Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People's Republic of China
Date: 2001-07-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, import, lighting equipment, originating product

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 04.07.2001
COM(2001) 367 final

Proposal for a

&281&,/(cid:3)5(*8/$7,21

LPSRVLQJ(cid:3)D(cid:3)GHILQLWLYH(cid:3)DQWL(cid:16)GXPSLQJ(cid:3)GXW\(cid:3)DQG(cid:3)FROOHFWLQJ(cid:3)GHILQLWLYHO\(cid:3)WKH
SURYLVLRQDO(cid:3)GXW\(cid:3)LPSRVHG(cid:3)RQ(cid:3)LPSRUWV(cid:3)RI(cid:3)LQWHJUDWHG(cid:3)HOHFWURQLF(cid:3)FRPSDFW
IOXRUHVFHQW(cid:3)ODPSV(cid:3)(cid:11)&)/(cid:16)L(cid:12)(cid:3)RULJLQDWLQJ(cid:3)LQ(cid:3)WKH(cid:3)3HRSOH¶V(cid:3)5HSXEOLF(cid:3)RI(cid:3)&KLQD

(presented by the Commission)

(;3/$1$725<(cid:3)0(025$1’80

On 17 May 2000, the Commission opened an anti-dumping investigation with regard
to  imports  into  the  Community  of  integrated  electronic  compact  fluorescent  lamps
originating in the People’s Republic of China.

The  investigation  revealed  the  existence  of  injurious  dumping  and  consequently  the
Commission,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  255/20011,  imposed  provisional  anti-dumping
duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps originating in the
People’s Republic of China.

The attached proposal for a Council Regulation is based on the definitive findings on
dumping,  injury,  causation  and  Community  interest  which  basically  confirmed  the
provisional findings.

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation
which should be published in the Official Journal no later than 8 August 2001.

1 OJ L 38, 8.2.2001, p.8.

2

                                                
Proposal for a

&281&,/(cid:3)5(*8/$7,21

LPSRVLQJ(cid:3)D(cid:3)GHILQLWLYH(cid:3)DQWL(cid:16)GXPSLQJ(cid:3)GXW\(cid:3)DQG(cid:3)FROOHFWLQJ(cid:3)GHILQLWLYHO\(cid:3)WKH
SURYLVLRQDO(cid:3)GXW\(cid:3)LPSRVHG(cid:3)RQ(cid:3)LPSRUWV(cid:3)RI(cid:3)LQWHJUDWHG(cid:3)HOHFWURQLF(cid:3)FRPSDFW
IOXRUHVFHQW(cid:3)ODPSV(cid:3)(cid:11)&)/(cid:16)L(cid:12)(cid:3)RULJLQDWLQJ(cid:3)LQ(cid:3)WKH(cid:3)3HRSOH¶V(cid:3)5HSXEOLF(cid:3)RI(cid:3)&KLQD

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
Community 1, and in particular Article 9 thereof,

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

Advisory Committee,

WHEREAS :

$(cid:17)(cid:3)3529,6,21$/(cid:3)0($685(6

(1) 

(2) 

(“provisional
The  Commission,  by  Regulation 
Regulation”), 
imports  of
imposed  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  on 
integrated  electronic  compact  fluorescent  lamps  ("CFL-i")  falling  within  CN
code ex 8539 31 90 originating in the People’s Republic of China ("PRC").

(EC)  No  255/20012 

%(cid:17)(cid:3)68%6(48(17(cid:3)352&(’85(

Subsequent  to  the  disclosure  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the
basis  of  which  it  was  decided  to  impose  provisional  measures  on  imports  of
CFL-i originating in the PRC and following the publication of the provisional
Regulation,  several  interested  parties  submitted  comments  in  writing.  The
parties who so requested were also granted an opportunity to be heard orally.

(3) 

The  Commission  continued  to  seek  and  verify  all  information  it  deemed
necessary for its definitive findings.

1 OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2238/2000, OJ L 257, 11.10.2000,

p.2.

2 OJ L 38, 8.2.2001, page 8.

3

                                                
(4) 

All 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  of  amounts  secured  by  way  of
provisional  duties.  They  were  also  granted  a  period  within  which  they  could
make representations subsequent to this disclosure.

(5) 

The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were considered, and,
where appropriate, the provisional findings have been modified accordingly.

&(cid:17)(cid:3)7+((cid:3),1,7,$7,21(cid:3)2)(cid:3)7+((cid:3)352&((’,1*

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

Some  interested  parties  claimed  that  certain  third  countries,  namely  Poland
and Hungary, should have been included in the anti-dumping proceeding as a
non-inclusion of these countries would be discriminatory.

In  this  respect,  it  is  confirmed  that  no  parallel  proceeding  could  be  initiated
against Poland and Hungary since, on the basis of the information available at
the stage of initiation, no evidence of injurious dumping by these imports was
available to the Commission. This claim was therefore rejected.

’(cid:17)(cid:3)352’8&7(cid:3)&21&(51(’(cid:3)$1’(cid:3)/,.((cid:3)352’8&7

Some exporting producers submitted that CFL-i produced in the PRC were not
comparable  with  those  produced  in  the  Community,  as  Chinese  producers
exported only CFL-i with a lifetime of less than 6000 hours, which were  not
produced by the Community industry.

In this respect, the investigation has shown that both Chinese and Community
producers manufacture CFL-i with a lifetime of less than 6000 hours, as well
as CFL-i with a lifetime of more than 6000 hours. In addition, it is confirmed
that comparisons made for the purpose of calculating injury and undercutting
margins  were  based  on  CFL-i  with  comparable  lifetimes.  The  claim  was
therefore rejected.

((cid:17)(cid:3)’803,1*

(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:3)1RUPDO(cid:3)9DOXH

(10)  Various interested parties objected to the choice of Mexico as an  appropriate
market economy third country for the purpose of establishing normal value for
the PRC.

(11)  Some interested parties proposed the use of the normal values determined on
the basis of the domestic sales made by the two Chinese exporting producers
which  had  been  granted  market  economy  treatment,  instead  of  determining
normal value on the basis of a market economy third country. Article 2(7) of
Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (“Basic Regulation”) provides that in the
case of imports from countries like the PRC, the normal values be established
on  the  basis  of  the  price  or  constructed  value  in  a  market  economy  third
country unless an exporting producer meets the criteria set out in subparagraph
(c) of the aforementioned provision. Therefore, it was not possible to comply
with this request.

4

(12)  As  a consequence,  and  as no  new  arguments were put  forward  regarding  the
choice of Mexico as an analogue country, the findings set out in recital 32 of
the provisional Regulation concerning the selection of Mexico are confirmed.

(13) 

(14) 

It is thus confirmed that normal values for each product  type exported  to the
Community by the Chinese exporting producers were established on the basis
of information supplied by the co-operating producer in the analogue country(cid:17)

In  the  absence  of  any  new  evidence,  under  this  heading,  the  provisional
findings,  as  set  out  in  recitals  14  to  34  of  the  provisional  regulation,  are
confirmed.

(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:3)([SRUW(cid:3)3ULFH

(15)  One  exporting  producer  claimed  that  one  product  type  had  been  incorrectly
coded and provided proof of this mistake. The claim was verified and accepted
and a correction was consequently made.

(16)  One exporting producer claimed that there was a clerical mistake with regard
to the reporting of some CIF prices of some of its Community sales. The claim
was verified and accepted and the prices were consequently revised.

(17) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  under  this  heading,  the  provisional
findings,  as  set  out  in  recitals  35  to  38  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  are
confirmed.

(cid:22)(cid:17)(cid:3)&RPSDULVRQ

(18) 

In the absence of any comments under this heading, the provisional findings,
as set out in recitals 39 to 41 of the provisional Regulation, are confirmed.

(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:3)’XPSLQJ(cid:3)PDUJLQ

(19)  The dumping calculations have been reviewed, in order to determine whether
there  was  a  pattern  of  export  prices  which  differed  significantly  among
different purchasers, regions or time periods and whether a comparison of the
weighted  average  normal  value  and  weighted  average  export  price  (hereafter
referred  to  as  "the  average-to-average  method")  reflected  the  full  degree  of
dumping  being  practised.  A  detailed  analysis  of  the  Community  export
transactions  has  revealed  with  regard  to  one  Chinese  exporting  producer  a
pattern  of  export  prices  that  differed  significantly  among  purchasers  and
regions, as well as time periods. In particular it was found that export prices by
this exporting producer to Denmark, to a specific importer, and at the end of
the  investigation  period  were  substantially  lower.  Moreover,  the  average-to-
average  method  would  not  have  reflected  the  full  degree  of  dumping  being
practised by this exporting producer. The calculation of the margin of dumping
for  this  exporting  producer  has  consequently  been  based  on  a  weighted
average  normal  value  compared  to  all  individual  export  transactions  to  the
Community. For all other exporting producers the calculation of dumping was
based on the average-to-average method.

5

(20)  As a result of these changes, the individual dumping margins are:

Changzhou Hailong Electronics & Light Fixtures Co. Ltd.,
Changzhou

City Bright Lighting (Shenzhen) Ltd., Shenzhen

Deluxe Well Enterprises Ltd., Shenzhen

Lisheng Electronic & Lighting (Xiamen) Co. Ltd., Xiamen

Philips & Yaming Lighting Co. Ltd., Shanghai

Sanex Electronics Co. Ltd., Suzhou

Shenzhen Zuoming Electronic Co. Ltd., Shenzhen

Zhejiang Yankon Group Co., Ltd. (previously known as
Zhejiang Sunlight Group Co., Ltd.), Shangyu

59.5%

17.1%

37.1%
GH(cid:3)PLQLPLV

61.8%

20.2%

8.4%

35.3%

(21)  The  country-wide  dumping  margin  for  the  PRC  established  on  this  basis  is

66.1%.

)(cid:17)(cid:3),1-85<

(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:3)3UHOLPLQDU\(cid:3)UHPDUNV

(22) 

It  was  examined  whether  the  exclusion  of  the  imports  attributable  to  the
exporting producer found not to have dumped would have had any significant
impact on the analysis  of  the injury and  causation aspects.  It has been  found
that,  even  if  such  imports  were  to  be  excluded  from  the  analysis,  the
conclusions  as  to  the existence of  material  injury  caused  by  dumped  imports
would  remain  unchanged,  notably  in  view  of  the  considerable  price
undercutting and the substantial increase in volume and market shares as well
as the decrease in the sales prices, which would be even more significant.

(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:3)’HILQLWLRQ(cid:3)RI(cid:3)WKH(cid:3)&RPPXQLW\(cid:3)LQGXVWU\

(23)  The European Lighting Companies Federation ("the(cid:3)complainant) claimed that
data relating to Philips Lighting B.V. ("Philips") should have been taken into
account  in  the  injury  analysis,  as  this  company  had  also  suffered  injury.  It
referred  to  the  WTO  Panel  report  on  bed  linen  from  India3,  arguing  that  the
Panel  found  that  the  EC  had  wrongly  based  its  injury  analysis  on  different
groups of Community producers.

(24) 

It is to be noted that the Panel report is not relevant in this respect. Indeed, the
Panel report ruled on a case where sampling methodology was applied. In this

3  World  Trade  Organisation,  EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES  -  ANTI-DUMPING  DUTIES  ON
IMPORTS  OF  COTTON-TYPE  BED  LINEN  FROM  INDIA,  Report  of  the  Panel,  WT/DS141/R,
30 October 2000

6

                                                
context, contrary to what the complainant  claims, the Panel report concluded
that  producers  which  are  not  part  of  the  Community  industry  should  not  be
taken  into  consideration  for  the  purpose  of  assessing  the  situation  of  the
domestic industry of the importing country. Considering that Philips withdrew
from  the  complaint  after  the  initiation  of  the  proceeding  and  that  it  stopped
manufacturing CFL-i in the Community shortly after the IP, it could no longer
be considered as part of the Community industry in accordance with Art. 4(1)
and 5(4) of the Basic Regulation. Therefore, the claim had to be rejected.

(25)  Several interested parties  reiterated  the  argument  that  companies  constituting
the  Community  industry  were  themselves  importing  the  product  concerned
from the PRC and should therefore not be part of the Community industry. It
was  also  alleged  that  imports  of  CFL-i  by  the  complainants  accounted  for  at
least 10% of total imports into the Community from the PRC during the IP.

(26)  The  further investigation  confirmed that, during the  IP,  on  average  14.6%  of
the total sales of CFL-i by the Community producers originated in the country
concerned.  However,  these  trading  activities  did  not  affect  their  status  as
Community  producers  since  the  primary  activity  of  the  latter  producers
remained in the Community and their trading activity is explained by the need
to complete the product range so as to be able to satisfy demand, as well as by
the attempt to defend themselves against low priced imports due to dumping.
As to the claim that during the IP the complainants accounted for at least 10%
of  total  imports  into  the  Community  from  the  PRC,  it  should  be  noted  that,
firstly,  the  claim  was  not  substantiated  and,  secondly,  that  the  investigation
showed in fact that these imports accounted for a much lower percentage. The
claims were therefore rejected and the findings set out in recitals 51 to 53 of
the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

(cid:22)(cid:17)(cid:3),PSRUWV(cid:3)IURP(cid:3)WKH(cid:3)35&

8QGHUFXWWLQJ

(27)  As regards the price undercutting margins, some exporting producers claimed
that the Community industry prices used for the calculations were inconsistent
because,  in  some  cases,  Community  prices  for  CFL-i  with  a  certain  wattage
were higher than the prices for CFL-i with a higher wattage, while they should
have been lower.

(28) 

In this respect, it is confirmed that in some cases the Community industry sold
CFL-i  with  a  certain  wattage  at  prices  which  were  higher  than  the  ones  of
CFL-i  having  a  higher  wattage.  However,  the  same  holds  true  for  CFL-i
produced by the exporting producers that submitted this argument. Obviously,
prices do not only depend on the wattage but also on other factors such as, for
instance, the unit production costs that can widely vary, depending, LQWHU(cid:3)DOLD,
on the number of pieces produced per type of CFL-i, or the quantity sold.

(29)  One  interested  party  submitted  that  retail  prices  in  the  Community  remained
almost stable between 1996 and the IP while, in the same period, import prices
decreased. It was alleged that, as a consequence, the price undercutting margin

7

calculations were misleading since they were based on the import prices which
do not reflect the situation of the market.

(30) 

In this respect it should be recalled that price undercutting margins are usually
established  by  comparing  the  exporting  producers’  prices,  adjusted  to  a  CIF
level,  and  the  actual  ex-works  Community  industry’s  prices  to  the  first
independent  customer,  at  the  same  level  of  trade.  In  the  current  case,  since
both  the  exporting  producers  and  the  Community  industry  sold  to  the  same
categories of customers during the IP, no adjustments were needed to compare
those  prices  at  the  same  level  of  trade.  In  addition,  a  comparison  based  on
actually charged retail prices would not have reflected the pricing behaviour of
the  exporting  producers  in  relation  to  that  of  the  Community  industry,  but
rather  that  of  distributors  and  retailers  of  CFL-i  of  all  origins  in  the
Community.

(31)  Before the above background, price undercutting margins were reviewed  and
amended on the basis of the revised export prices, as explained above, and of
the correction of an error that occurred in the currency used for one exporting
producer. The revised weighted average price undercutting margins expressed
as a percentage of the Community industry’s prices are as follows:

&RXQWU\(cid:29)(cid:3)35&

3ULFH(cid:3)8QGHUFXWWLQJ

Undercutting margins of co-operating
exporting producers

Between 13.7% and 45.1%

(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:3)6LWXDWLRQ(cid:3)RI(cid:3)WKH(cid:3)&RPPXQLW\(cid:3)LQGXVWU\

(32) 

In the absence of new evidence, the provisional findings as set out in recitals
64  to  83  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  i.e.  that  the  Community  industry  has
suffered material injury during the IP, are confirmed.

(cid:24)(cid:17)(cid:3)&DXVDWLRQ

(33)  One interested party claimed that, contrary to what is stated in recital 90 of the
provisional Regulation, the prices of products originating in Poland were at the
same  level  or  were  even  lower  than  the  prices  of  imports  originating  in  the
PRC, during the IP.

(34) 

(35) 

In this respect, the prices of the imports originating in Poland were established
on the basis of Eurostat data in terms of import prices per unit, as it has been
done  for  imports  originating  in  the  PRC,  and  not,  as  done  by  the  party
submitting  the  claim,  in  terms  of  import  prices  per  tonne.  The  claim  was
therefore rejected.

In  the  absence  of  any  new  evidence,  the  findings  on  causation  set  out  in
recitals  84  to  99  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  confirmed,  i.e.  that  the
dumped  imports  caused  the  material  injury  suffered  by  the  Community
industry.

(cid:25)(cid:17)(cid:3)&RPPXQLW\(cid:3)LQWHUHVW

8

(36)  Some  interested  parties  argued  that  anti-dumping  measures  would  increase
import  prices  from  the  country  concerned,  with  a  significant  impact  on  the
financial situation of importers of CFL-i in the Community.

(37)  As  to  the  increase  of  the  import  prices  in  the  Community  market,  it  appears
unlikely that average prices will increase significantly, in view of the low level
of duties for certain Chinese exporting producers and in particular the fact that
for the largest known exporter, in terms of export volume, no duty is imposed.
Nevertheless,  even  with  possible  import  price  increases,  measures  are  still
justified, as they will re-establish  fair competition in the  Community  market.
In  addition,  it  is  unlikely  that  imports  will  decrease  significantly,  given  that
even if cost increases are passed on to consumers, the latter still have a strong
economic  incentive  to  purchase  energy  saving  lamps.  As  to  the  effect  of  the
imposition  of  anti-dumping  duties  on  the  importers’  financial  situation,  it  is
confirmed,  in  the  absence  of  new  evidence,  that,  although  a  negative  impact
cannot  be  excluded  for  those  importers  whose  business  is  very  much
dominated by CFL-i, the financial  situation  of  importers dealing  with  a  wide
range of other products or trading exclusively with an exporting producer for
whom no duties are imposed, will not be significantly affected by the duties.
The provisional findings summarised in recitals 106 to 109 of the provisional
Regulation are thus confirmed.

(38)  Some  interested  parties  argued  that  the  duties  would  substantially  increase

retail prices, thus having a negative impact on consumers.

(39) 

In  this  respect,  any  possible  increase  will  indeed  depend  on  several  factors,
e.g.  the  market  behaviour  of  the  Chinese  exporting  producers,  the  ability  of
importers  to  pass  on  any  increases  in  import  prices  to  retailers  or  consumers
and the  extent  to  which  the  import  trade  pattern  changes  due  to  the  fact  that
there are some Chinese exporting producers with low duties or with no duty at
all.

(40)  One importer claimed that national users’ and consumers' associations should
have been contacted by the  Commission  in order  to  evaluate the  Community
interest in the measures.

(41) 

In this respect it should be recalled that, according to Article 21(2) of the Basic
Regulation,  it  is  for  the  interested  parties  to  make  themselves  known  and  to
provide their submissions to the Commission. Nevertheless, in the current case
the Commission had contacted the European consumers' organisation (BEUC)
which is the representative of 32 independent national consumer organisations
in Europe. Following publication of the provisional Regulation, the European
Property Federation (EPF), which represents the industry managing, LQWHU(cid:3)DOLD,
the  lighting  in  residential  and  commercial  buildings,  came  forward  and
submitted  that  the  price  is  the  main  criterion  for  users  when  choosing  their
source of supply of CFL-i. However, no specific information was provided by
EPF  as  to  how  the  duties  would  influence  retail  prices  and  consequently  the
users’ and consumers’ behaviour.

(42)  Several  interested  parties  submitted  that  anti-dumping  duties  are  contrary  to
Community energy saving policies, as they would result in the increase of the

9

retail  prices  for  consumers  and  thus  reduce  the  sales  of  energy  saving  lamps
(CFL-i).

(43) 

In this respect, the Community industry cannot be expected to bear the costs of
the  Community  energy  saving  policies  through  suffering  from  unfair  trade
practices.  In  addition,  it  should  be  considered  that,  on  average,  CFL-i,  as
compared to incandescent lamps, consume 20% of the energy and last 5 times
longer as compared to an incandescent lamp, which consequently gives CFL-i
a  considerable  cost  advantage.  Thus,  even  in  the  event  of  moderate  price
increases there will still be a strong economic incentive for consumers to buy
CFL-i.

(44)  Some interested  parties  argued that the  imposition  of  anti-dumping  measures
would be against the Community interest on the grounds that competition was
impeded  due  to  an  exchange  of  information  on  price.  This  anti-competitive
effect would be exacerbated by the disappearance of Chinese CFL-i from the
Community market.

(45)  The  investigation  showed  that,  while  there  was  a  decision  by  a  national
competition  authority  relating  to  the  exchange  of  price  information  between
Community  producers,  this  decision  did  not  relate  to  the  product  concerned.
As  to  the  product  concerned,  no  evidence  of  illegal  competitive  practices
between  Community  producers  was  found.  Furthermore,  the  Commission  is
not aware of any competition problems pertaining to the product concerned on
the  Community  market.  Finally,  given  the  level  of  the  duties  for  certain
Chinese exporting producers, it is likely that a significant number of Chinese
competitors  will  remain  active  on  the  Community  market  and  alternative
sources  of  supply  from  the  Community  producers  and  other  third  countries
with no duties, particularly Poland and Hungary with a market share of around
15% in the IP, will remain available.

(46)  On  the  basis  of  the  above,  the  findings  set  out  in  recitals  100  to  118  of  the
provisional Regulation are confirmed, i.e. there are no compelling reasons on
the  grounds  of  Community  interest  against  the  imposition  of  anti-dumping
duties.

)(cid:17)(cid:3)$17,(cid:16)’803,1*(cid:3)0($685(6

(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:3),QMXU\(cid:3)HOLPLQDWLRQ(cid:3)OHYHO

(47) 

In accordance with Article 9(4) of the Basic Regulation, the anti-dumping duty
should  correspond  to  the  dumping  margin  unless  the  injury  margin  is  lower.
For  the  purposes  of  establishing  the  level  of  measures  to  be  definitively
imposed, an injury elimination level has been established.

(48)  One exporting producer claimed that the profit margin of 8% used to calculate
the non-injurious Community industry price was too high, as a decline of the
profit  margins  was  normal,  in  view  of  the  conditions  of  a  market  which
becomes more mature(cid:17)

10

(49) 

It should be noted, firstly, that the market of CFL-i is expanding, consumption
having increased by 117% between 1996 and the IP, and therefore a declining
profit does not appear to be justified in such circumstances.  It should also be
recalled  that  the  Community  industry  reached  a  profitability  level  of  around
8%  in  1997,  the  year  after  which  the  situation  of  the  Community  industry
started to deteriorate, coinciding with the increase of the import volumes and
the decrease of the import prices from the PRC. Secondly, as stated in recital
105  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  CFL-i  are  high-tech  products  which
necessitate important R&D efforts. In order to stay competitive, it is necessary
to develop new, more sophisticated models on a continuous basis. Taking into
account  the  aforementioned  factors,  a  profit margin of 8%  appears  to  be  one
that could reasonably be reached in the absence of injurious dumping.

(50)  Given the above, the methodology used for establishing the injury elimination
level  as  described  in  recitals  121  and  122  of  the  provisional  Regulation  is
confirmed.

(51)  As mentioned above in relation to price undercutting margins, injury margins

were also reviewed and amended.

(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:3))RUP(cid:3)DQG(cid:3)OHYHO(cid:3)RI(cid:3)GHILQLWLYH(cid:3)PHDVXUHV

(52) 

In the light of the  foregoing, it is considered  that, in accordance with Article
9(4)  of  the  Basic  Regulation,  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  should  be
imposed at the level of the injury margin found for Philips & Yaming and at
the level of the dumping margins found for the remaining exporting producers.

(53)  The individual company anti-dumping  duty  rates specified  in  this  Regulation
were  established  on  the  basis  of  the  findings  of  the  present  investigation.
Therefore,  they  reflect  the  situation  found  during  that  investigation  with
respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the country-wide
duty  applicable  to  ‘all  other  companies’)  are  thus  exclusively  applicable  to
imports of products originating in the country concerned and produced by the
companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products
produced  by  any  other  company  not  specifically  mentioned  in  the  operative
part of this Regulation with its name and address, including entities related to
those  specifically  mentioned,  cannot  benefit  from  these  rates  and  shall  be
subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’.

(54)  Any  claim  requesting  the  application  of  these  individual  company  anti-
dumping  duty  rates  (e.g.  following  a  change  in  the  name  of  the  entity  or
following  the  setting  up  of  new  production  or  sales  entities)  should  be
addressed  to  the  Commission4  forthwith  with  all  relevant  information,  in

4

European Commission
Directorate-General for Trade
Directorate B
TERV 0/10

11

                                                
particular  any  modification  in  the  company’s  activities  linked  to  production,
domestic and export sales associated with e.g. that name change or that change
in the production and sales entities. The Commission, if appropriate, will, after
consultation of the Advisory Committee, amend the Regulation accordingly by
updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.

(cid:22)(cid:17)(cid:3)&ROOHFWLRQ(cid:3)RI(cid:3)SURYLVLRQDO(cid:3)GXWLHV

(55) 

In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and in the light of the
level  of  the  injury  caused  to  the  Community  industry,  it  is  considered
necessary  that  the  amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping
duty,  imposed  by  the  provisional  Regulation,  i.e.  Regulation  (EC)  No
255/2001, should  be  definitively  collected  at  the  rate  of  the  duty  definitively
imposed. In cases where the rate of the definitive duty imposed is higher than
the  rate  of  the provisional  duty,  only  the  amounts  secured  at  the  level  of  the
provisional duty should be definitively collected.

(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:3)0RGLILFDWLRQ(cid:3)RI(cid:3)WKH(cid:3)QDPH(cid:3)RI(cid:3)D(cid:3)FRPSDQ\(cid:3)VXEMHFW(cid:3)WR(cid:3)DQ(cid:3)LQGLYLGXDO(cid:3)DQWL(cid:16)GXPSLQJ

GXW\(cid:3)UDWH

(56)  The  provisional  Regulation,  i.e.  Regulation  (EC)  No  255/2001,  imposed  an
individual  duty  rate  of  35,4%  to  the  exporting  producer  Zhejiang  Sunlight
Group  Co.,  Ltd.  This  company  has  informed  the  Commission  that  it  has
changed its name to Zhejiang Yankon Group Co., Ltd. The company has asked
the  Commission  to  amend  the  Regulation  to  ensure  that  the  change  of  name
does  not  affect  the  right  of  the  company  to  benefit  from  the  individual  duty
rate applied to that company under its previous name.

(57)  The Commission has examined the information supplied, which demonstrates
that all the company’s activities linked to the manufacturing, sales and exports
of  the  product  concerned  are  unaffected  by  the  change  of  name.  The
Commission therefore concludes that the change of name in no way affects the
findings of Council Regulation (EC) No 255/2001.

(58)  Therefore  the  amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty
imposed  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  255/2001  in  respect  of  goods  manufactured
by  Zhejiang  Sunlight  Group  Co.,  Ltd.  should  be  definitively  collected  at  the
rate  of  the  duty  definitively  imposed  on  goods  manufactured  by  Zhejiang
Yankon  Group  Co.,  Ltd.,  and  the  Taric  additional  code  A241  previously
attributed  to  Zhejiang  Sunlight  Group  Co.,  Ltd.,  shall  apply  to  Zhejiang
Yankon Group Co., Ltd.

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200
B-1049 Brussels / Belgium

12

                                                                                                                                           
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

$UWLFOH(cid:3)(cid:20)

1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of electronic compact
fluorescent discharge lamps with one or more  glass tubes, with all lighting  elements
and  electronic  components  fixed  to  the  lamp  foot  or  integrated  in  the  lamp  foot,
falling within CN code ex 8539 31 90 (TARIC code 8539 31 9091), and originating in
the People’s Republic of China.

2. The rate of duty applicable to the net free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty,
for products produced by the following manufacturers shall be as follows:

0DQXIDFWXUHU

5DWH(cid:3)RI(cid:3)GXW\
(cid:8)

7DULF
DGGLWLRQDO(cid:3)FRGH

Changzhou Hailong Electronics & Light
Fixtures Co., Ltd.
Luoyang, Changzhou, Jiangsu
Changzhou 213104
People’s Republic of China
City Bright Lighting (Shenzhen) Ltd.
Shenzhen
People’s Republic of China
Deluxe Well Enterprises Ltd.
Block 17-18, Hong Qiao Tao Industrial Zone,
Bao An Yuan,
Shenzhen
People’s Republic of China
Lisheng Electronic & Lighting (Xiamen) Co.,
Ltd. Xiamen
People’s Republic of China
Philips & Yaming Lighting Co., Ltd.
1805 Hu Yi Highway,
Malu Jia Ding District,
Shanghai 201801
People’s Republic of China
Sanex Electronics Co., Ltd.
Xin Su Industrial Area, Jiangsu
Suzhou 215001
People’s Republic of China
Shenzhen Zuoming Electronic Co. Ltd.,
Shenzhen, Guangdong
People’s Republic of China
Zhejiang Yankon Group Co., Ltd. (previously
known as Zhejiang Sunlight Group Co., Ltd.).
129 Fengshan Road, Zhejiang
Shangyu 213104
People’s Republic of China
All other companies

13

59.5

A234

17.1

A235

37.1

A236

0.0

A237

32.3

A238

20.2

A239

8.4

A240

35.3

66.1

A241

A999

3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall
apply.

$UWLFOH(cid:3)(cid:21)

1.  The  amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  pursuant  to
Regulation (EC) No 255/2001 on imports of electronic compact fluorescent discharge
lamps  with  one  or  more  glass  tubes,  with  all  lighting  elements  and  electronic
components  fixed  to  the  lamp  foot  or  integrated  in  the  lamp  foot  originating  in  the
People’s  Republic  of  China  shall  be  collected  at  the  rate  of  the  duty  definitively
imposed.  The  amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  duties  pursuant  to  Regulation
(EC)  No  255/2001  on  imports  manufactured  by  Zhejiang  Sunlight  Group  Co.,  Ltd.
shall be collected at the rate of duty definitively imposed on imports manufactured by
Zhejiang Yankon Group Co., Ltd. (TARIC additional code A241).

2.  Amounts  secured  in  excess  of  the  rate  of  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  shall  be
released. In cases where the rate of the definitive duty imposed is higher than the rate
of the provisional duty, only the amounts secured at the level of the provisional duty
should be definitively collected.

$UWLFOH(cid:3)(cid:22)

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

The President

14