Council Regulation (EC) No 866/2005 of 6 June 2005 extending the definitive anti-dumping measures imposed by 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: 2005-06-06
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: China, Pakistan, Philippines, Viet Nam, anti-dumping duty, electronic equipment, import, lighting equipment, originating product

9.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 145/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 866/2005

of 6 June 2005

extending the definitive anti-dumping measures imposed by 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
(the ‘basic Regulation’), and in
imports from countries not members of the European Community (1)
particular Article 13 thereof,

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

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

A. PROCEDURE

1. Existing measures and former investigations
By Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 (2), (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 (3) pursuant to Article 12 of
the basic Regulation with regard to the above anti-dumping measures. This investigation was
terminated in March 2004 after the applicant formally withdrew its request (4).

2. Request

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 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.

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

L 145/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.6.2005

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

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
abovementioned 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 (1) (the ‘initiating Regu-
lation’). Pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission, by means of
the initiating Regulation, also instructed 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, which were 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.

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/ex-
porters in the Philippines. Replies to the questionnaire were also submitted by two related and two
unrelated importers in the Community.

(9)

The following companies cooperated in the investigation and submitted replies to the questionnaires:

Unrelated importers:
— Elektro Cirkel BV, the Netherlands
— Carrefour SA, France

Related importers:
— Energy Research 2000 BV, 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 BV)
— Halong service and import export company (Halong Simexco), Haiphong
— Rang Dong Light Source and Vacuum Flask Joint Stock Company (Ralaco), Hanoi

(1) OJ L 289, 10.9.2004, p. 54.

9.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 145/3

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 e3light in Denmark
— Energy Research Vietnam Co., Ltd, Haiphong
— Rang Dong Light Source and Vacuum Flask Joint Stock Company (Ralaco), Hanoi
— Carrefour SA, France.

(11)

5. Investigation period
The investigation period (the ‘IP’) covered the period from 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004. 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 them.

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.

1. General considerations

B. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

(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, before enlargement they could 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 a trend to be discerned, as comparable data for previous years do not exist.

L 145/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.6.2005

2. Degree of cooperation 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
in Pakistan and five exporting
producers in China cooperated by submitting questionnaire replies. No cooperation was obtained
from the Philippines.

to the Community, one exporting producer

(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 cooperating exporters/producers in Vietnam
which exported CFL-i to the Community during the IP. Therefore, it was considered that the data
provided by the cooperating 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 cooperating exporter were unreliable. With regard to the Philippines, no cooperation at all was
obtained. There was also a low level of cooperation 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 ques-
tionnaire reply. Moreover, three of these questionnaire replies were largely incomplete. Therefore,
on the basis of the information submitted by the cooperating 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.

(20)

(21)

(22)

(23)

3. Methodology

In accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the assessment of the existence of circum-
vention 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 was 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.

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.

In this regard, and as explained below in recitals 42 and 82, it is noted that none of the cooperating
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.

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

9.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 145/5

(24)

(25)

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 were used where available. 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.

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 like or
similar products. In this regard, export prices of the cooperating 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.
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.

In the original

(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,
for differences in
it was deemed appropriate to grant an adjustment
physical differences in accordance with Article 2(10)(a) of the basic Regulation.

(27)

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

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 to the lamp foot or integrated
in 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 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
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 after the imposition of measures.

in 2004 was still more than 20 % below the level of 2000,

L 145/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.6.2005

(31)

(32)

(33)

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

lamps from the above

fluorescent

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

0

925 518

1 920 973

5 451 201

8 215 491

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

Pakistan (units)

% of growth

0

0

6

0

0

100

201

219

266

196 240

584 065

674 119

1 255 456

100

298

344

640

Source: Eurostat, CN code 8539 31 90, EU15, Base 100 in 2001.

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
import trend for imports of the product concerned is correlated to the one of the fluorescent lamps,
i.e. both showed similar trends.

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

(in pieces)

Table 2

Company

AD in force

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

Shenzhen Zuoming Electronic Co.,
Ltd

0 %

8,4 %

Other companies

17,1 to 66,1 %

Total

2002

100

100

100

100

2003

101

178

119

110

2004

154

221

128

150

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

Regulation.

9.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 145/7

The Philippines

(35) As mentioned above in recitals 18 and 19,
determined on the basis of Eurostat statistics.

import volumes with regard to the Philippines were

(36)

(37)

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 almost doubled,
however, and increased further from 1,4 million units in 2001 to 2,9 million units in 2002.
increased by a total of 262 % in
During the IP imports amounted to 3,9 million units,
comparison to 2001.

i.e.

The investigation revealed that exports from the PRC to the Philippines have increased consistently
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
cooperating 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 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 %.

(40)

(41)

6. Conclusion on the change in the pattern of trade

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.

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 to
low, duty rates and which should therefore normally have no, or at least 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 cooperated in the present investigation, the assessment was based on
information available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, including information
provided in the request. The applicant provided prima facie evidence for both the existence of
transhipment and of assembly operations in the Philippines.

L 145/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.6.2005

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

(43)

In the absence of any cooperation, 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 after 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.

(45) With regard to prices of the products consigned from the Philippines and in the absence of any
cooperation 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,
undermined the remedial effects of the duty in terms of prices and quantities.

it was concluded that

the imports of

the product concerned from the Philippines

(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 Co. Ltd.

9.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 145/9

(50)

investigation) and
Ecopak Lighting was registered at the beginning of 2001 (during the original
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
investigation. The investigation revealed,
the imposition of provisional measures in the original
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 manu-
factured 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 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.

including the reports of

(52) Moreover, it was found that Ecopak Lighting had two sets of accounting documents. The accounting
in line with international accounting
records,
the auditors, were not
standards and were therefore considered unreliable. As a result, 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, nor 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 in 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 no 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)

(56)

The change described above 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 ordered CLF-i directly from the related
company in China.

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-the-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 it decided to do so.

L 145/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.6.2005

(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.

(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 after the imposition of definitive measures on imports origi-
nating 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 the prices of the product consigned from Pakistan, it was found that the prices to
unrelated customers in the Community were below the injury elimination level established for
Community producers in the original investigation.

(61)

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

(d) Evidence of dumping

(62)

In accordance with Article 2(11) and (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-the-spot verifications
were carried out at the premises of three of them. The fourth company (Halong Simexco) did not
allow for an on-the-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 the
product concerned at all 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 company will be reviewed upon request in cases where
the conditions of Articles 11(4) and 13(4) are fulfilled.

9.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 145/11

(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 therefore
requested 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 thus had 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 in the request. Finally, Energy Research Vietnam Co. Ltd did not
allow an on-the-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
it was
the fact that the information provided in the questionnaire reply was largely deficient,
concluded that the request of the company to be granted a newcomer status could not be assessed.

(70)

(71)

Subsequent to disclosure, the company argued that it had been fully cooperating 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.

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 import,
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 unre-
liable. The company’s costs could therefore not be established on this basis. The investigation also
revealed that, during the IP, the company in Vietnam imported almost all CLF-i components used for
the production of CFL-i from China.

(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 of the thresholds mentioned in Article 13(2)(b).

(74) As a consequence, the assessment regarding Eco Industries Vietnam had to be made on the basis of
the facts available, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. Consequently, in the light of
i.e. the fact that the company started operations after the imposition of
the evidence available,
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.

L 145/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.6.2005

(75)

(76)

(77)

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 verification of
the
the completeness and accuracy of
conclusions in recital 74 are maintained.

the accounts. Therefore,

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

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.

Since only one company with exports of the product concerned during the IP to EU15 cooperated 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 from Vietnam of the product concerned 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.

(80)

(81)

(d) Evidence of dumping

In accordance with Article 2(11) and (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 the imports of CFL-i consigned from Vietnam. The same
conclusion was reached when analysing the export prices of Eco Industries Vietnam.

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 selling, general and administrative costs (SG&A) of the
Danish related importer (e3light) 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 the company 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.

9.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 145/13

(82)

The present investigation was characterised by a high level of non-cooperation. The companies which
were willing to cooperate submitted unreliable information; therefore the findings had to a large
extent to be based on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.

C. CONCLUSIONS

(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 (2) of the basic Regulation via the three 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 those 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.

(86)

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

D. REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION

(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 anti-dumping 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 either
during the IP or 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 Articles 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)

(90)

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 with Article 13(4) had therefore to be rejected.

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 in their
entirety imported from China. The assembly operation in Vietnam had therefore to be considered as
circumventing 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 be circum-
venting the anti-dumping duty in force pursuant to Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation. Moreover,
this company is related to a company subject to measures, Firefly Lighting Co. Ltd.. On this basis, its
request for an exemption in accordance with Article 13(4) has to be rejected.

L 145/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.6.2005

(92) Other exporters concerned which were not contacted by the Commission in the context 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 conti-
nuation 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-the-spot verification
visit. The request would have to be addressed to the Commission forthwith, with all relevant
in particular any modification in the company’s activities linked to production and
information,
export sales of the product under consideration,

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 lamp foot or integrated in the lamp foot, falling within CN code
ex 8539 31 90 originating in the People’s Republic of China,
is hereby extended to 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 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).

The duties extended by paragraph 1 of this Article shall be collected on imports registered in

2.
accordance with Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96.

3.

The provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.

Requests for exemption from the duty extended by Article 1 shall be made in writing in one of the
1.
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:

Article 2

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
2.
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

9.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 145/15

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following 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 Luxembourg, 6 June 2005.

For the Council
The President

J. KRECKÉ