

linen to hotels and other institutions.  An association  representing  such  users 

had  come  forward  before  provisional  measures  and  had  been  invited  by  the 

Commission to supply relevant information  but had not done so. 

The  parties  coming  forward  after  the  imposition  of  provisional  duties  were 

similarly  asked  to  provide  relevant  information  such  as  the  proportion  of 

their  costs  represented  by purchases  of bed  linen  but  none  did  so  within  the 

time  limits  specified  in  the  provisional  Regulation.  Some  of  them  sought 

exclusion  of  certain  types  of  bed  linen  from  the  scope  of  the  current 

proceeding  (see  recitals  (4)  and  (6)  above).  In  doing  so  they  indicated  that 

the  types  of bed  linen  used  were those  capable  of  multiple  use  and  frequent 

industrial washing.  The Commission therefore took the view that while these 

businesses  would  suffer  some  impact  from  the  imposition  of  measures,  the 

original  costs  of  purchasing  the  bed  linen  concerned  would  be  minor  when 

compared  with  the  continuing  service  costs  of  laundry,  collection  and 

delivery.  The  claims  therefore  gave  no  compelling  reason  why  measures 

should not be imposed. 

1. 

ANTI-DUMPING  MEASURES 

1. 

Definitive  duties 

(47) 

Injury  margins  remain  above the  level  of the  dumping  margins  in  all  cases. 

Therefore  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  should  be  imposed  at  the  level  of 

the dumping margins set out in recitals (29) to (31) above, with the exception 

of companies with de minimis dumping margins for which no duty  should  be 

imposed. 

2. 

Collection of provisional  duties 

(48) 

The  magnitude  of  the  dumping  margins  found  for  the  exporting  producers 

and  the  seriousness  of  injury  caused  to  the  Community  industry  would 

normally justify  the  definitive  collection  of  the  provisional  duties  up  to  the 

level of the definitive  duties. 

Some exporters and importers concerned argued however that the  provisional 

Regulation  was  not  imposed  within  the period  specified  in  the  last  sentence 

of Article  7 (1) of the basic Regulation.  In the light of the uncertainty  which 

has  arisen  as  to  whether,  when  judged  by  reference  to  the  provisions  of 

Regulation  (EEC)  No  1182/71  determining  the  rules  applicable  to  periods, 

dates  and  time  limits5,  the  deadline  was  met,  the  Council  considers  that  in 

order  to  avoid  legal  uncertainty,  the  provisional  duties  should  not  be 

definitively  collected. 

3. 

Certification  of handloom items 

(49) 

In order  to  benefit  from  the exemption  for  handloom  products  referred  to  in 

recital  (7),  a  certificate  of  handloom  origin  should  be  required.  The 

certificate  should  be of the form  attached  in Annex II and it should  be  issued 

by  the  competent  authorities  of  the  country  of  origin.  The  certificate 

foreseen  in Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 3030/936 on common  rules  for 

imports  of  certain  textile  products  from  third  countries  should  also  be 

regarded as adequate for the granting of the exemption. 

(50) 

The  Commission  will  monitor  closely  handloom  bed  linen  imports  from  the 

countries  concerned  and  if  the  circumstances  so  require  will  take  all  the 

appropriate measures. 

5 

6 

OJ No L 124, 8.6.71, p. 1 

OJNoL275,  8.11.93, p. 1 

35 

4. 

Future requests for new exporter treatment 

(51) 

Since  sampling  has  been  used  in  the  investigation,  a new  exporters'  review 

pursuant  to  Article  11(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation  with  the  objective  of 

determining 

individual  dumping  margins  cannot  be 

initiated 

in 

this 

proceeding. However,  as already explained  in recitals (12) and  (13), in order 

to  ensure  equal  treatment  between  any  genuine  new exporting  producer  and 

the  co-operating  companies  not  included  in the  sample,  it  is  considered  that 

provision  should  be  made  for  the  weighted  average  duty  imposed  on  the 

latter  companies  to be  applied  to any  new exporting  producers  which  would 

otherwise  be  entitled  to  a  review  pursuant  to  Article  11(4)  of  the  basic 

Regulation, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 

A definitive  anti-dumping  duty is hereby imposed on imports of bed  linen of 

cotton  fibres, pure or mixed with man-made fibres or flax (flax  not  being the 

dominant  fibre),  bleached,  dyed  or printed  originating  in  India,  Pakistan  and 

Egypt,  not  covered  by  the  provisions  of  Article  2  and  falling  within  the 

following  CN codes: 

CN code 

Tariccode 

ex6302 21 00 

6302 2100 81 
6302 21 00 89 

ex6302 22 90 

6302 22 90 19 

_ _ _ __ 

6302 31 10 90 

ex6302 31 90 

6302 3190 90 

ex6302 32 90 

6302 32 90 19 

36 

2. 
Subject  to  paragraphs  3  and  4,  the  rates  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty 
applicable  to  the  net,  free-at-Community-frontier  price,  before  duty,  shall  be  as 
follows  for products originating in: 

Country 

Rate of duty 

Taric additional 

code 

8900 

8900 

8900 

13,5% 

24,7 % 

6,7 % 

Egypt 

India 

Pakistan 

3. 

Products manufactured  and sold for export by the exporting producers  listed in 

Annex I, shall be subject to the following  anti-dumping duty rates: 

Country 

Rate of duty 

Taric additional 

Egypt 

India 

Pakistan 

13% 

11,6% 

6,4% 

code 

8041 

8042 

8043 

4. 

Products manufactured  and sold for export by the companies  listed  below shall 

be subject to the following  anti-dumping duty rates: 

37 

Country 

Manufacturer 

Rate of duty 

Taric additional 
code 

India 

Anglo French Textiles 

24,7 % 

The  Bombay  Dyeing  & 

7,7 % 

Manufacturing  Co Ltd 

Nowrqsjee  Wadia & Sons Ltd 

7,7 % 

Madhu Industries Ltd 

Madhu International 

Omkar Exports 

17,0 % 

17,0% 

14,2% 

Prakash Cotton Mills Ltd 

2,6 % 

8044 

8045 

8045 

8046 

8046 

8047 

8048 

Country 

Manufacturer 

Rate of duty 

Taric additional 
code 

Egypt 

Stephanie Textile 

8,7 % 

8049 

Country 

Manufacturer 

Rate of duty 

Taric additional 
code 

Pakistan 

Al-Abid Silk Mills Ltd 

Al-Abid Export (Pvt) Ltd 

6,7 % 

6,7 % 

Al-Karam Textile Mills Ltd 

0,0 % 

Fateh Textile Mills Ltd 

6,3 % 

Mohammad 

Farooq 

Textile 

0,0 % 

Mills Ltd 

Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd 

0,0 % 

Excel Textile Mills Ltd 

0,0% 

8050 

8050 

8051 

8052 

8051 

8051 

8051 

38 

5. 

Unless otherwise specified,  the provisions in force  concerning customs duties 

shall apply. 

Article 2 

Products  classified  under the CN codes mentioned  in Article  1(1) above  and 

made  of  fabrics  woven  on  looms  operated  exclusively  by  hand  or  foot  are 

exempted  from  the  duty  imposed  in  Article  1  of  this  Regulation  (TARIC 

codes 6302 21 00 21;  6302 2100 29;  6302 22 90  11;  6302  31  10  10; 6302 

3190  10;  6302 32 90 11). 

The  exemption  is granted  only to products  accompanied  on  their  release  for 

free  circulation in the Community by either 

(i) 

a  certificate  from  the  competent  authorities  of, the  country  of  origin 

which conforms to the model attached as Annex II to this Regulation; or 

(ii) 

a certificate  issued pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) 3030/93. 

Certificates  issued  pursuant  to  paragraph  2(i)  shall  only  be  valid  if  the 

countries  of  origin  have  informed  the  Commission  of  the  names  and 

addresses of the governmental  authorities situated  in their  territory  which  are 

empowered  to  issue  these  certificates,  together  with  specimens  of  stamps 

used  by  those  authorities  and  the  names  and  addresses  of  the  relevant 

governmental  authorities  responsible  for  the  control  of  the  certificates.  The 

stamps  shall  be  valid  as  from  the  date  of  receipt  by  the  Commission  of  the 

specimens. 

39 

4. 

Certificates  issued  pursuant  to  paragraph  2  shall  only  be  valid  if  presented 

with options (a) and (c) in box  11 deleted and if they certify  that the products 

concerned fulfil  the description in option (b). 

5. 

The  appropriate  provisions implementing  the  Community  Customs  Code, 

and  notably  the  provisions  concerning  administrative  cooperation  contained 

in Article  93 et seq of Regulation  (EEC) 2454/937, as amended  in  particular 

by Regulation (EC)  12/978, shall apply mutatis mutandis. 

Article 3 

Where  any  new  exporting  producer  from  the  countries  concerned  provides 

sufficient  evidence to the Commission that 

-  it  did  not  export  to  the  Community  the  products  described  in 

Article  1(1) during the investigation  period  (1 July  1995 to  30  June 

1996), 

7 

8 

OJ No L 253,  11.10.93, p. 1 

O J N o L 9,  13.1.97, p. 1. 

40 

-  it  is  not  related  to  any  of  the  exporters  or  producers  in  the 

exporting  country  which  are  subject  to  the  anti-dumping  measures 

imposed by this Regulation, 

-  it has actually  exported to the Community  the products  concerned 

after  the investigation period on which the measures  are based,  or it 

has  entered  into  an  irrevocable  contractual  obligation  to  export  a 

significant  quantity to the Community, 

then  the  Council,  acting  by  simple  majority  on  a proposal  submitted  by  the 

Commission  after  consulting  the  Advisory  Committee,  may  amend  Article 

1 (3)  of this  Regulation  by  adding  that  new  exporting  producer  to  the  list  in 

Annex I mentioned  in that Article. 

Article 4 

Amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  imposed  by 

Regulation (EC)  1069/97 shall be released. 

41 

Article 5 

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, 

For the Council 

42 

ANNEX I 

EGYPT 

AMC Arab Metals Co., Cairo 

Dantèx Ltd., Cairo 

Egyptex, Cairo 

El Naggar Egyptian Co. For Furniture Elmahalla 

Nile Tex, Alexandria 

Wintex-Wahab International Textiles Ltd., Cairo 

Zahret El Mehalla for Weaving, Mehalla El Kubra - El-Seka El-Wosta 

INDIA 

A. Shashikant & Co., Mumbai (Bombay) 

Ajit Impex, Mumbai (Bombay) 

Akai Impex Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay) 

Alps Industries Ltd., Ghaziabad 

Amitara Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay) 

Anunay Fab. Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 

B.X. International, Mumbai (Bombay) 

Badridass Gauridatt Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay) 

Brijmohan Purusottamdas, Mumbai (Bombay) 

Bunts Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay) 

Chhaganlal Kasturchand & Co. Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay) 

43 

Classic Connections, Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Concepts International India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon 

Cotfab Exports, Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Country House, New Delhi 

Deepak Traders, Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Dhanalakshmi Weaving Works, Cannanore 

Divya Textiles, Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Dyna-Impex Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay) 

Elite Exports, Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Emperor Trading Company, Tirupur 

Encore Themes, New Delhi 

Govindji  Trikamdas & Co., Mumbai (Bombay) 

Hindustan Textiles, Cannanore 

Ibats, New Delhi 

Incotex, Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Indo Euro Textiles Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 

Indo Export Corporation, New Delhi 

International  Services, Chennai  (Madras) 

Intex Exports, Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Invitation Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Jindal India, Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Jindal Worldwide Ltd., Ahmedabad 

K. Overseas, New Delhi 

Kanodia Fabrics (International), Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Kaushalya Export,  Ahmedabad 

Kitu Bhandari Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 

44 

Kothari Industrial  Corporation Ltd., Chennai (Madras) 

Lakshmi Apparels and Wovens Limited, Coimbatore 

Mahalaxmi Exports, Ahmedabad 

Maritex Exports, Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Marwaha Exports, New Delhi 

Milano International  (India) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai (Madras) 

Minar Exports, Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Mridul Enterprises, New Delhi 

Niaz International,  Farrukhabad 

P.J. Exports, Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Patodia Syntex Ltd, Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Pattex Exports, Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Prem Textiles. Indore 

Punch Exporters, Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Raghuvir Exim Ltd., Ahmedabad 

Rajka Designs Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 

Sanna Inttex, Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Santex Exports, Mumbai  (Bombay) 

S. D. Enterprises, Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Shetty Garments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Shivani Exports, Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Shorewala Exim Int'l, New Delhi 

Shrijee Enterprises, Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Shruti Designs Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Sohanlal Balkrishna Export, Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Southern  Sales & Services, Bangalore 

45 

Standard Industries Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay) 

Starline Exports, Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Sumangalam Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Sunil Impex, Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Sunil Silk Mills, Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Sunny Made Ups, Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Suresh & Co., Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Surya International, Panipat 

Syndicate Impex, Ahmedabad 

Syntex Corporation Ltd., Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Tata Exports Limited, Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Texcellence Overseas, Mumbai  (Bombay) 

The Hindoostan  Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd., Mumbai  (Bombay) 

The Ruby Mills Limited, Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Trend Setters, Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Trend  Setters K.F.T.Z., Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Vepar Private Limited,  Ahmedabad 

Vigneshwara Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai  (Bombay) 

Wooltop Weaves, Chennai  (Madras) 

PAKISTAN 

Adamjees  Impex International, Karachi 

Afroze  Textile Industries (Private) Ltd., Karachi 

Amer Fabrics Limited, Lahore 

46 

Anjum  Textile Mills (Private) Ltd., Faisalabad 

Arzoo International (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad 

Arzoo Textile Mills Ltd., Faisalabad 

Asco International (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi 

Aziz Sons, Karachi 

B.I.L. Exporters, Karachi 

Be Be Jan Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad 

Bêla Textiles Limited, Karachi 

Dyer Textile & Printing Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi 

Eksons Sales Organisation, Karachi 

Elahi Enterprises Ltd., Lahore 

Elasta Amtex Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi 

Fairdeal Textiles (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi 

Faisal Industries, Karachi 

Fashion Knit Industries, Karachi 

Gohar Enterprises, Faisalabad 

Gohar International (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad 

H.A. Industries (Private) Ltd., Faisalabad 

Home Furnishings Ltd., Karachi 

Kam International, Karachi 

Kausar Textile Industries (Pty) Ltd., Faisalabad 

Kohinoor Textile Mills Ltd., Rawalpindi 

Latif Int'l (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad 

Liberty  Mills Limited, Karachi 

Linex International  (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi 

Lotus Textile Industries Limited. Karachi 

47 

Lucky Impex, Karachi 

Lucky Tex, Karachi 

Lucky Textile Mills, Karachi 

M.F.M.Y. Industries Ltd., Karachi 

M.R. Export (Private) Ltd., Lahore 

Mukaty Corporation, Karachi 

Nadia Textile International (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore 

Nakshbandi Industries Limited, Karachi 

Nash Garments (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi 

Nina Industries Ltd., Karachi 

Nishat Mills Limited, Karachi 

Nishitex Enterprises, Karachi 

Nu-tex (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi 

Parsons Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi 

S.P.R.L. Rehman Brothers, Lahore 

Sas Texexport (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi 

Shabbir Associates, Karachi 

Sharif Textile Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad 

Sitara Textile Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad 

Syncotex Sa Agencies, Karachi 

The Crescent Textile Mills Limited, Faisalabad 

Today's Sportswear Inc., Karachi 

Towellers Limited, Karachi 

Unibro Industries Limited, Karachi 

Union Exports (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi 

ZN Textiles (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad 

48 

1 

Exporter  (name,  full  address,  country) 

Exportateur  {nom,  adresse  complète,  pays) 

ANNEXII 

ORIGINAL 

2  N< 

Consignee  (name,  full  address,  country) 

Destinataire  (nom,  adresse  complète,  pays) 

CERTIFICATE in regard to HANDLOOMS, TEXTILE HANDICRAFTS and 

TRADITIONAL TEXTILE PRODUCTS, of the COTTAGE INDUSTRY, 

issued in conformity with and under the conditions regulating trade in 

textile products with the European Community 

CERTIFICAT relatif aux TISSUS TISSSES SUR METIERS A MAIN, aux 

PRODUITS TEXTILES FAITS A LA MAIN, et aux PRODUITS TEXTILES 

RELEVANT DU FOLKLORE TRADITIONNEL, DE FABRICATION ARTI 

SANALE, délivré en conformité avec et sous les conditions régissant 

les échanges de produits textiles avec la Communauté Européenne 

Country  of  origin 

Pays  d'origine 

5  Country  of  destination 

Pays  de  destination 

Place  and  date  of  shipment  -  Means  of  transport 

Lieu  et  date  d'embarquement  -  Moyen  de  transport 

7  Supplementary  details 

Données  supplémentaires 

Marks  and  numbers  -  Number  and  kind  of  packages  -  DESCRIPTION  OF  GOODS 

Marques  et  numéros  -  Nombre  et  nature  des  colis  -  DESIGNATION  DES  MARCHANDISES 

9  Quantity 

10  FOB  Value  (1) 

Quantité 

Valeur  FOB  (1) 

11  CERTIFICATION  BY  THE  COMPETENT  AUTHORITY  -  VISA  DE  L'AUTORITE  COMPETENTE 

I, the undersigned, certify  that  the consignment  described  above  includes  only  the  following  textile  products  of the cottage  industry  of the country 
shown  in box N °4 : 
a) fabrics  woven on looms  operated solely by hand of foot  (handlooms)  (2) 
b)  garments  or other  textile  articles  obtained  manually  from the fabrics  described  under a) and sewn  solely  be hand  without  the aid of any machine 
(handicrafts)  (2) 
c)  traditional  folklore  handicraft  textile  products  made by hand, as defined in the list  agreed  between the European  Community  and the country  shown 
in box  N°  4. 

Je  soussigné  certifie  que l'envoi  décrit  ci-dessus  contient  exclusivement  les produits textiles  suivants  relevant  de la fabrication  artisanale du pays 

figurant  dans la case 4 : 
a) tissus  tisssés  sur des  métiers  actionnés  à la main ou au pied  (handlooms) (2) 
b)  vêtements  ou autres  articles  textiles  obtenus  manuellement  à partir  de tissus  décrits  sous a) et cousus  uniquement  à la main sans  l'aide  d'une 
machine  (handicrafts) (2) 
c)  produits  textiles  relevant  du folklore  traditionnel  fabriqués  à la main, comme  définis  dans la liste  convenue  entre  la Communauté  européenne  et le 
pays  indiqué  dans la case 4. 

12  Competent  authority  (name,  full  address,  country) 

Autorité  compétente  (nom,  adresse  complète,  pays) 

A t-  A. 

On -  le 

Signature 

Stamp  -  Cachet 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(97) 591 final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

02  11 

Catalogue number  :  CB-CO-97-605-EN-C 

ISBN  92-78-27451-8 

Office  for Official  Publications of the European Communities 

L-2985 Luxembourg 

JTC o