Council Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 of 16 July 2001 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: 2001-07-16
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, electronic equipment, import, lighting equipment

L 195/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19.7.2001

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1470/2001

of 16 July 2001

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

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

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:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES

The Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 255/2001 (2)
imposed provisional anti-
(‘provisional Regulation’),
integrated electronic
dumping duties on imports of
compact fluorescent lamps (‘CFL-i’) falling within CN
code ex 8539 31 90 originating in the People's Republic
of China (‘PRC’).

B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE

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 origin-
ating in the PRC and following the publication of the
provisional Regulation,
parties
submitted comments in writing. The parties who so
requested were also granted an opportunity to be heard
orally.

interested

several

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

the essential

facts and
All parties were informed of
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.

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

C. THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDING

(6)

Some interested parties claimed that certain third coun-
tries, namely Poland and Hungary, should have been

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation

(EC) No 2238/2000 (OJ L 257, 11.10.2000, p. 2).

(2) OJ L 38, 8.2.2001, p. 8.

included in the anti-dumping proceeding as the non-
inclusion of these countries would be discriminatory.

it

is

respect,

confirmed that no parallel
In this
proceeding could be
initiated against Poland and
Hungary since, on the basis of the information available
at
injurious
dumping by these imports was available to the Commis-
sion. This claim was therefore rejected.

initiation, no evidence of

the stage of

D. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

submitted

exporting producers

that CFL-i
Some
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 6 000 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.

E. DUMPING

1. Normal value

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.

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 Regula-
tion (EC) No 384/96 (‘basic Regulation’) provides that in
the case of imports from countries like the PRC, the
normal values are to 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
that
Article. Therefore, it was not possible to comply with
this request.

in subparagraph (c) of paragraph 7 of

19.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 195/9

(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 provi-
sional Regulation concerning the selection of Mexico are
confirmed.

(13)

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 cooperating producer in the
analogue country.

(14)

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.

2. Export price

(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.

3. Comparison

(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.

4. Dumping margin

(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 calcu-
lation of dumping was based on the average-to-average
method.

(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 (previ-
ously known as Zhejiang Sunlight Group
Co., Ltd), Shangyu

59,5 %

17,1 %
37,1 %

de minimis

61,8 %
20,2 %

8,4 %

35,3 %

(21)

The country-wide dumping margin for the PRC estab-
lished on this basis is 66,1 %.

F. INJURY

1. Preliminary remarks

(22)

(23)

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
injury caused by dumped imports would
material
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.

2. Definition of the Community industry

The European Lighting Companies Federation (‘the
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 India (1), arguing that the Panel found
the Community had wrongly based its injury
that
analysis on different groups of Community producers.

(1) 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.

L 195/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19.7.2001

(24)

(25)

(26)

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
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 situa-
tion 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 Articles 4(1)
and 5(4) of the basic Regulation. Therefore, the claim
had to be rejected.

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
total
imports into the Community from the PRC during the
IP.

least 10 % of

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.

(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
can widely vary,
depending, inter alia, on the number of pieces produced
per type of CFL-i, or the quantity sold.

that

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

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:

Country: PRC

Price undercutting

3. Imports from the PRC

Undercutting margins of
exporting producers

cooperating

Between 13,7 %
and 45,1 %

Undercutting

(27) As

regards

the price undercutting margins,
claimed that

some
the Community
exporting producers
industry prices used for the calculations were inconsis-
tent 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.

4. Situation of the Community industry

(32)

In the absence of new evidence, the provisional findings
as set out in recitals 64 to 83 of the provisional Regula-
tion,
the Community industry has suffered
i.e.
material

that
injury during the IP, are confirmed.

(34)

(35)

19.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 195/11

5. Causation

(39)

(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.

factors, e.g.

the market behaviour of

In this respect, any possible increase will indeed depend
on several
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.

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 was done for imports
originating in the PRC, and not, as done by the party
submitting the claim,
import prices per
tonne. The claim was therefore rejected.

in terms of

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

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.

(41)

6. Community interest

(36)

Some interested parties argued that anti-dumping meas-
ures 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

the import prices

to the increase of

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. Neverthe-
less, 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,
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 provi-
sional findings summarised in recitals 106 to 109 of the
provisional Regulation are thus confirmed.

in the absence of new evidence,

(38)

Some interested parties argued that the duties would
substantially increase retail prices, thus having a negative
impact on consumers.

(42)

(43)

(44)

In this respect it should be recalled that, according to
Article 21(2) of the basic Regulation, it is for the inter-
ested 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 Federa-
tion (EPF), which represents the industry managing, inter
alia, 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.

Several
interested parties submitted that anti-dumping
duties are contrary to Community energy saving poli-
cies, as they would result in the increase of the retail
prices for consumers and thus reduce the sales of energy
saving lamps (CFL-i).

In addition,

the Community industry cannot be
In this respect,
expected to bear the costs of the Community energy
saving policies through suffering from unfair trade prac-
it should be considered that, on
tices.
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.

Some interested parties argued that the imposition of
the
anti-dumping measures would
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.

against

be

L 195/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19.7.2001

(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 produ-
cers 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
for certain Chinese
the duties
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 coun-
tries 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.

G. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

1. Injury elimination level

(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.

(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 circum-
stances. It should also be recalled that the Community
industry reached a profitability level of around 8 % in
the
1997,

the year after which the situation of

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 contin-
uous 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
also reviewed and

injury margins were

margins,
amended.

(52)

(53)

2. Form and level of definitive measures

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.

The individual company anti-dumping duty rates speci-
fied 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 compa-
nies’) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of prod-
ucts 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 Commission (1) forthwith with all rele-
vant information, in 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 accord-
ingly by updating the list of companies benefiting from
individual duty rates.

(1) European Commission

Directorate-General for Trade
Directorate B
TERV 0/10
Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200
B-1049 Brussels

19.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 195/13

3. Collection of provisional duties

of the company to benefit from the individual duty rate
applied to that company under its previous name.

(55)

secured by way of

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
the provisional anti-
dumping duty, imposed by the provisional Regulation,
should be definitively collected at the rate of the duty
the
definitively imposed.
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.

In cases where the rate of

(57)

(58)

4. Modification of the name of a company subject

to an individual anti-dumping duty rate

(56)

The provisional Regulation 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

the

examined

information
The Commission has
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 the
provisional Regulation.

Therefore the amounts secured by way of the provi-
sional anti-dumping duty imposed by the provisional
Regulation 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,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

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 90*91), and originating in the People's Republic of China.

The rate of duty applicable to the net, free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, for products

2.
produced by the following manufacturers shall be as follows:

Manufacturer

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
Shangai 201801
People's Republic of China

Rate of duty
%

TARIC additional code

59,5

A234

17,1

37,1

0,0

32,3

A235

A236

A237

A238

L 195/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19.7.2001

Manufacturer

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 Sunlight Group Co., Ltd
129 Fengshan Road, Zhejiang
Shangyu 213104
People's Republic of China

All other companies

Rate of duty
%

TARIC additional code

20,2

A239

8,4

A240

35,3

A241

66,1

A999

3.

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

Article 2

The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant to Regulation (EC) No
1.
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.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the
European Communities.

Article 3

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 July 2001.

For the Council

The President

L. MICHEL