Proposal for a Council Regulation terminating the partial interim review and the expiry review concerning the anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating, inter alia, in India
Date: 2003-12-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: India, anti-dumping duty, common commercial policy, import (EU), textile product

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 5.12.2003
COM(2003) 757 final

Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION

terminating the partial interim review and the expiry review concerning the anti-
dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 on imports of cotton-type
bed linen originating, inter alia, in India

(presented by the Commission)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

In 1997, by Regulation (EC) No 2398/97, the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duties
ranging  from  2.6%  to  24.7%  on  imports  of  cotton-type  bed  linen  originating,  inter  alia,  in
India.

In 2001, following the adoption of an Appellate Body report and a Panel report by the Dispute
Settlement  Body  of  the  World  Trade  Organisation,  the  Council,  by  Regulation  (EC)
No 1644/2001, amended Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 by reducing the duty rate for India and
certain  Indian companies to between  0  and 9.8% and suspended the  application  of  the  anti-
dumping duties with regard to imports originating in India. In April 2002, Council Regulation
(EC) No 696/2002 confirmed the definitive anti-dumping duty as amended and suspended by
Council Regulation (EC) No 1644/2001.

In February 2002, the Commission initiated a partial interim review, an investigation limited
to dumping aspects, pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, and in December 2002
an  expiry  review  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  imposed  in  1997,  both  following  a  request
lodged by the Committee of the Cotton and Allied Textile Industries of the European Union
(Eurocoton).

This memorandum is a summary of the findings concerning the partial interim review and its
consequences for both the partial interim review and the expiry review.

In  view  of  the  large  number  of  exporting  producers,  sampling  was  used.  Seven  companies
were selected for the sample. For six of these companies, no dumping was found. For the last
one, a dumping margin of 26.2% was established by the investigation.

A vast  proportion  of  exports  of  cotton-type  bed  linen  originating  in  India  during  the  period
between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2001 (the “investigation period” or “IP”) was not
dumped and the market share of the dumped exports was negligible during the IP.

Based on the facts gathered in the context of this examination, it can not be assumed, contrary
to the findings in respect  of the original  IP, that  the dumped  imports caused material injury
during the IP of this review, even in the absence of an express investigation of the causal link.

Moreover, the  measures  which  would  result  from  the  outcome  of  the  partial  interim  review
would be ineffective, as a major part of the exports from India would not be covered.

In  the  light  of  the  above,  the  Commission  proposes  that  the  Council  terminate  the  interim
review, and consequently the expiry review, without the imposition of measures.

2

Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION

terminating the partial interim review and the expiry review concerning the anti-
dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 on imports of cotton-type
bed linen originating, inter alia, in India

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 (the “basic
Regulation”), and in particular Articles 9, 11 (2) and 11(3) thereof,

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

Whereas:

A. MEASURES IN FORCE

(1)

In  1997,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  2398/972,  the  Council  imposed  definitive  anti-
dumping  duties  ranging  from  2.6%  to  24.7%  on  imports  of  cotton-type  bed  linen
originating, inter alia, in India. Following a Panel report as modified by the Appellate
Body report adopted in March 2001 on the case “EC-anti-dumping duties on imports
of  cotton-type  bed  linen  from  India”  by  the  Dispute  Settlement  Body  of  the  World
Trade  Organisation  (“WTO”),  the  Council,  in  August  2001,  by  Regulation  (EC)
No 1644/20013,  amended  Regulation  (EC)  No 2398/97  by  reducing  the  duty  rate  for
India and certain Indian companies to a level of between 0 and 9.8% and suspending
their  application.  In  April  2002,  the  Council,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  696/20024,
confirmed  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  imposed  on  imports  of  cotton  type  bed
linen originating in India by Regulation (EC) No 2398/97, as amended and suspended
by Council Regulation (EC) No 1644/2001.

1

2

3

4

OJ  L  56  of  6.3.1996,  p.  1,  as  last  amended  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1972/2002,  OJ  L  305  of
7.11.2002, p. 1.
OJ L 332 of 4.12.1997, p. 1.
OJ L 219 of 14.8.2001, p. 1.
OJ L 109 of 25.4.2002, p. 3.

3

                                                
(2)

(3)

1.

(4)

(5)

(6)

1.1

(7)

B. REQUEST FOR REVIEWS

In  January  2002,  the  Commission  received  a  request  for  an  interim  review  of
Regulation  (EC)  No 2398/97  pursuant  to  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  The
request  was  lodged  by  the  Committee  of  the  Cotton  and  Allied  Textile  Industries  of
the  European  Union  (“Eurocoton”  or  the  “applicant”),  on  behalf  of  producers
representing a major proportion of the total Community production of cotton-type bed
linen. The request was based on the fact that the applicant claimed a significant change
in circumstances with regard to dumping.

In September 2002, following the publication of a notice of impending expiry5 of the
anti-dumping  measures  in  force,  the  Commission  received  a  request  for  review
pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation from Eurocoton, representing a major
proportion  of  the  total  Community  production  of  cotton-type  bed  linen.  The  request
was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would most likely result in
continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the Community industry.

C. INVESTIGATION

PROCEDURE

The Commission examined the evidence submitted by the applicant and considered it
sufficient  to  justify  the  initiation  of  an  interim  review  and  an  expiry  review  in
accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Articles  11(2)  and  11(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation.
After  consultation  of  the  Advisory  Committee,  the  Commission  initiated  two
investigations  by  notices  published  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European
Communities6.  The  interim  review  was  limited  in  scope  to  the  examination  of
dumping.

The  Commission  officially  advised  the  applicant,  the  producers  in  the  exporting
country and their representatives of the initiation of the interim review and the expiry
review,  and  gave  all  parties  directly  concerned  the  opportunity  to  make  their  views
known in writing and to request a hearing.

A  number  of  exporting  producers  in  India,  as  well  as  Community  producers,
Community  users  and  importers/traders,  made  their  views  known  in  writing.  All
parties  who  so  requested  within  the  time  limits  specified  in  the  notices  of  initiation
referred to in recital (4) and showed that there were particular reasons why they should
be heard were granted the opportunity to be heard.

Period of investigation

The  period  of  investigation  for  dumping  covered  the  period  from  1  January  2001  to
31 December 2001 (the “investigation period” or “IP”).

5

6

OJ C 65 of 14.3.2002, p. 11.
OJ C 39 of 13.2.2002, p. 17 and OJ C 300 of 4.12.2002, p. 10.

4

                                                
1.2

(8)

(9)

Selection of the sample

In  view  of  the  large  number  of  exporting  producers  in  the  exporting  country
concerned,  and  in  conformity  with  Article  17  of  the  basic  Regulation,  it  was
considered  appropriate  to  use  sampling.  In  order  to  select  a  sample,  exporting
producers  in  the  country  concerned  were  requested,  pursuant  to  Article  17(2)  of  the
basic  Regulation,  to  make  themselves  known  within  15  days  of  the  initiation  of  the
proceeding and to provide information on their exports to the Community during the
investigation  period,  domestic  turnover  and  the  names  and  activities  of  all  related
companies  in  the  sector  of  the  product  concerned.  The  Indian  authorities  were  also
contacted by the Commission in this regard.

Ninety-four exporting producers agreed to be included in the sample and provided the
requested information within the deadline. Eight of them were chosen for the sample.
The  criteria  taken  into  account  in  the  selection  of  the  sample  were:  the  size  of  the
company with regard to export sales to the Community and the fact that the companies
had  domestic  sales.  The  exporting  producers  which  were  not  finally  included  in  the
sample were informed that any anti-dumping duty on their exports would be calculated
in accordance with the provisions of Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation, i.e. without
exceeding the weighted average margin of dumping established for the companies in
the  sample.  The  selection  of  the  sample  was  made  in  co-ordination  with  the
representatives  of  the  exporting  producers,  and  with  the  Indian  Government.  The
Appellate  Body  Report  referred  to  in  recital  (1)  concluded  that  the  method  for
calculating  amounts  for  administrative,  selling  and  general  costs  (the  “SG&A”)  and
for profits, based on the weighted average of the actual amounts incurred and realized
by  other  exporters  or  producers,  can  only  be  used  if  data  relating  to  more  than  one
other exporter or producer is available. It was therefore considered paramount to have
two companies with domestic sales included in the sample. It should also be noted that
of  the  ninety-four  producers  who  made  themselves  known,  only  two  had  domestic
sales.  However,  the  second  company,  which  at  first  had  agreed  to  co-operate  in  this
investigation,  withdrew  its  co-operation.  The  sample  had  therefore  to  be  modified
accordingly  and  was  eventually  composed  of  seven  companies,  six  of  which  had
exclusively  export sales and one of which had both export and domestic  sales of the
like product.

(10)

The  applicant  claimed  that  the  non  co-operation  of  one  of  the  companies  with
domestic  sales  should  have  entailed  the  application  of  the  provisions  set  out  in
Article 18 of the basic Regulation. In this connection it should be noted that Article 18
of the basic Regulation was indeed applied  with respect to this company (see below,
recital  (30)).  Moreover,  the  sample  still  remained  representative  as  the  non
co-operating  company  had  a  very  limited  export  share  and,  even  without  this
company, the sample still represented 43% of the exports of the product concerned to
the Community during the IP. Furthermore, the non co-operation of this company did
not  affect  the  dumping  determination  for  those  companies  in  the  sample.  The  claim
was therefore rejected.

1.3

Individual examination of companies not selected for the sample

(11) One co-operating company not selected for the sample requested the calculation of an
individual  dumping  margin  in  accordance  with  Article 17(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation
and accompanied its request with a reply to the questionnaire within the deadline set
for this purpose. This request was found to be acceptable in the current investigation.

5

1.4

Interested parties and verification visits

(12)

The  Commission  sent  a  questionnaire  to  the  sampled  companies  and  received  full
replies  within  the  deadline.  The  Commission  sought  and  verified  all  information  it
deemed  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  the  determination  of  dumping  and  carried  out
verification visits at the premises of the following sampled companies:

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

The Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Mumbai

Nowrosjee Wadia & Sons, Mumbai

Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Texcellence Overseas, Mumbai

Vigneshwara Exports Limited, Mumbai

(13) Due to the political situation in India, the on-spot verification at the premises of Jindal
Worldwide  Ltd,  Ahmedabad  and  Mahalaxmi  Exports,  Ahmedabad  had  to  be
cancelled. However, the data provided by these companies have been used, despite the
absence of verification. In this respect it should be noted that their export prices were
found to be in line with those of the other Indian companies with the same company
structure  (i.e.  mainly  companies  which  only  export)  which  were  investigated.  In
addition,  certain  checks  were  made  through  a  number  of  EU  importers  (by  cross-
checking invoices), and no irregularities were found in relation to the export price of
Jindal Worldwide Ltd, Ahmedabad and Mahalaxmi Exports, Ahmedabad.

(14)

The  Commission  has  also  carried  out  a  verification  visit  at  the  premises  of  Divya
Textiles,  Mumbai,  which  requested  an  individual  examination,  as  mentioned  in
recital (11) above.

2.

PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION

(15)

The  product  concerned  is  the  same  as  in  the  original  investigation,  i.e.  certain  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,  falling  within  CN
codes ex 6302 21 00 (TARIC codes 6302 21 00*81, 6302 21 00*89), ex 6302 22 90
(TARIC  code  6302  22  90*19),  ex  6302  31  10  (TARIC  code  6302  31  10*90),
ex 6302 31  90  (TARIC  code  6302  31  90*90),  ex  6302  32  90  (TARIC  code
6302 32 90*19).

3.

LIKE PRODUCT

(16)

It  was  established  that  the  cotton-type  bed  linen  sold  on  the  Indian  market  and  the
cotton-type bed linen exported from India to the Community were identical, or closely
resembling in terms of physical characteristics and end uses. Therefore, these cotton-
type bed linens were considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4)
of the basic Regulation.

6

D. RESULT OF THE INVESTIGATION CONCERNING THE INTERIM REVIEW

1.

NORMAL VALUE

1.1

Companies in the sample

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

It  is  first  recalled  that  of  the  seven  companies  in  the  sample,  only  one  had  domestic
sales. Of the six other companies in the sample, one had domestic sales of the general
category of products (other cotton-type products).

For  the  sole  company  with  domestic  sales,  it  was  found  that  none  of  its  types  of
cotton-type bed linens sold on the domestic market were directly comparable to those
exported  to  the  Community,  as  a  result  of  differences  in  quality  in  respect  of  a
multitude of different product types. Furthermore, any adjustments needed in order to
ensure the comparability would have had to be based on estimates. Consequently, the
normal  value  had  to  be  constructed  on  the  basis  of  the  manufacturing  costs  of  the
product concerned plus its own SG&A and profit on sales made in the ordinary course
of trade, in accordance with Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation.

For the other companies, in the absence of domestic sales of the like product, it was
first  envisaged  to  use,  in  accordance  with  Article  2(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the
domestic  prices  of  the  company  with  domestic  sales  to  establish  the  normal  value.
However, no comparison was possible between the product types sold on the domestic
market and those exported to the European Union by the other companies. Therefore,
for all the other co-operating companies, in the absence of domestic sales of the like
product, normal value had also to be constructed.

In light of the above, the manufacturing costs of the product concerned were used to
determine the constructed normal value for each company included in the sample, in
accordance  with  Article  2(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  With  regard  to  SG&A  and
profits, since there was only one company with domestic sales of the like product, the
option provided for by Article 2(6)(a) of the basic Regulation, based on the weighted
average of the actual amounts determined for other exporters or producers in respect
of production and sales  of  the  like  product  in  the  domestic  market  of  the  country  of
origin, could not be used.

For the other exporting producers, including the company with domestic sales  of the
same  general  category  of  products,  the  SG&A  were  established  in  accordance  with
Article  2(6)(c)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  taking  into  account  the  conclusions  of  the
reports  adopted  by  the  Dispute  Settlement  Body  of  the  WTO.  Consequently,  the
SG&A were determined on the basis of the weighted average of the SG&A of the sole
company with domestic sales of the like product and the SG&A of the sole company
having  sales  of  the  general  category  of  products  (other  cotton-type  products)  on  the
domestic market.

(22) As far as the amounts for profit are concerned, for the company with domestic sales of
the  same  general  category  of  products  several  approaches  were  examined  for  the
establishment  of  a  reasonable  profit  when  constructing  the  normal  value.  The  first
approach  was to use its own profits. However, this company was operating at a  loss
and therefore this method could not be used.

7

(23)

The Indian exporting producers claimed that, according to Article 2(6)(c) of the basic
Regulation, the profit cap of the company with domestic sales and the company selling
the same general category of products on the domestic market should have been used.
Considering  that  such  companies  were  operating  at  a  loss,  the  Indian  exporting
producers argued that the profit cap was therefore a nil profit.

(24) According to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, when constructing normal value, a
reasonable  amount  for  profits  should  be  added.  Therefore,  a  nil  profit  cannot  be
considered to be a cap.

(25)

Finally, and in the absence of any other source of data as regards profit, for all Indian
exporting producers profit was established at a level of 5%, which was the profit used
in the original investigation as the Community industry’s target profit. The  applicant
claimed that this profit margin was too low.

(26) However, the applicant did not advance any reasons why the 5% profit figure was too
low  and  why  another  profit  margin  would  be  more  reasonable  or  representative.
Moreover, there was no usable information on the profits of Indian domestic sales of
the  product  concerned  or  of  the  products  belonging  to  the  same  general  category.
Therefore,  and pursuant  to  Article 2(6)(c) of  the  basic  Regulation,  it  was  considered
reasonable  to  use  the  profit  margin  determined  in  the  original  investigation,
representing  the  profit  that  the  Community  industry  could  expect  to  achieve  on  its
local market in the absence of any injurious dumping.

1.2

Company with individual examination

(27)

For this company, normal value was established by using the methodologies described
in recitals (19), (20), (21) and (25).

2.

EXPORT PRICE

(28)

Since  all  export  sales  of  the  product  under  consideration  were  made  directly  to
independent  customers  in  the  Community,  the  export  price  was  established  in
accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, namely on the basis of the price
paid  or  payable  for  the  product  concerned  when  sold  for  export  from  India  to  the
Community.

3.

COMPARISON

(29)

For the purpose of a  fair  comparison, due  allowance in the  form  of  adjustments was
made for differences in factors which were claimed and demonstrated to affect prices
and  price  comparability.  These  adjustments  were  made 
in  accordance  with
Article 2(10)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  in  respect  of  freight,  handling  and  loading,
transport, credit costs, insurance, commission and packing.

4.

DUMPING MARGIN

(30)

The  applicant  claimed  that  the  exception  provided  for  in  Article  2(11)  of  the  basic
Regulation,  which  allows  the  comparison  between  a  weighted  average  normal  value
and  the  prices  of  all  individual  export  transactions  to  the  Community,  should  have
been used for some of the companies in the sample. However, it was established that
the conditions underlying the use of this method, and in particular the existence of  a
pattern of export prices which differs significantly among different purchasers, regions

8

or time periods, were not met. Therefore, in accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic
Regulation, the margin of dumping was established on the basis of a comparison of a
weighted  average  normal  value  with  a  weighted  average  of  prices  of  all  export
transactions to the Community.

(a)

Co-operating producers in the sample

The definitive dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at
the Community border are the following:

- The Bombay Dyeing  & Manufacturing Co. and
Nowrosjee Wadia & Sons (related company)

- Mahalaxmi Exports

- Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd.

- Texcellence Overseas and Jindal Worldwide Ltd
(related company)
- Vigneshwara Exports Limited

26.2%

0%

0%

0%

0%

(b)

Other co-operating producers not included in the sample

As explained in recital (34) below, for all other co-operating producers not included in
the sample the dumping margin is 0%.

(c)

Co-operating company with individual examination

- Divya Textiles

0%

(d)

Non co-operating companies

As  set  out  in  recital  (9),  one  company  did  not  co-operate.  Since  there  are  no
indications that this company did not dump, and in order not to give a bonus for non
co-operation, the  dumping  margin  was  established  on  the  basis  of  the  most  exported
amongst  the  most  dumped  product  types  exported  to  the  Community  by  Bombay
Dyeing & Manufacturing Co., i.e. 31.4%.

E. GROUNDS FOR TERMINATING THE INTERIM REVIEW WITHOUT THE
IMPOSITION OF MEASURES

(31)

The  current  interim review  should be  terminated  without the  imposition of  measures
because only a small part of imports of the product concerned originating in India was
dumped and this negligible volume of dumped imports, which is not likely to change
significantly  in  future,  cannot  cause  injury.  This  follows  from  the  analysis  set  out
below.

9

The vast majority of imports of the product concerned originating in India were

1.
not dumped

(32) With regard to the companies in the sample, the investigation established the existence
of  dumping  for  only  one  of  these  companies  (Bombay  Dyeing),  accounting  for  less
than  8%  of  total  exports  of  the  product  concerned  originating  in  India  to  the
Community  during  the  IP.  Moreover,  and  as  stated  above,  one  company  did  not
co-operate  in  the  proceeding  and  its  exports  were  considered  to  be  dumped  (see
recital (30)(d). However, the exports by this latter company of the product concerned
to the Community during the IP represented only 0.4% of total exports originating in
India.

(33)

(34)

The findings for the aforementioned two companies are in contrast to the situation of
the remaining four companies in the sample as well as the exporting producer granted
individual  treatment.  None  of  these  five  companies  were  found  to  be  dumping.
Moreover,  their  situation  was  fundamentally  different  from  that  of  Bombay  Dyeing
and  of  the  non  co-operating  company  because  they  produced  the  product  concerned
exclusively  for  export.  The  non-dumped  imports  in  the  sample  represented  around
30% of total exports originating in India.

Furthermore,  the  co-operating  exporters  not  included  in  the  sample  and  not
individually  examined  produced  exclusively  for  export  (based  on  the  information
received  in  response  to  the  sampling  questions  in  the  notice  of  initiation).  In  other
words,  their  company  structure  corresponds  to  that  of  the  companies  mentioned  in
recital (33). This strongly suggests that their exports were not dumped either.

(35)

It  follows  from  the  above  that  more  than  90%  of  Indian  exports  of  the  product
concerned to the Community during the IP were not dumped.

2.

The small volume of dumped imports in this case cannot cause any injury

(36)

(37)

The  significant  difference  between  the  dumping  practices  found  in  the  original
investigation  and  that  found  in  the  current  one,  prompts  the  question  of  whether  the
causal link established in the original case could still be assumed to be present on the
basis of the present findings.

First, it was found that less than 8% of imports of the product concerned originating in
India  during  the  IP  were  dumped.  These  imports  represented  a  market  share  of  less
than 1% during the IP or an import share of less than 3% of the total imports from all
sources. In other words, the volume of dumped imports is negligible, considering the
normally applicable thresholds in the basic Regulation and in the WTO Anti-dumping
Agreement. Second, the investigation found that, for the reasons set out in recitals (32)
to  (34),  more  than  90%  of  the  imports  from  India  were  non-dumped.  Under  these
circumstances, it is very unlikely that any material injury resulted from these imports
during the IP. Furthermore, it cannot be reasonably assumed that this situation would
change  if  measures  were  not  imposed,  bearing  in  mind  the  fact  that  during  a
considerable part of the IP no duties were in force and that the volume of non-dumped
imports from India was always significant.

10

(38)

Therefore,  based  on  the  findings  of  this  review,  the  causal  link  established  between
dumping  and  injury  in  the  original  case  can  not  be  assumed  to  be  present  in  this
investigation,  although  the  current  partial  interim  review  did  not  expressly  include  a
review of the causality established in the original case.

(39) Additionally, the measures which would result from the outcome of this investigation
(see recital (30)) would be ineffective, as a major part of the imports from India would
not be covered.

3.

Conclusion

(40)

In  view  of  the  above,  it  is  necessary  to  terminate  the  interim  review  concerning
imports  of  cotton-type  bed  linen  originating  in  India  without  the  imposition  of  anti-
dumping duties.

F. CONSEQUENCES OF THE EXPIRY REVIEW

(41)

In  the  light  of  the  results  of  the  interim  review  leading  to  the  expiry  of  the  anti-
dumping  measures  imposed  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 2398/97,  the  procedure
concerning the expiry review should be terminated accordingly.

G. DISCLOSURE

(42)

The  interested  parties  were  informed  of  the  facts  and  considerations  on  the  basis  of
which  it  was  intended  to  recommend  the  termination  of  the  present  partial  interim
review and the expiry  review without the  imposition  of measures  and  were  given  an
opportunity  to  comment.  Their  comments  were  taken  into  account  and,  where
appropriate, the findings were modified accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) and the expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2)
of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  concerning  imports  of  cotton-type  bed  linen
originating in India are hereby terminated without the imposition of measures.

Article 2

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

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

Done at Brussels,

For the Council
The President

11