Proposal for a Council Regulation extending the definitive anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of the same product consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines
Date: 2005-05-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, Pakistan, Philippines, Viet Nam, anti-dumping duty, electronic equipment, import, lighting equipment

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 17.05.2005 
COM(2005) 193 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

extending the definitive anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) 
No 1470/2001 on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) 
originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of the same product consigned 
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the 
Republic of the Philippines  

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1)  CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This  proposal  concerns  the  application  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22 
December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of 
the European Community, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 
of  8  March  2004  ("the  basic  Regulation")  in  the  anti-circumvention  investigation 
extending the definitive anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) 
No 1470/2001 on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) 
originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of the same product consigned 
from  the  Socialist  Republic  of  Vietnam,  the  Islamic  Republic  of  Pakistan  and  the 
Republic of the Philippines 

•  General context 

This proposal is made in the context of the implementation of the basic Regulation and 
is the result of an investigation which was carried out in line with the substantive and 
procedural requirements laid out in the basic Regulation. 

•  Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

There are no existing provisions in the area of the proposal. 

•  Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

2)  CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

•  Consultation of interested parties 

Interested  parties  concerned  by  the  proceeding  have  already  had  the  possibility  to 
defend their interests during the investigation, in line with the provisions of the basic 
Regulation. 

•  Collection and use of expertise 

There was no need for external expertise. 

•  Impact assessment 

This proposal is the result of the implementation of the basic regulation. 

The  basic  regulation  does  not  foresee  a  general  impact  assessment  but  contains  an 
exhaustive list of conditions that have to be assessed. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3)  LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

On 10 September 2004, following a request lodged by the Lighting Industry and Trade 
in  Europe  (LITE)  on  behalf  of  producers  and  importers  of  integrated  electronic 
compact fluorescent lamps (‘CFL-i’') in the Community, the Commission initiated an 
investigation  into  the  possible  circumvention  of  anti-dumping  measures  on  CFL-i 
originating in the People's Republic of China by imports of the same product consigned 
from  Vietnam,  Pakistan  and/or  the  Philippines,  whether  declared  as  originating  in 
Vietnam, Pakistan or the Philippines or not. 

The investigation revealed that the anti-dumping measures in force were circumvented 
in all three cases, either by transhipment or by assembly operations.  

Imports of compact fluorescent lamps from Vietnam, Pakistan and the Philippines were 
also  found  to  be  dumped  and  to  undermine  the  remedial  effects  of  the  anti-dumping 
measures in force against China. 

Consequently, it is proposed to extend the definitive anti-dumping measures imposed 
on imports of certain compact fluorescent lamps originating in the People’s Republic 
of China to imports of the same product consigned from Vietnam, Pakistan and/or the 
Philippines. 

Four  requests  for  exemptions  were  received  and  analysed.  It  was  found  that  in  three 
cases  the  companies  requesting  the  exemption  were  circumventing  the  measures  or 
were non co-operating. Therefore, their request had to be rejected. In the fourth case, 
no  assessment  could  be  made  given  that  the  company  did  not  export  during  the 
investigation period.  

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation 
which should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union no later than 
9 June 2005. 

•  Legal basis 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22  December  1995  on  protection  against 
dumped  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European  Community,  as  last 
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 of 8 March 2004. 

•  Subsidiarity principle 

The proposal falls under the exclusive competence of the Community. The subsidiarity 
principle therefore does not apply. 

•  Proportionality principle 

The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reason(s). 

The form of action is described in the above-mentioned basic regulation and leaves no 
scope for national decision. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Indication  of  how  financial  and  administrative  burden  falling  upon  the  Community, 
national governments, regional and local authorities, economic operators and citizens is 
minimized and proportionate to the objective of the proposal is not applicable. 

•  Choice of instruments 

Proposed instruments: regulation. 

Other means would not be adequate for the following reason(s). 

The above-mentioned basic regulation does not foresee alternative options. 

4)  BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

extending the definitive anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) 
No 1470/2001 on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) 
originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of the same product consigned 
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the 
Republic of the Philippines  

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 Article 13 thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

A. PROCEDURE 

1. Existing measures and former investigations 

(1) 

(2) 

By Regulation (EC) No 1470/20012, (the ‘original Regulation’), the Council imposed 
definitive  anti-dumping  duties  ranging  from  0%  to  66,1%  on  imports  of  integrated 
electronic compact fluorescent lamps (‘CFL-i’) originating in the People’s Republic of 
China (the ‘original investigation’).  

In  October  2002,  the  Commission  initiated  an  absorption  investigation  pursuant  to 
Article 12 of the basic Regulation3 with regard to the above anti-dumping measures. 
This  investigation  was  terminated  in  March  2004  after  the  applicant  formally 
withdrew its request4. 

2. Request 

(3) 

On 16 August 2004, the Commission received a request pursuant to Article13 (3) of 
the  basic  Regulation  to  investigate  the  alleged  circumvention  of  the  anti-dumping 

1 

2 
3 
4 

OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p.1. Regulation as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) Nº 461/2004 (OJ L 77, 
13.3.2004, p.12). 
OJ L 195, 19.7.2001, p.8. 
OJ C 244, 10.10.2002, p.2. 
OJ L 71, 10.3.2004, p.35. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

measures imposed on CFL-i originating in the People's Republic of China (the ‘PRC’ 
or ‘China’). The request was submitted by the Lighting Industry and Trade in Europe 
(‘LITE’)  on  behalf  of  producers  and  importers  of  CFL-i  in  the  Community  (the 
‘applicant’). The request alleged that the anti-dumping measures in force on imports of 
CFL-i  originating  in  the  PRC  were  being  circumvented  by  means  of  transhipment 
and/or assembly operations via Vietnam, Pakistan and/or the Philippines. 

The  request  further  alleged  that  since  the  imposition  of  the  anti-dumping  measures, 
there had been a change in the pattern of trade (with decreasing Chinese imports and 
increasing imports from the above mentioned countries), for which there is insufficient 
due  cause  or  economic  justification  other  than  the  imposition  of  the  anti-dumping 
measures  and  that  the  remedial  effects  of  the  existing  anti-dumping  measures  on 
imports  of  CFL-i  originating  in  the  PRC  were  being  undermined  both  in  terms  of 
quantity  and  price.  In  addition,  there  was  sufficient  evidence  that  these  increased 
imports  from  Vietnam,  Pakistan  and  the  Philippines  were  made  at  prices  below  the 
non-injurious price established in the investigation that led to the existing measures. 

Finally,  the  applicant  alleged  that  the  prices  of  CFL-i  consigned  from  Vietnam, 
Pakistan and the Philippines were dumped in relation to the normal value established 
for the like product during the original investigation. 

3. Initiation 

Having  determined,  after  consulting  the  Advisory  Committee,  that  sufficient  prima 
facie evidence existed for the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Article 13 of the 
basic  Regulation,  the  Commission  initiated  an  investigation  by  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1582/2004(5) (the ‘initiating Regulation’). Pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the 
basic  Regulation,  the  Commission,  by  the  initiating  Regulation,  also  directed  the 
customs  authorities  to  register  imports  of  CFL-i  consigned  from  Vietnam,  Pakistan 
and  the  Philippines  whether  declared  as  originating  in  Vietnam,  Pakistan  or  the 
Philippines or not, as from 11 September 2004.  

4. Investigation 

The Commission officially advised the authorities of the PRC, Vietnam, Pakistan and 
the Philippines, the producers/exporters, the importers in the Community known to be 
concerned and the applicant Community industry of the initiation of the investigation. 
Questionnaires  were  sent  to  the  exporters/producers  in  Vietnam,  Pakistan  and  the 
Philippines, to the exporters/producers in the PRC, to the importers in the Community 
named  in  the  request,  known  to  the  Commission  from  the  original  investigation  or 
which  made  themselves  known  within  the  deadlines  specified  in  Article  3(1)  of  the 
initiating Regulation. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views 
known  in  writing  and  to  request  a  hearing  within  the  time  limit  set  in  the  initiating 
Regulation. 

(8) 

Four  producers/exporters  in  Vietnam,  one  producer/exporter  in  Pakistan  and  five 
producers/exporters  in  China  submitted  a  reply  to  the  questionnaire  whilst  no  reply 
was  received  from  the  producers/exporters  in  the  Philippines.  Replies  to  the 

5 

OJ L 289, 10.09.2004, p.54. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
questionnaire  were  also  submitted  by  two  related  and  two  unrelated  importers  in  the 
Community. 

(9) 

The following companies co-operated in the investigation and submitted replies to the 
questionnaires:  

Unrelated importers: 

– 

– 

Elektro Cirkel B.V., the Netherlands; 

Carrefour S.A., France, 

Related importers 

– 

– 

Energy Research 2000 B.V., the Netherlands, 

e3light A/S, Denmark, 

Vietnamese producers/exporters: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Eco Industries Vietnam Co., Ltd, Haiphong (related to e3light A/S) 

Energy  Research  Vietnam  Co.,  Ltd,  Haiphong  (related  to  Energy 
Research 2000 B.V.) 

Halong service and import export company (Halong Simexco), Haiphong 

Rang  Dong  Light  Source  and  Vacuum  Flask  Joint  Stock  Company 
(Ralaco), Hanoi 

Pakistani producer/exporter: 

– 

Ecopak Lighting, Karachi 

Chinese producers/exporters: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Firefly Lighting Co. Ltd, Shenzhen 

Lisheng Electronic & Lighting (Xiamen) Co., Ltd 

City Bright Lighting (Shenzhen), Ltd, Shenzhen 

Ningbo Super Trend Electron Co. Ltd, Ningbo 

Zhejiang Sunlight Group Co. Ltd, Shangyu 

(10)  Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies: 

– 

– 

Ecopak Lighting, Karachi (Pakistan) 

Eco  Industries  Vietnam  Co.,  Ltd,  Haiphong  and  its  related  company  e3 
light in Denmark 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
– 

– 

Energy Research Vietnam Co., Ltd, Haiphong 

Rang  Dong  Light  Source  and  Vacuum  Flask  Joint  Stock  Company 
(Ralaco), Hanoi 

– 

Carrefour S.A., France, 

5. Investigation period 

(11)  The  investigation  period  covered  the  period  from  1  July  2003  to  30  June  2004  (the 
‘IP’). Data was collected from 1999 up to the end of the IP to investigate the alleged 
change in the pattern of trade. 

6. Disclosure 

(12)  All  interested  parties  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the 

basis of which it was intended to recommend:  

(i) 

the  extension  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  measures  imposed  by  Council 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1470/2001  on  imports  of  integrated  electronic  compact 
fluorescent  lamps  (CFL-i)  originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China  to 
imports  of  the  same  product  consigned  from  Vietnam,  Pakistan  and  the 
Philippines 

(ii)  not to grant exemptions to the companies having requested it 

In  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  basic  Regulation,  parties  were  granted  a  period  in 
which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure. 

(13)  The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were considered and, where 

appropriate, the definitive findings have been modified accordingly. 

B. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION 

1. General considerations 

(14)  As mentioned above, the analysis of a change in the pattern of trade covered the period 
from  1999  up  to  the  end  of  the  IP,  i.e.  covering  mainly  the  period  before  the 
enlargement of the European Union on 1st May 2004. A meaningful determination as 
to  whether  there  has  been  a  change  of  pattern  in  trade  within  this  period  could 
therefore only be made on the basis  of  a comparison of import levels of  the product 
concerned  into  the  15  Member  States  before  enlargement  (‘EU-15’  or  ‘the 
Community’).  Indeed,  it  should  be  noted  that,  since  before  enlargement  the  existing 
measures only applied to EU-15, they could before enlargement only be circumvented 
with  respect  to  EU-15.  Moreover,  any  data  relating  to  the  period  after  enlargement 
with regard to the 10 new Member States would as such not allow to discern a trend, 
as comparable data for previous years do not exist.  

2. Degree of co-operation and determination of the import volume  

(15)  As stated above in recital (9), four exporters/producers in Vietnam of which only one 
company exported  CFL-i to  the  Community, 1  exporting  producer  in  Pakistan  and  5 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
exporting  producers  in  China  co-operated  by  submitting  questionnaire  replies.  No 
cooperation was obtained from the Philippines.  

(16)  The  import  volume  recorded  in  Eurostat  covered  a  larger  product  group  than  CLF-i, 

i.e. all fluorescent lamps.  

(17)  The  export  volume  of  CFL-i  reported  by  the  sole  cooperating  exporter  in  Vietnam 
covered only 3% of the export volume recorded in Eurostat. The information received 
during the investigation indicated the existence of a number of other non co-operating 
exporters/producers  in  Vietnam  which  exported  CFL-i  to  the  Community  during  the 
IP. Therefore, it was considered that the data provided by the co-operating exporter did 
not sufficiently reflect the overall import volume of CFL-i from Vietnam.  

(18)  With regard to Pakistan, and as mentioned below in recital (52), it was found that the 
data  reported  by  the  co-operating  exporter  were  unreliable.  With  regard  to  the 
Philippines,  no  co-operation  at  all  was  obtained.  There  was  also  a  low  level  of  co-
operation  from  exporters  in  the  PRC,  where  out  of  at  least  12  known  Chinese 
exporting producers (representing approximately 30% of the total exports from China 
during  the  investigation  period  of  the  original  investigation)  only  five  submitted  a 
questionnaire  reply.  Moreover,  three  of  these  questionnaire  replies  were  largely 
incomplete. Therefore, on the basis of the information submitted by the co-operating 
parties no reasonable determination could be made as to import volumes of CFL-i into 
the Community.  

(19)  Given the above, findings in respect of exports of CFL-I into the Community had to be 
made partially on the basis of facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic 
Regulation. In the absence of any other more reliable source of information, Eurostat 
data were therefore used to determine overall import volumes from the PRC, Vietnam, 
Pakistan and the Philippines. These data were cross-checked and confirmed by other 
statistical sources. 

3. Methodology 

(20) 

In  accordance  with  Article  13(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  assessment  of  the 
existence  of  circumvention  was  done  by  analysing  successively  whether  there  was  a 
change  in  the  pattern  of  trade  between  third  countries  and  the  Community,  if  this 
change stemmed from a practice, process or work for which there is insufficient due 
cause  or  economic  justification  other  than  the  imposition  of  the  duty,  if  there  was 
evidence of injury or that the remedial effects of the duty were being undermined in 
terms  of  the  prices  and/or  quantities  of  the  like  product,  and  whether  there  was 
evidence  of  dumping  in  relation  to  the  normal  values  previously  established  for  the 
like product, if necessary  in  accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the basic 
Regulation. 

(21)  The practice, process or work referred to above includes, inter alia, the consignment of 
the product subject to measures via third countries; and, the assembly of parts by an 
assembly  operation  in  the  Community  or  a  third  country.  For  this  purpose  the 
existence of assembly operations was determined in accordance with Article 13(2) of 
the basic Regulation. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
(22) 

In this regard, and as explained below in recitals (42) and (82), it is noted that none of 
the  co-operating  companies  submitted  reliable  information  which  could  have  been 
used  as  a  basis  for  the  calculation  of  the  value  of  the  parts  used  in  the  assembly 
operations  or  the  value  added  to  the  parts  brought  in  during  the  completion  of  the 
operations.  Findings  in  this  regard  were  therefore  based  on  facts  available  in 
accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.  

(23)  To assess  whether the operation started or substantially increased  since, or  just  prior 
to,  the  initiation  of  the  anti-dumping  investigation,  an  analysis  of  trade  flow  of  the 
imports  into  the  Community  which  occurred  since  the  imposition  of  definitive 
measures on imports originating in China was made.  

(24)  To  assess  whether  the  imported  products  had  in  terms  of  quantities  and  prices 
undermined  the  remedial  effects  of  the  measures  in  force  on  imports  of  CFL-i  from 
China,  the  quantities  and  prices  to  unrelated  customers  in  the  Community  of  the 
imports consigned from the three countries under investigation, when available, were 
used.  In  other  cases,  Eurostat  data  was  used  as  the  best  data  available  concerning 
quantities  and  prices.  The  prices  so  determined  were  compared  to  the  injury 
elimination level established for Community producers in the original investigation. 

(25)  Finally,  in  accordance  with  Article  13(1)  and  (2)  of  the  basic  Regulation  it  was 
examined  whether  there  was  evidence  of  dumping  in  relation  to  the  normal  value 
previously established for the like or similar products. In this regard, export prices of 
the  co-operating  producer/exporter  of  CFL-i  during  the  IP  were  compared  with  the 
normal value established in the investigation leading to the imposition of the definitive 
measures  for  the  like  product.  In  the  original  investigation  normal  value  was 
established on the basis of prices or constructed value in Mexico, which was found to 
be an appropriate market economy analogue country for the PRC. 

(26)  For the purpose of a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, 
due  allowance,  in  the  form  of  adjustments,  was  made  for  differences  which  affect 
prices and price comparability. With regard to the product exported from Vietnam it 
was  found  that  it  had  specific  physical  characteristics.  Therefore,  it  was  deemed 
appropriate  to  grant  an  adjustment  for  differences  in  physical  differences  in 
accordance with Article 2(10)(a) of the basic Regulation. 

(27) 

In  accordance  with  Articles  2(11)  and  2(12)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  dumping  was 
calculated  by  comparing  the  weighted  average  normal  value  as  established  in  the 
this 
original 
investigation’s  IP,  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  CIF  price  at  the  Community 
frontier duty unpaid. 

the  weighted  average  export  prices  during 

investigation  and 

4. Product concerned and like product 

(28)  The  product  concerned  is,  as  defined  in  the  original  Regulation,  CFL-i,  currently 
classifiable  within  CN  code  ex  8539  31  90.  A  CFL-i  is  an  electronic  compact 
fluorescent  discharge  lamp  with  one  or  more  glass  tubes,  with  all  lighting  elements 
and electronic components fixed or integrated to the lamp foot.  

(29)  The investigation showed that the CFL-i exported to the Community from the People’s 
Republic of China and those consigned from Vietnam, Pakistan or the Philippines to 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
the Community have the same basic physical characteristics and have the same uses. 
They are therefore to be considered as like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) 
of the basic Regulation. 

5. Change in the pattern of trade  

(30) 

Imports  from  China  more  than  halved  after  the  imposition  of  measures  in  2001,  i.e. 
decreased from 85 million units in 2000 to 37 million units in 2002. Although imports 
recovered partially after 2002, their level in 2004 was still more than 20% below the 
level of 2000, i.e. before the imposition of the measures. On the other hand, imports 
from  Vietnam,  Pakistan  and  the  Philippines,  practically  inexistent  before  2001, 
increased significantly since the imposition of measures.  

(31)  The following table 1 shows import quantities (pieces) of fluorescent lamps from the 
above mentioned countries into the EU15, including CFL-i as recorded in Eurostat at 
CN code level 

Table 1 

PARTNER \ PERIOD 

1999 

2000

2001

2002

2003 

2004

China (units) 

70 483 168  85 154 477 46 763 569 37 493 151 54 845 219  69 604 510

% of growth 

151% 

182%

100%

80%

117% 

149%

Vietnam (units) 

% of growth 

0 

0% 

0

925 518 1 920 973 5 451 201 

8 215 491

0%

100%

208%

589% 

888%

Philippines (units) 

768 406 

82 840 1 487 219 2 995 323 3 250 691 

3 956 526

% of growth 

52% 

6%

100%

201%

219% 

266%

Pakistan (units) 

% of growth 

0 

0% 

0

196 240

584 065

674 119 

1 255 456

0%

100%

298%

344% 

640%

Source : Eurostat, CN code 85393190, EU15, Base 100 in 2001 

(32)  Further  analysis  of  these  data,  complemented  and  cross-checked  by  other  statistical 
sources revealed that around half of the total exports for China as recorded in Eurostat 
consisted  of CLF-i and that the  evolution of the imports  of the  product concerned is 
correlated to the one of the fluorescent lamps, i.e. both showed similar trends.  

(33) 

In addition, it was found that the resurge in the Chinese imports in 2003 and 2004 was 
mainly  due  to  an  increase  in  exports  from  companies  subject  to  no  or  low  anti-
dumping  duties  -  Lisheng  Electronic  &  Lighting  (Xiamen)  Co.,  Ltd  (‘Lisheng’)  and 
Shenzhen  Zuoming  Electronic  Co.,  Ltd  (‘Shenzhen’)-,  while  import  levels  from  the 
remaining companies were relatively stable during the same period.  

(34)  The below table, based on statistical data collected by Member States and compiled by 
the  Commission  pursuant  to  Art.  14  (6)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  shows  the  import 
quantities  of  CFL-i  (in  pieces)  from  Lisheng  and  Shenzhen  on  the  one  hand  and  the 
remaining Chinese companies subject to higher duty rates, on the other hand:  

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
Table 2:  

Company 

AD in force 

Lisheng Electronic & Lighting 

0%

(Xiamen) Co., Ltd, 

2002

100

2003 

101 

2004

154

Shenzhen Zuoming  

8,4%

100

178 

221

Electronic Co., Ltd 

other companies 

17,1 to 66,1% 

Total 

100

100

119 

110 

128

150

Source:  Statistical  data  collected  by  Member  States  and  compiled  by  the  Commission 
pursuant to Art. 14 (6) of the basic Regulation  

The Philippines 

(35)  As  mentioned  above  in  recitals  (18)  and  (19),  import  volumes  with  regard  to  the 

Philippines were determined on the basis of Eurostat statistics.  

(36)  Before  2001,  the  year  of  the  imposition  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  measures, 
imports  from  the  Philippines  were  insignificant.  In  2001,  after  the  imposition  of  the 
duties they, however, almost doubled, and increased further from 1,4 million units in 
2001 to 2,9 million units in 2002. During the IP imports amounted to 3,9 million units, 
i.e. increased by a total of 262% in comparison to 2001.  

(37)  The  investigation  revealed  that  exports  from  the  PRC  to  the  Philippines  have 
consistently increased since 2000 and dramatically in 2003. At the same time, import 
statistics  from  the  Philippines  show  consistently  significantly  higher  volumes  than 
export statistics from the PRC to the Philippines. The difference between the statistics 
corresponds  to  the  volumes  exported  from  the  Philippines  to  the  Community,  which 
indicates that goods may have been transhipped from China via the Philippines to the 
Community.  

Pakistan 

(38)  As  indicated  in  recital  (18)  and  as  explained  below  in  recital  (52),  the  information 
submitted  by  the  sole  co-operating  exporter  in  Pakistan,  Ecopak  Lighting,  was 
unreliable,  inter  alia,  with  regard  to  its  export  sales  to  the  Community  and  had 
therefore to be disregarded. Instead, Eurostat statistics were used to determine import 
volumes  from  Pakistan.  Eurostat  figures  show  that  imports  from  Pakistan  started  in 
2001, i.e. after the imposition of the definitive measures in the original investigation 
and increased by 490% during the IP, i.e. from 0,2 million units in 2001 to 0,9 million 
units in the IP.  

Vietnam 

(39)  As mentioned above in recitals (17) and (19), import volumes with regard to Vietnam 
were  established  on  the  basis  of  Eurostat  statistics.  Thus,  imports  started  after  the 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
imposition  of  definitive  measures  in  2001  and  doubled  in  2002.  In  total,  imports 
increased from 0.9 million units in 2001 to 7.1 million units in the IP, i.e. by 767%.  

6. Conclusion on the change in the pattern of trade  

(40)  The overall decrease of Chinese exports to the Community and the parallel increase of 
exports  from  Vietnam,  Pakistan  and  the  Philippines  after  the  imposition  of  the 
definitive  measures  constituted  a  change  in  the  pattern  of  trade  between  the  above 
mentioned countries on the one hand and the Community on the other hand.  

(41) 

It was considered also that the increase of imports from the PRC from 2002 up to the 
end of the IP is mainly due to an increase of imports of Lisheng and Shenzhen which 
were subject to no or low duty rates and which should therefore normally not have or 
at least have a lower interest in circumventing the measures in force by transhipment 
via and/or assembly operations in third countries. Therefore, this increase should not 
devaluate the conclusion outlined above.  

7. The Philippines 

a) Nature of the circumvention practice 

(42)  Since no Philippine company co-operated in the present investigation, the assessment 
was  based  on  information  available  in  accordance  with  Article  18  of  the  basic 
Regulation, including information provided within the request. The applicant provided 
prima  facie  evidence  for  both,  the  existence  of  transhipment  and  of  assembly 
operations in the Philippines.  

b) 

Insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition 
of the anti-dumping duty  

(43) 

In  the  absence  of  any  co-operation,  the  Commission  had  to  base  its  findings  on  the 
facts  available,  in  accordance  with  Article  18  of  the  basic  Regulation.  In  the  present 
case,  the  information  submitted  by  the  applicant  contained  prima  facie  evidence  of 
transhipment  and  assembly  operations  circumventing  the  anti-dumping  measures  in 
force.  Moreover,  there  is  a  coincidence  in  time  between  the  imposition  of  the  anti-
dumping measures on the PRC and the change in the export trends from China on the 
one hand and of the import trends from the Philippines to the Community on the other 
hand  as  mentioned  in  recital  (37).  Since  this  confirmed  the  prima  facie  evidence 
already  submitted  in  the  request  it  was  concluded  that  the  change  in  the  pattern  of 
trade stemmed from the imposition of the anti-dumping measures rather than from any 
other  due  cause  or  economic  justification  within  the  meaning  of  Article  13(1)  of  the 
basic Regulation. 

c) Undermining of the remedial effect of the anti-dumping duty 

(44)  The change in the pattern of Community imports occurred since the imposition of the 
anti-dumping  measures  on  imports  of  CFL-i from  China.  This  change  in  trade  flows 
was translated in a significant increase in import volumes, i.e. as mentioned in recital 
(36)  by  over  250%  between  2001  and  the  IP.  It  was  therefore  concluded  that  this 
increase of imports in terms of quantities has undermined the remedial effects of the 
anti-dumping measures in the Community market.  

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
(45)  With  regard  to  prices  of  the  products  consigned  from  the  Philippines  and  in  the 
absence  of  any  co-operation  from  exporters  in  the  Philippines,  export  prices  were 
established on the basis of data recorded in Eurostat in accordance with Article 18 of 
the basic Regulation. On that basis, export prices from the Philippines were on average 
below the injury elimination level of Community prices as established in the original 
investigation.  

(46)  Therefore,  it  was  concluded  that  the  imports  of  the  product  concerned  from  the 
Philippines  undermined  the  remedial  effects  of  the  duty  in  terms  of  prices  and 
quantities. 

d) Evidence of dumping 

(47)  The  comparison  of  the  weighted  average  normal  value  as  established  in  the  original 
investigation  and  the  weighted  average  of  export  prices  as  established  under  recital 
(45)  during  this  IP,  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  CIF  price  at  the  Community 
frontier  duty  unpaid,  showed  dumping  for  the  imports  of  CFL-i  consigned  from  the 
Philippines. 

e) Conclusion 

(48)  Given the above,  it  was concluded that  the  definitive  anti-dumping duty imposed  on 
imports  of  CFL-i  originating  in  China  was  circumvented  by  transhipment  via  the 
Philippines pursuant to Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation. 

8. Pakistan 

a) Nature of the circumvention practice 

(49)  The investigation revealed that Ecopak Lighting had a production/assembly facility for 
CFL-i  in  Pakistan.  Ecopak  Lighting  is  related  to  a  Chinese  company  subject  to  the 
definitive anti-dumping duty, namely Firefly Lighting Firefly Lighting Co. Ltd.  

(50)  Ecopak  Lighting  was  registered  in  the  beginning  of  2001  (during  the  original 
investigation)  and  started  actual  operation  in  May  2001,  after  the  imposition  of 
provisional  measures  in  the  original  investigation.  Machinery  and  equipment  were 
purchased from a trading company located in the PRC. The transfer of equipment from 
the PRC to Pakistan started in February 2001, immediately prior to the imposition of 
provisional  measures  in  the  original  investigation.  The  investigation  revealed, 
however, that Ecopak Lighting did not start the production of CFL-i in Pakistan, but 
only carried out assembly operations. Indeed, evidence was found showing that CFL-i 
components  were  manufactured  by  the  related  company  located  in  the  PRC  and 
imported  in  semi-assembled  ‘kits’.  Furthermore,  Ecopack  Lighting  did  not  have  the 
necessary machinery and equipment, which would have allowed it to produce CFL-i. 
At its premises in Pakistan, only assembly machinery was found. 

(51) 

It should be noted that at the time of the verification visit, it was found that no activity 
(neither production nor assembly) was taking place, no personnel was present and no 
stocks  existed.  The  company  explained  that  although  they  had  assembly  operations 
during the IP, as shown in particular by the machinery, and a personnel list which was 
provided,  they  had  stopped  the  operations  shortly  before  the  initiation  of  the  present 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
investigation  and  had  not  decided  yet  whether  or  not  they  would  restart  the  activity. 
On this basis, the existence of a production capacity could not be established.  

(52)  Moreover, it was found that Ecopak Lighting had two sets of accounting documents. 
The  accounting  records,  including  the  reports  of  the  auditors,  were  not  in  line  with 
international  accounting  standards  and  therefore  considered  unreliable.  Therefore,  a 
reliable  value  of  the  machinery  (needed  for  the  calculation  of  the  depreciation  to  be 
included  in  the  value  added  calculation)  could  not  be  assessed,  neither  the  precise 
value  of  the  imported  parts  or  the  value  added  to  these  parts.  In  any  event,  the 
company did not provide any information which would have enabled the Institutions 
to examine the thresholds mentioned in Article 13(2)(b).  

(53) 

In the light of the evidence available, i.e. the information submitted by the applicant 
and the fact that almost all parts were imported from the PRC under the form of kits 
from  a  related  company  subject  to  measures,  it  was  concluded  that  the  operations 
taking  place  in  Pakistan  during  the  IP  should  be  considered  as  assembly  operations 
circumventing the definitive anti-dumping duties in force. 

b) 

Insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition 
of the anti-dumping duty  

(54)  The investigation revealed further facts which confirmed that the assembly operations 
in Pakistan had no other due cause or economic justification than the imposition of the 
anti-dumping duty.  

(55)  The above described change in the pattern of trade coincided with the establishment of 
assembly operations of CFL-i in Pakistan. It was also found that while sales of CFL-i 
to the Community were made from Pakistan, the Chinese related company continued 
supplying other markets directly from the PRC. Customers of Ecopak Lighting in the 
Community directly ordered CLF-i from the related company in China.  

(56)  The  exporter  claimed  that  the  reason  for  starting  the  operation  in  Pakistan  was  in 
particular the favourable environment for foreign investments, improved infrastructure 
and  low  labour  costs  in  Pakistan.  The  company  also  claimed  that  the  Community 
market is different from other markets with regard to demand, product types and prices 
which required a different export strategy than for other markets.  

(57)  However, none of these arguments could be supported by sufficient evidence and the 
company could not show that these factors were taken into consideration at the time of 
the  decision  to  start  the  operation  in  Pakistan.  Indeed  the  results  of  the  on-spot 
verification  strongly  contradicted  the  company’s  statements.  Furthermore,  as  regards 
the  interruption  of  the  activity,  the  company  was  not  able  to  provide  a  reasonable 
explanation.  In  any  event,  it  is  noted  that  the  company  could  restart  its  assembly 
operations very easily, if they decided to do so. 

(58)  Given  the  above  and  since  the  company  also  admitted  itself  that  the  assembly 
operation  started  due  to  the  anti-dumping  duties  in  place  in  the  Community,  it  was 
concluded that there was insufficient due cause and no economic justification for the 
change in the pattern of trade other than the imposition of the anti-dumping duty.  

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
c) Undermining of the remedial effect of the anti-dumping duty 

(59)  The trade flow analysis on the basis of the Eurostat data, shows that the change in the 
pattern  of  Community  imports,  which  occurred  since  the  imposition  of  definitive 
measures on imports originating in China, has undermined the remedial effects of the 
anti-dumping  measures  in  terms  of  quantities  imported  into  the  Community  market. 
Indeed,  the  Pakistani  company  even  exported  significantly  more  to  the  Community 
during the IP of this investigation than its related company in China had done during 
the investigation period of the original investigation.  

(60)  With  regard  to  prices  of  the  product  consigned  from  Pakistan,  it  was  found  that  the 
prices to unrelated customers in the Community are below the injury elimination level 
established for Community producers in the original investigation. 

(61)  Therefore, it was concluded that the imports of the product concerned  from Pakistan 
undermined the remedial effects of the duty in terms of prices and quantities.  

d) Evidence of dumping 

(62) 

In accordance with Articles 2(11) and 2(12) of the basic Regulation, a comparison of 
the weighted average normal value as established in the original investigation and the 
weighted  average  of  export  prices  during  this  investigation’s  IP,  expressed  as  a 
percentage of the CIF price at the Community frontier duty unpaid, showed dumping 
for the imports of CFL-i consigned from Pakistan. 

9. Vietnam 

a) General considerations 

(63)  The  request  contained  sufficient  prima  facie  evidence  of 

the  existence  of 
circumvention practices by means of transhipment and assembly of the anti-dumping 
measures in force by imports consigned in Vietnam. 

(64)  Four  exporters/producers in Vietnam submitted a reply to the questionnaire. On-spot 
verifications  were  carried  out  at  the  premises  of  three  of  them.  The  fourth  company 
(Halong Simexco) did not allow for an on-spot verification and therefore its reply to 
the  questionnaire  had  to  be  considered  unreliable.  Findings  with  regard  to  this 
company  were  based  on  facts  available  in  accordance  with  Article  18  of  the  basic 
Regulation. On this basis it was concluded that there was no reason to believe that the 
operations of this company did not constitute circumvention as defined in Article 13 of 
the basic Regulation. 

(65)  As  regards  the  remaining  three  companies,  all  established  assembly/production  lines 
of CFL-i in Vietnam. However, only one of them exported the product concerned to 
the  Community  during  the  IP  (Eco  Industries  Vietnam).  Energy  Research  Vietnam 
started exporting after the IP, and therefore requested to be granted an exemption as a 
newcomer on the basis of Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of the basic Regulation). 

(66)  Finally, Rang Dong Light Source and Vacuum Flask Joint Stock Company (‘Ralaco’), 
did  not  export  at  all  the  product  concerned  during  the  IP  or  after  this  period.  With 
regard  to  this  company,  no  conclusions  could  therefore  be  drawn  as  to  whether 
definitive  anti-dumping  duties  were  being  circumvented  or  not.  The  situation  of  this 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
company  will  be  reviewed  upon  request  in  case  the  conditions  of  Article  11(4)  and 
13(4) are fulfilled.  

b) Nature of the circumvention practice 

(67)  One  of  the  companies  mentioned  in  recital  (65),  Energy  Research  Vietnam  Co  Ltd, 
which  did  not  export  to  the  Community  during  the  IP,  started,  however,  exporting 
CFL-i after the IP and requested therefore to be treated as a newcomer in accordance 
with Articles 13(4) and 11(4) of the basic Regulation. 

(68)  The  verification  of  this  company’s  questionnaire  reply  was,  however,  significantly 
impeded by, inter alia, the submission of misleading information (for instance hiding 
the  existence  of  a  stock  of  the  product  concerned  sold  to  the  Community),  and  the 
information  submitted  had  thus  to  be  considered  as  unreliable.  Moreover,  Energy 
Research  Vietnam  Co  Ltd  omitted  information  concerning  its  purchase  of  a 
Vietnamese  company  for  which  the  applicant  submitted  prima  facie  evidence  of 
circumvention practices within the request. Finally, Energy Research Vietnam Co Ltd 
did  not  allow  an  on-spot  verification  visit  at  the  premises  of  its  parent  company  in 
Hong  Kong  although  it  claimed  that  most  of  the  documents  relevant  for  the 
investigation would be located at that company.  

(69)  Given the above, it was concluded that Energy Research Vietnam Co Ltd could not be 
considered  as  a  cooperating  party,  and  therefore  the  findings  related  to  the  company 
had to be made on the basis of the facts available. On that basis, and in particular the 
evidence  submitted  by  the  complainant  and  the  fact  that  the  information  provided  in 
the questionnaire reply was largely deficient, it was concluded that the request of the 
company to be granted a newcomer status could not be assessed. 

(70)  Subsequent to disclosure, the company argued that it had been fully co-operating and 
denied  most  of  the  findings  detailed  in  recital  (68).  However,  on  the  basis  of  the 
factual  evidence  collected  by  the  Commission,  these  objections  were  found  to  be 
unsubstantiated  and  groundless.  Therefore,  the  conclusions  in  recital  (69)  are 
confirmed. 

(71)  Eco Industries Vietnam, a company mentioned in recital (65), is part of a group whose 
parent  company,  Eco  International  Inc.,  is  located  in  the  United  States  of  America 
(USA).  The  production  facilities  for  CFL-i  were  established  in  August  2003  and 
exports  to  the  Community  started  the  same  year.  Two  related  companies  in  the 
Community (Denmark and Spain) are involved in the importation, sales and marketing 
of  CLF-i  in  the  Community.  CLF-i  manufactured  in  Vietnam  are  almost  entirely 
exported  to  the  Community  (with  the  exception  of  some  minor  sales  to  Indonesia 
outside  the  IP).  e3-light,  the  related  Danish  company,  also  purchased  CFL-i  via  a 
related trader (Eco Industries China) from China and resold the product in the USA. 

(72)  The  investigation  revealed  that  the  company’s  accounts  were  not  in  line  with 
international GAAP and that the accounts as a whole showed serious deficiencies and 
had therefore to be considered unreliable. The company’s costs could therefore not be 
established  on  this  basis.  The  investigation  revealed  also  that,  during  the  IP,  the 
company in Vietnam imported almost all CLF-i components used for the production of 
CFL-i from China.  

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
(73)  Given  that  the  precise  value  of  the  imported  parts  could  not  be  assessed,  the  value 
added to these parts could not be calculated. The company did not provide any reliable 
information  which  would  have  enabled  an  examination  the  thresholds  mentioned  in 
Article 13(2)(b).  

(74)  As a consequence, the assessment regarding Eco Industries Vietnam had to be done on 
the basis of the facts available, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. 
Consequently,  in  the  light  of  the  evidence  available,  i.e.  the  fact  that  the  company 
started operations after the imposition of measures on the PRC, and that the majority 
of the parts are imported from the PRC, it was concluded that the operations of Eco 
Industries  Vietnam  during  the  IP  should  be  considered  as  assembly  operations 
circumventing the definitive anti-dumping duties in force.  

(75)  Subsequent to disclosure, the company claimed that the Vietnamese production plant 
was  almost  exclusively  supplying  the  Community  because  its  capacity  was  not 
sufficient  to  supply  other  markets.  However,  it  could  be  verified  that  no  production 
had taken place during  a  significant part of the IP and that therefore sufficient spare 
capacities  to  supply  markets  other  than  the  Community  would  have  been  available. 
The  company  also  claimed  that  its  accounts  should  be  considered  as  reliable,  since 
they  were  audited  and  stated  to  be  in  accordance  with  Vietnamese  GAAP.  In  this 
context, it is recalled that the company did not keep any ledgers nor did the accounting 
system  used  by  the  company  allow  to  verify  the  completeness  and  accuracy  of  the 
accounts. Therefore, the conclusions in recital (74) are maintained. 

c) Undermining of the remedial effect of the anti-dumping duty 

(76)  The trade flow analysis shows that the change in the pattern of Community imports, 
which occurred since the imposition of definitive measures on imports originating in 
China, has undermined the remedial effects of the anti-dumping measures in terms of 
quantities imported into the Community market.  

(77)  Since only one company with exports of the product concerned during the IP to EU15 
co-operated in the present investigation, the analysis for the rest of the companies, i.e. 
in terms of quantities and prices, had to be done on the basis of the data from Eurostat. 
As shown in recitals (17) and (39), imports increased significantly, i.e. by more than 
700% since the imposition of definitive measures. 

(78)  With  regard  to  prices  of  the  product  consigned  from  Vietnam,  it  was  found  that  the 
prices  of  Vietnamese  exports  were  on  average  below  the  injury  elimination  level 
established for Community producers in the original investigation. 

(79)  Therefore, it was concluded that the imports of the product concerned from Vietnam 
undermined  the  remedial  effects  of  the  duty  in  terms  of  prices  and  quantities.  The 
same conclusions apply to the analysis made on the exports of Eco Industries. 

d) Evidence of dumping 

(80) 

In accordance with Articles 2(11) and 2(12) of the basic Regulation, a comparison of 
the weighted average normal value as established in the original investigation and the 
weighted  average  of  export  prices  during  this  investigation’s  IP,  expressed  as  a 
percentage of the CIF price at the Community frontier duty unpaid, showed dumping 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
for the imports of CFL-i consigned from Vietnam. The same conclusion was reached 
when analysing the export prices of Eco Industries Vietnam. 

(81)  Eco Industries Vietnam claimed that the normal values of the original investigation did 
not  reflect  the  market  characteristics  in  terms  of  prices  during  the  IP  and  should 
therefore  be  recalculated  or  adjusted  accordingly  without  further  substantiating  its 
claim. It is noted that Article 13(2) (c) of the basic Regulation provides explicitly that 
evidence of dumping should be established in relation to the normal values previously 
established  for  like  or  similar  products.  The  methodology  used  by  the  Commission 
was therefore in line with the basic Regulation and no adjustments or recalculations of 
the normal value during the current IP were warranted. The company also claimed that 
in constructing the export price of Eco Industries Vietnam in accordance with Article 
2(9)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  a  significant  amount  of  SG&A  of  the  Danish  related 
importer (e3 light) was wrongly included in the calculation, since this amount would 
concern  services  provided  to  the  American  parent  company  and  was  therefore  not 
related to the sales of the product concerned in the Community but did not provide any 
evidence  supporting  this  claim.  ..  Furthermore,  the  company  did  not  quantify  the 
amount allegedly incorrectly included in the SG&A nor did it submit any information 
which  would  have  allowed  the  Commission  to  determine  these  costs,  even  roughly.. 
The conclusions in recital (80) regarding this company are therefore maintained. 

C. CONCLUSIONS 

(82)  The present investigation was characterised by a high level of non co-operation. The 
companies  who  were  willing  to  co-operate  submitted  unreliable  information  and 
findings had therefore to a large extent be based on facts available in accordance with 
Article 18 of the basic Regulation. 

(83)  The above findings showed that there is circumvention of the measures on CFL-i from 
the PRC within the meaning of Article 13 (1) and 13 (2) of the basic Regulation via 
the three above mentioned countries. In view of the above, the existing anti-dumping 
measures imposed on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC should 
be  extended  to  the  same  product  consigned  from  Vietnam,  Pakistan  and/or  the 
Philippines whether declared as originating in Vietnam, Pakistan or the Philippines or 
not. 

(84)  The  measures  to  be  extended  should  be  the  ones  established  in  Article  1(2)  of  the 

original Regulation for “all other companies”. 

(85) 

In  accordance  with  Article  14(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  which  provides  that  any 
extended  measures  should  apply  to  imports  which  entered  the  Community  under 
registration imposed by the initiating Regulation, duties should be collected on those 
registered imports of CFL-I consigned from Pakistan, Vietnam and the Philippines. 

D. REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION 

(86)  The  four  companies  in  Vietnam  and  the  one  company  in  Pakistan  submitting  a 
questionnaire reply requested for an exemption in accordance with Article 13(4) of the 
basic Regulation. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
(87)  As mentioned in recital (64), one of these companies (Halong Simexco) subsequently 
ceased co-operation and in the absence of any other more reliable information, it had 
to  be  concluded  that  this  company  was  circumventing  the  antidumping  measures  in 
force. An exemption in accordance with Article 13(4) had therefore to be rejected.  

(88)  A second company in Vietnam, Ralaco, as mentioned in recital (66), did not export the 
product neither during the IP nor after that period and no conclusions could be drawn 
as to the nature of its operations. Therefore, an exemption to this company could not 
be  granted.  However,  should  the  conditions  in  Article  11(4)  and  13(4)  of  the  basic 
Regulation  be  fulfilled  after  extension  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  in  force,  the 
company’s situation may be reviewed upon request.  

(89)  The  third  company,  Energy  Research  Vietnam  Co,  Ltd.,  as  outlined  in  recital  (69), 
submitted misleading information and on this basis was found to be circumventing the 
definitive  anti-dumping  measures  in  force.  Furthermore,  its  links  to  a  Chinese 
company  allegedly  involved  in  circumvention  practices  could  not  be  clarified.  An 
exemption in accordance to Article 13(4) had therefore to be rejected.  

(90)  The  fourth  company  in  Vietnam,  Eco  Industries  Vietnam  Co.  Ltd.,  as  outlined  in 
recital  (70)  and  following,  did  not  have  a  reliable  set  of  accounting  records  and  the 
added value to the imported parts could thus not be determined. However, parts for the 
production of CFL-i were almost to their entirety imported from China. The assembly 
operation  in  Vietnam  had  therefore  to  be  considered  to  circumvent  the  measures  in 
force. Likewise, an exemption in accordance with Article 13(4) could therefore not be 
granted. 

(91)  Finally, as explained in recital (49) and following, the company in Pakistan was found 
to  circumvent  the  anti-dumping  duty  in  force  pursuant  to  Article  13(2)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. Moreover, this company is related to a company under measures, Firefly 
Lighting  Co.  Ltd..  On  this  basis,  its  request  for  an  exemption  in  accordance  with 
Article 13(4) has to be rejected. 

(92)  Other exporters concerned which were not contacted by the Commission in the frame 
of  this  proceeding  and  which  intend  to  lodge  a  request  for  an  exemption  from  the 
extended anti-dumping duty pursuant to Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation will be 
required to complete a questionnaire in order to enable the Commission to determine 
whether  an  exemption  may  be  warranted.  Such  exemption  may  be  granted  after  the 
assessment of the market situation of the product concerned, production capacity and 
capacity  utilisation,  procurement  and  sales  and  the  likelihood  of  continuation  of 
practices  for  which  there  is  insufficient  due  cause  or  economic  justification  and  the 
evidence  of  dumping.  The  Commission  would  normally  also  carry  out  an  on-spot 
verification  visit.  The  request  would  have  to  be  addressed  to  the  Commission 
forthwith,  with  all  relevant  information,  in  particular  any  modification  in  the 
company’s  activities  linked  to  production  and  export  sales  of  the  product  under 
consideration. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 

The  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  of  66.1%  imposed  by  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1470/2001 on imports of electronic compact fluorescent discharge lamps with one or 
more glass tubes, with all lighting elements and electronic components fixed to the 
lamps  foot  or  integrated  in  the  lamp  foot,  falling  within  CN  code  ex  8539  31  90 
originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of  China,  are  hereby  extended  to  electronic 
compact fluorescent discharge lamps with one or more glass tubes, with all lighting 
elements and electronic components fixed to the lamps foot or integrated in the lamp 
foot  consigned  from  Vietnam,  Pakistan  and/or  the  Philippines  whether  declared  as 
originating  in  Vietnam,  Pakistan  or  the  Philippines  or  not  (TARIC  code  8539  31 
90*92).  

2. 

The  duties  extended  by  paragraph  1  of  this  Article  shall  be  collected  on  imports 
registered  in  accordance  with  Articles  13(3)  and  14(5)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 
384/96. 

3. 

The provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply. 

1. 

2. 

Article 2 

Requests for exemption from the duty extended by Article 1 shall be made in writing 
in one of  the  official languages of the Community and must be signed by a person 
authorised  to  represent  the  applicant.  The  request  must  be  sent  to  the  following 
address: 

European Commission 
Directorate-General for Trade 
Directorate B 
Office: J-79 05/17 
B - 1049 Brussels 
Fax (32 2) 295 65 05 

In  accordance  with  Article  13(4)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96,  the  Commission, 
after consulting the Advisory Committee, may authorise, by decision, the exemption 
of  imports  from  companies  which  do  not  circumvent  the  anti-dumping  measures 
imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 , from the duty extended by Article 1. 

Customs authorities are hereby directed to discontinue the registration of imports, established 
in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1582/2004. 

Article 3 

EN 

21 

   EN 

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

Article 4 

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

22 

   EN