Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in Vietnam, amending Regulation (EC) No 1524/2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China
Date: 2005-06-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, Viet Nam, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, import, originating product, two-wheeled vehicle

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 9.6.2005 
COM(2005) 249 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in Vietnam, 
amending Regulation (EC) No 1524/2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on 
imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China 

(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 proceeding concerning 
imports of bicycles originating in Vietnam and the People’s Republic of China. 

•  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 

By  Regulation  (EC)  No  1524/2000  definitive  anti-dumping  duties  were  maintained 
against imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China. 

•  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. 

3)  LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

On 29 April 2004, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
imports  of  bicycles  originating  in  Vietnam.  On  the  same  day,  the  Commission  also 
initiated  an  interim  review  with  regard  to  imports  of  bicycles  originating  in  the 
People’s  Republic  of  China.  The  purpose  of  these  investigations  was  to  examine 
whether  the  existing  measures  on  imports  of  bicycles  from  the  People’s  Republic  of 
China were  no  longer sufficient  to counteract  the  dumping  which  was  causing  injury 
and whether the imports from Vietnam were dumped, thereby also causing injury. 

The  investigation  showed  that  the  current  level  of  measures  on  imports  of  bicycles 
originating  in  the  People’s  republic  of  China  was  no  longer  sufficient  to  ensure  the 
elimination of the injurious dumping. It was therefore concluded that the current level 
of  duties  had  to  be  increased.  Furthermore,  it  was  found  that  imports  of  bicycles 
originating in Vietnam were dumped and caused injury. It was therefore concluded that 
anti-dumping measures have to be imposed on imports from Vietnam. 

The  Member  States  were  consulted  regarding  this  review.  Nineteen  Member  States 
supported  and  four  Member  States  opposed  the  proposal.  Two  Member  States 
abstained.  

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopts the attached proposal for a Regulation 
which should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union by 12 July at 
the latest.  

•  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 reasons. 

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

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  because  the  basic  Regulation  does  not  foresee 
alternative options. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4)  BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in Vietnam, amending 
Regulation (EC) No 1524/2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles 
originating in the People’s Republic of China 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 

Having  regard  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22  December  1995  on  protection  against 
dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community1 (the ‘basic Regulation’) and 
in particular Articles 9 and 11 (3) thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

A. 

PROCEDURE 

1.  Measures in force 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

The  Council,  by  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2474/932  imposed  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  of 
30,6%  on  imports  of  bicycles  originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of  China  (‘the  PRC’),  (‘the 
original  measures’).  Following  an  anti-circumvention  investigation,  this  duty  was  extended  by 
Council Regulation (EC) No 71/973 to imports of certain bicycle parts originating in the PRC. 

Following  an  expiry  review  pursuant  to  Article  11(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation  (‘the  previous 
investigation’),  the  Council,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1524/20004,  decided  that  the  above-
mentioned measures should be maintained.  

2. 

Present investigations 

On 29 April 2004, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of 
the European Union5, the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the 
Community of bicycles originating in Vietnam.  

On the same day, pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, the Commission announced 
by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union6, the initiation of an interim 

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). 
OJ L 228, 9.9.1993, p. 1. 
OJ L 16, 18.1.1997, p. 55. 
OJ L 175, 14.7.2000, p. 39. 
OJ C 103, 29.4.2004, p. 76. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

review  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  applicable  to  imports  into  the  Community  of  bicycles 
originating in the PRC.  

The anti-dumping investigations were initiated following a complaint and a request lodged on 15 
March 2004 by the European Bicycles Manufacturers Association (‘EBMA’ or ‘the applicant’), 
acting on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 35% of the 
total  Community  production  of  bicycles.  The  complaint  contained  evidence  of  dumping  of  the 
said product and of material  injury resulting thereof, which was considered sufficient to justify 
the  initiation  of  the  proceeding  concerning  imports  of  bicycles  originating  in  Vietnam.  The 
request  contained  sufficient  evidence  justifying  the  initiation  of  an  interim  review  of  the 
measures applicable to imports of bicycles originating in the PRC.  

3. 

Parties concerned by the investigation 

The  Commission  officially  advised  the  applicant,  the  Community  producers  mentioned  in  the 
complaint  and  the  request,  any  other  known  Community  producers,  the  exporting  producers, 
importers as well as the associations known to be concerned, and the authorities of the PRC and 
Vietnam,  of  the  initiation  of  the  investigations.  Interested  parties  were  given  an  opportunity  to 
make  their  views  known  in  writing  and  to  request  a  hearing  within  the  time  limits  set  in  the 
notices of initiation.  

A number of Community producers represented by the applicant, other cooperating Community 
producers,  exporting  producers,  importers,  suppliers  and  user  associations  made  their  views 
known. All interested parties who so requested were granted a hearing. 

4. 

Sampling 

In  view  of  the  large  number  of  exporting  producers,  Community  producers  and  importers 
involved  in  the  investigations,  the  application  of  sampling  techniques  was  envisaged  in  both 
notices of initiation, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. 

In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to 
select  a  sample,  exporting  producers  and  representatives  acting  on  their  behalf,  Community 
producers and importers were requested to make themselves known and to provide information 
as  specified  in  the  notices  of  initiation.  The  Commission  also  contacted  known  associations  of 
exporting  producers  and  the  authorities  of  the  PRC  and  Vietnam.  These  parties  raised  no 
objections to the use of sampling. 

(10) 

In  total,  21  exporters/producers  in  the  PRC,  6  exporters/producers  in  Vietnam,  54  Community 
producers  and  6  importers  replied  to  the  sampling  questionnaire  within  the  time  limits  and 
provided the requested information.  

(11)  From the 21 Chinese exporting producers that responded to the sampling return, only 17 reported 
exports  of  bicycles  to  the  Community  during  the  IP.  Given  the  limited  number  of  Vietnamese 
exporting producers which indicated their willingness to cooperate, it was decided that sampling 
was not necessary in respect of Vietnamese exporting producers.  

(12)  The selection of the sample was made in consultation with, and with the consent of the Chinese 
co-operating  exporting  producers  and  the  authorities  of  the  PRC.  The  sample  of  the  exporting 

6 

OJ C 103, 29.4.2004, p. 80. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                                          
producers  was  established  on  the  basis  of  the  largest  representative  volume  of  exports  to  the 
Community, which could reasonably be investigated within the time available and on whether the 
companies  intended  to  apply  for  Market  Economy  Treatment  (’MET’).  Only  companies  that 
intended  to  apply  for  MET  were  included  in  the  sample,  since  in  an  economy  in  transition, 
normal  value  for  other  companies  is  established  on  the  basis  of  prices  or  constructed  normal 
value  of  an  analogue  third  country.  On  this  basis,  a  representative  sample  of  four  exporting 
producers was selected. The four sampled companies represented, according to the replies to the 
sampling exercise, 16% of the Chinese exports of the product concerned to the Community and 
35% of all co-operating producers’ exports. 

(13)  As for the Community producers, in accordance with 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the sample 
was selected after consultation of the relevant association and with their consent on the basis of 
the  largest  representative  volume  of  sales  and  production  within  the  Community.  As  a  result, 
eight Community producers were selected in the sample. The Commission sent questionnaires to 
the eight companies selected, which submitted complete replies. 

(14)  Given the limited number of importers who replied to the sampling questionnaire and indicated 
their  willingness  to  cooperate  (six  importers),  it  was  decided  that  sampling  was  not  necessary. 
However,  subsequently  none  of  the  importers  co-operated  in  the  review  investigation  and 
declined to return a complete questionnaire reply. Concerning the investigation of imports from 
Vietnam, three importers cooperated by submitting complete questionnaire replies. 

(15)  The  Commission  sought  and  verified  all  information  it  deemed  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  a 
determination  of  dumping,  resulting  injury  and  Community  interest.  Verification  visits  were 
carried out at the premises of the following companies: 

a) Producers in the Community 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Biria AG, Neukirch, Germany, 

Accell Group N.V., Heerenveen, The Netherlands, 

Cycleurope Industries S.A., Machecoul, France, 

Vivi Bikes srl, Pozzaglio, Italy, 

Denver srl, Dronero, Italy,  

F.lli Masciaghi Spa, Monza, Italy, 

–  MIFA Mitteldeutsche Fahrradwerke AG, Sangerhausen, Germany, 

– 

Promiles, Villeneuve d’Ascq, France. 

b) Exporting producers in the PRC  

– 

– 

– 

Giant China Co. Ltd, Kunshan Jiangsu Province, 

Shenzhen Xidesheng Bicycle Co. Ltd., Heshuikou Gongming, Shenzhen, 

Guangzhou Viva Bicycle Corporation Limited, Guangzhou, 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
– 

Komda Industrial Co. Ltd., Buji, Shenzhen. 

c) Exporting producers in Vietnam  

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Always Co., Ltd., Ho Chi Minh City, 

Asama Yu Jiun Intl. Co., Ltd. , Di An, 

Dragon Bicycles Co., Ltd., Dong Nai, 

High Ride Bicycle Co., Ltd., Di An,  

Liyang Vietnam Industrial Co., Ltd., Dong Nai, 

Vietnam Sheng Fa Co., Ltd., Ho Chi Minh City. 

d) Unrelated importers  

– 

– 

– 

ZEG, Cologne, Germany, 

Raleigh Univega GmbH, Cloppenburg, Germany, 

Halfords Nederland BV, Veenendal, The Netherlands. 

e) Related companies involved in the production or sales of the product concerned 

– 

Sheng Fa Industries Co., Ltd., Taipei, Taiwan. 

(16) 

In light of the need to establish a normal value for exporting producers in the PRC and Vietnam 
to which MET might not be granted, a verification visit to establish normal value on the basis of 
data from an analogue country took place at the premises of the following companies: 

– 

– 

Biciclo SA de CV, San Luis Potosí, México, 

Bicicletas Mercurio SA de CV, San Luis Potosí, México. 

(17)  The investigation of dumping and injury in both investigations covered the period from 1 April 
2003  to  31  March  2004  (‘the IP’).  The  examination  of  trends  in  the  context  of  the  analysis  of 
injury covered the period from January 2000 to the end of the IP (‘the period considered’). 

(18)  Some  interested  parties  raised  the  fact  that  the  investigation  covered  the  situation  in  the  EU  of 
fifteen Member States (‘EU15’) while measures would be imposed on imports into the enlarged 
EU  of  twenty-five  Member  States.  In  regard  to  imports  from  Vietnam,  it  must  be  noted  that 
imports  into  the  ten  new  Member  States  of  the  EU  (‘EU10’)  were  negligible  during  the  IP. 
Therefore, it was considered that any impact that these imports might have had on the injury or 
dumping  situation  would  also  be  negligible.  In  regard  to  imports  from  the  PRC,  there  were 
significant quantities of imports into the EU10 in the IP at prices that were lower than those into 
the  EU15.  In  these  circumstances,  it  is  considered  that  the  findings  of  dumping  and  the 
conclusion  that  there  is  a  likelihood  of  continuation  of  dumping  if  measures  were  allowed  to 
expire, would likely be reinforced by the level and prices of imports from the PRC into the EU10. 
As there is significant production of bicycles in the EU10, it was also considered that the impact 
of  the  level  and  prices  of  imports  from  the  PRC  would  be  such  as  to  confirm  the  existence  of 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
injury  to  the  broader  Community  industry,  i.e.  including  producers  in  the  EU10.  In  these 
circumstances, it is considered that enlargement would not automatically vary the dumping and 
injury parameters which form the basis of the proposed measures. 

B. 

PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

(19)  The  product  concerned  is  the  same  as  that  covered  by  the  original  and previous investigations, 
namely  bicycles  and  other  cycles  (including  delivery  tricycles),  not  motorised,  currently 
classifiable within CN codes 8712 00 10, 8712 00 30 and 8712 00 80. 

(20) 

In the present investigations the bicycles were classified in the following categories: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

(A) ATB (al-terrain bicycles including mountain bicycles 24” or 26”), 

(B) trekking/city/hybrid/VTC/touring bicycles 26” or 28”, 

(C) junior action (BMX) and children’s bicycles 16” or 20”, 

(D) other bicycles/cycles. 

(21)  A similar categorisation was used in the investigation which led to the original measures in the 
PRC  and  in  the  previous  investigation  covering  the  PRC.  However,  due  to  the  development  of 
new  bicycles  types,  the  classification  had  to  be  slightly  amended.  For  instance,  in  the  present 
investigations,  the  category  B  contains  the  types  hybrid  and  VTC,  which  are  further 
developments of previously existing types.  

(22)  The  investigations  confirmed  that  all  types  of  bicycles  as  defined  above  have  the  same  basic 
physical  and  technical  characteristics.  Furthermore,  they  are  sold  through  similar  distribution 
channels  such  as  specialised  retailers,  sport  chains  and  mass  merchandisers  on  the  Community 
market.  The  basic  application  and  use  of  bicycles  being  identical,  they  are  largely 
interchangeable and models from different categories therefore compete with each other. On this 
basis, it was concluded that all the categories form one single product. 

(23)  The investigations also showed that bicycles produced and sold by the Community industry on 
the Community market, those produced and sold by Mexican producers on the Mexican market 
and  those  imported  into  the  Community  market  originating  in  the  PRC  and  Vietnam  have  the 
same  basic  physical  and  technical  characteristics  and  the  same  uses.  They  are  therefore 
considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation. 

(24)  One interested party claimed that, in the framework of the review investigation, the extension of 
the scope of the product concerned by Council Regulation (EC) No 71/97 of 10 January 1997, as 
a  result  of  an  anti-circumvention  investigation  pursuant  to  Article  13  of  the  basic  Regulation 
should  be  limited  to  those  parts  which  have  a  significant  potential  to  be  involved  in 
circumvention  operations,  such  as  frames  and  forks.  In  this  respect,  it  should  be  noted  that  the 
present  review  was  initiated  in  order  to  examine  whether  the  existing  measures  are  no  longer 
sufficient to counteract the injurious dumping. The scope of the product concerned, i.e. bicycles 
from the PRC, as extended by the above mentioned regulation, remains therefore the same and a 
possible  review  of  the  anti-circumvention  measures  should  be  carried  out  in  the  context  of  a 
separate review investigation, if the conditions therefore are met.  

(25)  During  the  investigation  one  importer  in  the  Community  claimed  that  unicycles  should  be 
exempted  from  the  scope  of  the  product  concerned  because  they  allegedly  have  different  basic 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
physical and technical characteristics and different uses. The Commission investigated the claim 
and found that basic physical and technical differences clearly exist. Unlike bicycles, unicycles 
have no second wheel, no handlebar for steering and no breaking system. In addition, there is a 
clear  dividing  line  between  the  uses  of  unicycles  and  other  cycles.  Unicycles  are  normally  not 
used for transportation or sport, they are normally considered and used for acrobatic purposes. It 
was therefore concluded that the claim was duly justified and that the definition of the product 
concerned should be adjusted accordingly.  

1.  Market economy treatment  

C. 

DUMPING 

(26)  Pursuant  to  Article  2(7)(b)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  in  anti-dumping  investigations  concerning 
imports originating in the PRC and/or Vietnam, normal value is to be established in accordance 
with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the said Article for those exporting producers which can show that they 
meet  the  criteria  laid  down  in  Article  2(7)(c)  of  that  Regulation,  i.e.  that  market  economy 
conditions prevail in respect of the manufacture and sale of the like product. 

(27)  Briefly,  and  for  ease  of  reference  only,  the  criteria  for  MET  are  set  out  in  summarised  form 

below:  

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

business  decisions  and  costs  are  made  in  response  to  market  signals,  and  without 
significant State interference;  

firms  have  one  clear  set  of  accounting  records  which  are  independently  audited  in  line 
with international accounting standards (‘IAS’) and are applied for all purposes; 

there  are  no  significant  distortions  carried  over  from  the  former  non-market  economy 
system; 

legal certainty and stability is provided by bankruptcy and property laws; 

currency exchanges are carried out at market rate. 

(28)  Claims for MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation were received from ten PRC 

and seven Vietnamese companies: 

Exporting producers in the PRC 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Giant China Co. Ltd, 

Shenzhen Xidesheng Bicycle Co. Ltd, 

Guangzhou Viva Bicycle Corporation Limited, 

Komda Industrial Co. Ltd., 

Universal Cycle Corporation, 

Liyang Machinery (Shenzen) Co Ltd, 

Zheijiang Pujiang Libahuang Bicycle Corporation, 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
–  Merida Bicycle Co. Ltd, 

– 

– 

Huida Bicycle (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd, 

Shenzhen Bo-An Bike Co. Ltd; 

Exporting producers in Vietnam 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Always Co., Ltd. (“Always”), 

Asama Yu Jiun Intl. Co., Ltd. (“Asama”), 

Dragon Bicycles Co., Ltd(“Dragon”), 

High Ride Bicycle Co., Ltd(“High Ride”),  

Liyang Vietnam Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Liyang”), 

Vietnam Sheng Fa Co., Ltd (“Sheng Fa”), 

Olympic Pro Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 

(29)  One  of  these  companies  (Komda  Industrial  Co.  Ltd),  at  a  later  stage  in  the  investigation, 
withdrew  its  request  for  MET  but  maintained  its  request  for  individual  treatment  pursuant  to 
Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation. In the case of another company (Olympic Pro Manufacturing 
Co., Ltd) it was found that it had no exports of the product concerned into the Community during 
the IP. Therefore, its request for MET and individual treatment became irrelevant. 

(30)  The claims of the fifteen remaining companies were analysed on the basis of the five criteria set 

out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. 

1.1.  MET determination regarding exporting producers in the PRC  

(31)  For all exporting producers of bicycles in the PRC it was established that they were subject to an 
export  quota  system,  in  accordance  with  a  Regulation  of  export  permit  management  of 
20/12/2001 approved by the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation (‘MOFTEC’) 
and the customs authorities. The allocation of the quotas was made by a Committee comprised of 
members  of  the  MOFTEC,  the  relative  Chamber  of  Commerce  and  the  Association  of  Foreign 
Funded Enterprises on the basis of criteria set up by the MOFTEC. The system also included the 
setting of minimum export prices per product type and the control of prices and quantities of the 
exporter sales contract by the government, before an export licence could be issued.  

(32) 

In  view  of  the  above,  the  companies  requesting  MET  were  not  able  to  demonstrate  that  their 
decisions  regarding  sale  prices  and  quantities  were  taken  in  response  to  market  signals  and 
without  significant  State  interference,  as  required  by  the  first  criterion  of  Article  2(7)(c)  of  the 
basic Regulation. Consequently, after consulting the Advisory Committee, it was decided not to 
grant MET to the applicant companies, since they did not meet the criteria set in Article 2(7)(c) 
of the basic Regulation. 

(33)  Certain  exporting  producers  and  the  China  Chamber  of  Commerce  for  Import  and  Export  of 
Machinery and Electronic products (‘CCCME’) argued that the export licence scheme cannot be 
considered  to  affect  the  exporters’  determination  of  export  quantities  and  prices  and  are  not 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
subject  to  significant  State  interference  within  the  meaning  of  Article  2(7)(c)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. In this respect, it should be firstly noted that the export licence scheme restricts the 
companies  to  export  bicycles  beyond  a  maximum  allowed  quantity  and  below  the  minimum 
prices set by the State. This restriction indicates clearly that they are not free to determine their 
export activities without significant State interference. Indeed, they are obliged to tender for an 
annual quantity which may be accepted as such, or modified on the basis of unspecified grounds 
or even be rejected by the above mentioned Committee. Furthermore, a company with less than 5 
000  bicycle  exports  in  the  previous  year  can  be  totally  excluded  from  the  tender  procedures, 
leaving  thus  to  the  absolute  discretion  of  that  Committee  the  continuation  of  the  company’s 
export  activities.  Moreover,  the  quantities  and  prices  are  closely  monitored  by  the  State, 
involving  MOFTEC  and  the  customs  authorities,  via  the  validation  of  the  actual  export  sales 
contracts,  on  the  basis  of  which  the  export  licence  can  be  issued.  This  is  considered  to  be  an 
undeniable State interference in the company’s business decisions within the meaning of Article 
2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. On this basis, the argument was rejected. 

1.2.  MET determination regarding exporting producers in Vietnam  

(34) 

It was found that five of the companies concerned were situated in a so-called Industrial Zones 
(‘IZ’) and one of the companies was situated in a so-called Export Processing Zone (‘EPZ’). 

(35)  Regarding  companies  situated  in  an  IZ,  it  was  established  that  the  Government  Decree 
24/2000ND-CP  of  31  July  2000  implementing  the  Law  on  Foreign  Investment  of  Vietnam, 
provided for a general obligation for companies subject to this law to export at least 80% of their 
production (‘export obligation’) in order to obtain an investment licence. It was also found that 
the export obligation was included in the investment licences of all five companies situated in an 
IZ. 

(36)  Moreover,  the  investigation  showed  that  the  investment  licence  of  the  company  situated  in  an 

EPZ did not contain the export obligation referred to above. 

(37)  The five companies who had the export obligation included in their investment licences alleged 
that due to a subsequent change in the applicable Vietnamese legislation which was implemented 
by Government decree 27/2003ND-CP (‘amending decree’) the export obligation ceased to exist 
after 7 May 2003. 

(38) 

In this regard, it is to be noted that according to the amending decree, the export obligation can 
only  be  removed  under  the  condition  that  other  compelling  requirements  included  in  the 
amending decree are met. Therefore the amending decree did not remove the  export obligation 
but rather amended the requirements which the companies needed to meet for the annulment of 
their export obligation. 

(39)  The companies further alleged that they would have been entitled to have their export obligation 
removed  from  their  investment  licences  had  they  complied  with  the  supplemental  conditions 
listed in the amending decree. However, according to the applicable legislation, the investor first 
has  to  request  from  the  investment  licence  issuing  authority  an  amendment  of  its  licence  and, 
subsequently, the investment licence issuing authority shall amend the investment licence of the 
investor so that the investor can enjoy the repeal of the export obligation. 

(40)  The  investment  licence  issuing  authorities  had  not  repealed  the  export  obligation  in  the 
investment  licences  of  any  of  the  five  companies  at  any  time  during  the  IP.  Therefore,  the 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
companies  also  failed  to  demonstrate  that  they  would  have  complied  with  the  additional 
conditions. 

(41)  The same companies also alleged that even if the export obligation were to be considered to be in 
force  during  the  IP,  the  companies’  decisions  were,  nevertheless,  made  in  response  to  market 
signals. However, not only was this export obligation in place during the IP but, moreover, this 
export obligation was included in the investment licences and in the articles of association of all 
five companies throughout the investigation period. Consequently, it is concluded that the export 
obligation  has  to  be  considered  as  a  significant  State  interference  of  such  a  nature  as  to 
effectively preventing the companies from making their decisions according to market signals. 

(42) 

It  was  also  concluded  that  the  company,  for  which  it  was  found  that  neither  the  investment 
licence  nor  its  articles  of  association  contained  the  said  export  obligation,  was  free  to  sell  the 
product  concerned  both  on  the  domestic  and  on  the  export  market  and  was  not  subject  to 
significant State interference. 

(43)  Furthermore,  it  has  to  be  mentioned  that  in  the  case  of  four  companies  of  the  five  companies 
referred to in recital (34) above subject to the export obligation,  it could not be  concluded that 
they  had  one  clear  set  of  accounting  records  independently  audited  in  line  with  international 
accounting standards and applied for all purposes. It was found that a non-transparent invoicing 
arrangement  was  in  place  with  regard  to  the  invoicing  of  the  product  concerned  to  the 
Community.  This  arrangement  involved  intermediary  companies  in  tax-havens  and  other 
locations  outside  Vietnam  and  it  did  not  allow  an  audit  trail  to  be  followed.  As  a  result,  the 
accounting  records  of  the  companies  in  Vietnam  did  not  represent  faithfully  the  underlying 
export sales transactions. 

(44)  Consequently, after consulting the Advisory Committee, it was decided to grant MET to Always 
on the basis that the company met all the criteria set in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and 
to reject the claims of Asama, Dragon, High Ride, Liyang and Sheng Fa since these companies 
did not meet all the above-mentioned criteria. 

2. 

Individual treatment 

(45)  Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, a country-wide duty, if any, is established for 
countries  falling  under  Article  2(7)(a)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  except  in  those  cases  where 
companies are able to demonstrate that they meet all criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic 
Regulation for individual treatment. 

(46)  The  same  PRC  and  Vietnamese  exporting  producers,  which  did  not  fulfil  the  MET  criteria,  as 
well as the company referred to in recital (29), alternatively, requested individual treatment (‘IT’) 
in accordance with Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation. The Commission consequently verified 
whether  the  applicant  companies  enjoyed,  both  in  fact  and  in  law,  the  necessary  degree  of 
independence from the State for setting their export prices and determining their export quantities 
of the product concerned, in accordance with Article 9(5)(b) of the basic Regulation.  

(47) 

In  this  respect,  it  was  established,  that  all  PRC  exporting  producers  were  subject  to  significant 
State  control  with  regard  to  determining  their  export  prices  and  quantities  of  the  product 
concerned  as  explained  in  recital  (31)  above.  It  was,  therefore,  concluded  that  the  Chinese 
exporting producers having applied for IT did not meet the necessary requirements for individual 
treatment as set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
(48)  Regarding the Vietnamese companies, it was established that all the five companies were subject 
to significant State control with regard to setting their export quantities of the product concerned 
as  explained  in  recitals  (34)  to  (41)  above.  It  was,  therefore,  concluded  that  none  of  the  five 
companies met the necessary requirements for individual treatment. 

3.  Normal Value 

3.1.  Analogue country 

(49)  Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for the exporting producers in 
the  PRC  and  Vietnam  not  granted  MET  has  to  be  established  on  the  basis  of  the  prices  or 
constructed value of the analogue country. 

(50)  For this purpose, in the notices of initiation the Commission suggested Mexico, which was also 

the analogue country used in the previous investigation concerning the PRC.  

(51)  All interested parties were given the opportunity to comment on the choice of analogue country 
envisaged.  Comments  were  received  from  the  co-operating  exporting  producers  suggesting 
Taiwan or India as being a more suitable analogue country than Mexico. 

Taiwan 

(52)  Certain  exporting  producers  argued  that,  since  this  country  had  been  used  in  the  original 
investigation, Taiwan is a more appropriate analogue country to be used. They further argued that 
Taiwan  is  one  of  the  largest  producers  of  bicycles  in  the  world  and  has  a  developed  domestic 
market where many domestic producers actively compete. Moreover, there are no restrictions on 
imports  of  bicycles  or  parts  into  Taiwan.  In  addition,  many  Chinese  and  Vietnamese 
manufacturers are owned by Taiwanese companies and therefore both the production processes 
and the final products are very similar to those of the Chinese and Vietnamese producers. It was 
also  submitted  that  several  Taiwanese  companies  were  willing  to  co-operate  with  the 
Commission for this purpose. 

(53) 

In respect of the above arguments, it should be firstly noted that Taiwan is indeed the third largest 
producer of bicycles in the world but the industry is heavily export oriented, typically exporting 
about 90% of its output.  

(54)  On the other hand, its domestic market is relatively small and rather stable estimated at about 700 
000  -  800  000  units,  whereas  the  Mexican  domestic  market  is  estimated  at  about  2,3  million 
units, i.e. three fold the Taiwanese market. Moreover, the Taiwanese market is largely supplied 
by Chinese exporters. In comparison, Taiwan imported in 2003 some 470 000 bicycles from the 
PRC, representing thus more than half of its market size. In this respect, it should be noted that 
the  imports  of  bicycles  into  Taiwan  were  quasi  nil  before  the  year  2001.  Therefore,  whereas 
before  2001,  the  Taiwanese  market  was  principally,  if  not,  exclusively  supplied  by  local 
producers,  nowadays  the  PRC  bicycles  prevail  in  this  market  more  and  more  over  the  local 
producers  whose  market  share  decreases  dramatically.  Consequently,  the  domestic  market  is 
highly  influenced  by  import  prices  of  PRC  bicycles,  which  are  subject  of  the  current 
investigation.  

(55)  Nevertheless,  questionnaires  were  sent  to  all  known  Taiwanese  producers.  Certain  companies 
replied that they would be willing to co-operate but they had no domestic sales, as they exported 
all their production. Two companies replied to the questionnaire. However, one of them failed to 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
provide  a  meaningful  questionnaire  response  and  was  considered  to  be  non-cooperating.  The 
other company fully co-operated but it was questionable whether the low volume of its domestic 
sales could be considered as sufficiently representative in relation to the Taiwanese market, the 
total  Chinese  exports  to  the  Community  and  the  total  Vietnamese  exports  to  the  Community. 
Moreover,  given  the  market  conditions  prevailing  in  the  Taiwanese  market  explained  in  recital 
(54), that single company’s sales could not be considered as an appropriate basis for the purpose 
of establishing a normal value. 

India 

(56)  One Chinese exporting producer suggested alternatively India as an analogue country. It argued 
that the labour costs in India are similar to those in the PRC. In this respect, it should be noted 
that India was found to be an inappropriate choice because any comparison between the bicycles 
sold  in  India  (rustic  bicycles  sold  to  retailers  in  kit  form)  and  those  exported  by  Chinese 
manufacturers to the Community would be very difficult and in any event would require multiple 
adjustments. Therefore, and in view of the existence of a more appropriate analogue country, i.e. 
Mexico, India was not considered a suitable analogue country. 

(57)  Following disclosure, a Vietnamese exporting producer submitted that the Commission failed to 
provide any reasonable justification, supported by evidence, as to why India could not be used as 
an  analogue  country.  It  argued  that  the  Commission  had  not  sent  any  questionnaires  to  the 
producers  in  India,  whereas  this  country  exports  large  amounts  of  good  quality  bicycles  to  the 
Community, which are like products, in spite of the Commission’s findings that they are “rustic 
bicycles sold to retailers in kit form”. 

(58) 

In this respect, it should be firstly noted that, shortly after the initiation of the proceeding, only 
one exporting producer in the PRC suggested India as an analogue country but this claim was not 
sufficiently substantiated, as the only argument submitted was the similar labour costs in the PRC 
and  in  India.  Furthermore,  the  Indian  exports  of  bicycles  to  the  Community  are  not  relevant 
factor  in  determining  the  suitability  of  India  as  analogue  country.  It  is  not  disputed  that  the 
bicycles  sold  on  the  Indian  domestic  market  are  like  products  to  those  exported  into  the 
Community  by  the  countries  concerned.  However,  the  available  information  indicated  that  the 
types of bicycles sold on the Indian domestic market would require multiple adjustments, which 
would thus make any comparison unreliable. In view  of  this,  and  in  the  absence  of  other  more 
substantiated information, the option of India was not further examined since data concerning a 
more appropriate analogue country, i.e. Mexico, was available. On this basis, the above argument 
was rejected. 

Mexico 

(59)  Questionnaires were sent to all known Mexican producers. Two companies fully co-operated by 
replying  to  the  questionnaire  and  accepting  a  verification  of  their  response  at  their  premises. 
These  two  producers  had  domestic  sales  representing  about  one  third  of  the  Mexican  market, 
estimated  at  about  2,3  million  units.  A  large  number  of  producers  and  some  twenty  major 
importers were found to operate in a competitive environment. The imports of bicycles in 2003 
were  originating  principally  in  Taiwan  (more  than  50%),  Uruguay  (20%),  United  States  and 
South  Korea.  These  imports  represented  some  5%  of  the  domestic  market.  To  this  percentage, 
should be added the bicycles sold on the domestic market by importers assembling bicycle parts.  

(60) 

In this respect, it should be noted that in 2003, some 465 000 bicycle parts with a value of EUR 
79 million were imported into Mexico, out of which one third in value was imported by twelve 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
major  importers/assemblers  (source:  annual  report  of  ANAFABI,  the  Mexican  association  of 
bicycle  manufacturers).  On  the  other  hand,  the  exports  of  bicycles  from  Mexico  represented  in 
2003  about  60%  in  value  of  the  imports  into  Mexico  (source:  official  Mexican  statistics),  i.e. 
estimated to represent around 50 to 70 thousand units. Therefore, it seems that a major part of the 
imported bicycle parts has been used either for the after sales (repair) market or for assembling 
and selling bicycles on the domestic market. 

(61)  Certain  exporting  producers  submitted  that  there  are  import  registration  procedures  in  Mexico 
which  are  cumbersome  and  increase  the  costs  of  goods  imported  into  that  country.  They  also 
argued that this registration system causes market distortions in the Mexican bicycle sector. They 
further  argued  that  the  domestic  competition  in  Mexico  is  limited  given  that  eight  major 
producers,  members  of  the  ANAFABI,  the  Mexican  association  of  bicycle  manufacturers, 
account  for  more  than  75%  of  local  output  enjoying  thus  a  significant  power  in  setting  the 
domestic  prices.  Furthermore,  it  was  argued  that  the  Mexican  bicycle  producers  are  limited  as 
regards  the  quantities  they  can  sell  on  their  domestic  market,  since  the  Mexican  law  on  the  so 
called  Maquiladora  programs  allegedly  requires  the  domestic  producers  to  meet  certain 
performance requirements. In accordance with this program, if a company wishes to obtain duty 
free  imports  of  raw  materials  for  subsequent  exports,  it  must  export  at  least  30%  of  its  total 
production on an annual basis.  

(62)  Regarding  the  import  registration  procedures,  it  should  be  firstly  noted  that  although  such 
procedures  might  make  imports  to  some  extent  more  cumbersome  and  time  consuming,  it  was 
found  that  there  are  in  any  event  significant  imports  of  bicycles  and  bicycle  parts  into  the 
Mexican market, ensuring thus a competitive market situation. Therefore, the potential impact on 
the market of such procedures, if any, which is in any event not directly measurable, cannot be 
considered  as  relevant  in  this  respect.  In  contrast,  with  regard  to  the  domestic  competition,  it 
should be noted that there are some twelve major producers, a large number of smaller producers 
and/or assemblers and a large number of importers/assemblers of bicycles and bicycle parts. All 
of  these  operators  compete  with  each  other  and  confirm  a  strong  competitive  environment 
prevailing in the Mexican market. As for the power of large producers, members of ANAFABI, 
in setting the domestic prices, this was not substantiated and the investigation did not reveal any 
elements which could support this allegation. The fact that a number of large producers retain a 
major  part  of  the  domestic  market  does  not  constitute,  as  such,  evidence  of  power  in  setting 
prices.  In  this  context,  it  should  be  further  noted  that  the  two  investigated  Mexican  producers, 
which  represented  about  one  third  of  the  total  Mexican  production,  were  found  to  realise  in 
average  low  profits  (lower  than  the  normal  profit  claimed  by  the  applicant  in  the  Community 
market  in  the  absence  of  injurious  dumping  from  the  countries  concerned)  from  their  bicycles 
activity  rather  than  high  profits  as  could  have  been  expected  should  the  Mexican  market  be 
controlled by them.  

(63) 

In  respect  of  the  Maquiladora  programs,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  two  co-operating  Mexican 
producers  were  not  found  to  pay  any  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  bicycle  parts,  which 
represented  up  to  60%  of  their  total  needs  for  their  bicycle  production  and  were  mainly 
originating in the PRC and Taiwan. However, both sold the major part of their production on the 
domestic market. Only one Mexican producer had exports, representing not more than 10% of its 
total sales. As a matter of fact, since the year 2000, the bicycle sector is included within the so-
called “Mexican Sectorial Promotion Programs” (PROSEC) established by a decree published on 
30  October  2000  by  the  Mexican  Government.  The  PROSEC  applies  to  firms  that  produce 
finished goods covered in a specific sector promotion program and imported inputs listed under 
this  program.  The  decree  does  not  explicitly  link  the  tariff  exemption/reduction  to  exports.  All 
authorised producers may import the raw materials and machinery listed in the decree as far as 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
they are used in the manufacture of certain specified products. No distinction is made based on 
the final destination of the imported goods (domestic or export markets). In this respect, it should 
be  noted  that  the  two  co-operating  producers  were  not  found  to  pay  any  duty  other  than  the 
customs  duty  for  the  imports  of  raw  materials  incorporated  in  final  products  destined  for  the 
domestic market. 

(64)  One  co-operating  importer  submitted  that  the  labour  costs  in  Mexico  are  three  times  the 
Vietnamese labour costs. As a result, the cost of production and selling prices of the end-product 
in  Mexico  are  higher  than  those  in  Vietnam.  Consequently,  Mexico  is  not  an  appropriate 
analogue country. In this respect, it should be noted that Vietnam is considered to be a country 
with an economy in transition. The labour costs of the Vietnamese producers not granted market 
economy status are not free market prices, i.e. these prices are not the result of the play of market 
forces.  The  very  purpose  of  using  an  analogue  country  is  to  eliminate  the  effect  of  such  non-
market prices on companies costs. On this basis, the argument was rejected. 

(65)  Finally, it was submitted that there are significant differences between the Mexican bicycle sector 
and that of the PRC which were mainly due to the raw materials used and to the conditions of 
access  to  raw  materials.  In  respect  of  the  raw  materials  used,  it  was  argued  that  the  Mexican 
manufacturers  produce  only  rigid  frames,  while  the  Chinese  manufacture  also  produce 
suspension frames. As for the conditions of access to raw materials, it was alleged that they are 
not comparable to those in the PRC, since the bicycle parts supplied on the domestic market are 
manufactured with outdated technology. Furthermore, the bicycle parts imported from the PRC, 
are subject to a 144% anti-dumping duty, thus leading to an inflated cost. 

(66)  Regarding  the  differences  in  the  raw  materials  used  and  the  conditions  of  access  to  the  raw 
materials,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  investigation  did  not  show  that  there  were  differences 
between the bicycles produced by Mexican, Chinese or Vietnamese manufacturers. The Mexican 
manufacturers  produce  also  bicycles  with  suspension  frames  and  are  mainly  supplied  with 
bicycle  parts  from  the  PRC  and  Taiwan.  As  for  the  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  bicycle 
parts,  as  mentioned  in  recital  (63)  above,  such  duty  it  is  not  levied  to  imports  of  bicycle  parts. 
Therefore, this argument was rejected. 

(67) 

In view of the above, the Mexican market can be considered to be representative and competitive. 
It was therefore concluded that Mexico was an appropriate analogue country.  

3.2.  Determination of normal value in the analogue country 

(68)  Following the choice of Mexico as an analogue country, normal value was calculated on the basis 
of  the  data  verified  at  the  premises  of  the  two  co-operating  Mexican  producers.  Pursuant  to 
Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for the Chinese and Vietnamese producers 
not  granted  MET  was  established  on  the  basis  of  verified  information  received  from  the 
producers  in  the  analogue  country,  i.e.  on  the  basis  of  prices  paid  or  payable  on  the  domestic 
market of Mexico for comparable product types or constructed value in Mexico for comparable 
product types.  

(69)  The  domestic  sales  of  the  two  Mexican  producers  of  the  like  product  were  found  to  be 
representative  as  they  represented  a  major  percentage  in  relation  to  the  product  concerned 
exported to the Community by the exporting producers in the PRC and in Vietnam. 

(70)  An examination was also made as to whether the domestic sales of each product type could be 
regarded as having been made in the ordinary course of trade, by establishing the proportion of 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
profitable sales to independent customers of the type in question. In cases where the sales volume 
of a product type, sold at a net sales price equal to or above the unit cost, represented more than 
80% of the total sales volume of that type, and where the weighted average price of that type was 
equal to or above the unit cost, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated 
as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of that product type made during the IP, 
irrespective of whether these sales were profitable or not.  

(71) 

In the case where the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80% or less but at 
least 10% of the total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of such sales 
was  below  the  unit  cost,  normal  value  was  based  on  the  actual  domestic  price,  calculated  as  a 
weighted average of profitable sales of those types only.  

(72)  For those product types, where the volume of profitable sales represented less than 10% of the 
total sales volume of that type on the domestic market, it was considered that the product type 
concerned was not sold in the ordinary course of trade and therefore, normal value could not be 
based on domestic prices in Mexico. 

(73)  For  the  exported  product  types,  which  were  either  not  made  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade  in 
Mexico  or  not  sold  by  the  Mexican  producers  on  their  domestic  market,  constructed  normal 
values were used. 

(74)  For exported product types, without corresponding types sold in the ordinary course of trade on 
the  domestic  market  of  Mexico,  normal  value  was  constructed,  pursuant  to  Article  2(3)  of  the 
basic  Regulation,  on  the  basis  of  the  weighted  average  of  each  producer’s  own  manufacturing 
costs  plus  a  reasonable  amount  for  selling,  general  and  administrative  (‘SG&A’)  costs  and  for 
profit.  The  SG&A  costs  and  profit  were  determined  on  the  basis  of  the  weighted  average  of 
SG&A  costs  incurred  and  of  profit  realised  by  each  of  the  co-operating  Mexican  producers  on 
their  domestic  sales  of  the  like  product,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade.  For  exported  product 
types,  without  sales  on  the  domestic  market  of  Mexico,  the  manufacturing  costs  of  similar 
product types were used in the construction of normal values, appropriately adjusted in order to 
take into account the differences in physical characteristics with the exported types. 

3.3.  Determination of normal value for the exporting producer to which MET was granted 

(75) 

(76) 

In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission first examined whether 
the domestic sales of the like product to independent customers by Always were representative, 
i.e. whether the total volume of such sales was equal to or greater than 5% of the total volume of 
the corresponding export sales to the Community. 

It was found that Always did not have any sales of the like product on the domestic market of 
Vietnam.  Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  domestic  sales,  normal  value  was  established  in 
accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the cost of production in the 
country of origin plus a reasonable amount for SG&A costs and for profits 

(77)  Since Always did not have any sales on the domestic market for the product concerned nor for 
the same category of product in Vietnam, the amounts of SG&A and profits to be added to the 
cost  of  production  of  Always  were  established  in  accordance  with  Article  2(6)(c)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. These amounts were therefore based on the weighted average SG&A costs and the 
weighted  average  profits  incurred  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade  by  the  producers  in  Mexico. 
This  method  was  considered  to  be  reasonable  in  this  situation  as  the  Mexican  market  was 
considered to be representative and competitive. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
(78)  Always claimed that, in the  absence of domestic sales, normal values should be determined on 
the  basis  of  information  concerning  export  sales  to  third  countries.  In  this  respect,  it  should  be 
noted that the construction of normal values on the basis of the cost of production in the country 
of origin is the first alternative listed in Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation for cases where there 
are  no  domestic  sales.  The  use  of  constructed  normal  value,  instead  of  export  prices  to  third 
countries, as the basis for the determination of normal value is also the consistent practice of the 
Community in the absence of representative domestic sales. It is also noted that the export sales 
to  third  countries  could  be  equally  dumped.  Moreover,  the  company  did  not  provide  complete 
information concerning its sales to third countries at any stage of the investigation resulting in no 
information being available for establishing the normal values on this basis. Consequently, this 
claim was rejected and normal values were constructed in accordance with the first alternative set 
out in Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation. 

(79)  Always  further  claimed  that  the  sales  not  made  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade  in  the  analogue 
country  should  not  have  been  excluded  when  establishing  the  reasonable  profit  for  its  normal 
value determination. This claim however, could not be accepted since by analogy of the chapeau 
of  Article  2(6),  had  the  company  realised  sales  on  its  domestic  market,  then  the  profits  for 
constructing  normal  values  would  have  been  based  on  the  company’s  data  pertaining  to 
production  and  sales  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade.  Therefore,  it  was  only  reasonable  for  the 
institutions  to  use  the  profits  of  the  Mexican  producers  incurred  by  their  domestic  sales  in  the 
ordinary course of trade when applying Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation. 

Export price 

3.4.  PRC 

(80)  The  investigation showed that the exports of  the  sampled  PRC  exporting  producers  were  made 

both to unrelated and to related customers in the Community.  

(81)  For the exports made by the sampled exporting producers directly to independent customers in 
the Community, the export prices were established on the basis of the prices paid or payable for 
the product concerned, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation. 

(82)  For sales made via their related importers in the Community, the export price was constructed on 
the basis of the resale prices to the first independent customers. Adjustments were made for all 
costs  incurred  between  importation  and  resale  by  those  importers,  including  SG&A  and  duties, 
and assuming a reasonable profit margin, in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation. 
A  profit  margin  of  5%  was  considered  to  be  reasonable  for  this  type  of  market  and  was  also 
found to be in line with the profit of unrelated importers. 

(83)  One  co-operating  exporting  producer  claimed  that  the  current  anti-dumping  duty  should  not  be 
deducted  as  a  cost  between  importation  and  resale  when  constructing  its  export  price,  in 
accordance with Article 11(10) of the basic Regulation. It argued that when deducting from its 
resale prices all costs incurred between importation and resale, other than the anti-dumping duty, 
the reconstructed export prices remained considerably above normal value and therefore, the anti-
dumping duty was duly reflected in the resale price. Moreover, the resale prices are negotiated on 
the basis of the recommended retail prices minus the applicable dealer mark-up, and therefore the 
anti-dumping duty is duly reflected in the subsequent selling prices. 

(84) 

In this respect, it should be noted that the claim of the company regarding the reflection of the 
anti-dumping  duty  in  its  resale  prices  by  reference  to  the  normal  value  is  considered  irrelevant 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
since  what  matters  in  the  application  of  Article  11(10)  is  not  changes  of  export  prices  by 
comparison with the normal value, but how the duty has been reflected in an increase of resale 
prices  and  subsequent  selling  prices  in  the  Community.  As  the  company  did  not  provide  any 
evidence  of  movements  in  the  resale  or  in  subsequent  prices  by  reference  to  its  export  prices 
established  in  the  previous  investigations,  which  would  conclusively  prove  that  the  amount  of 
anti-dumping  duties  paid  has  been  indeed  reflected  in  the  resale  prices,  the  claim  had  to  be 
rejected. 

3.5.  Vietnam  

(85)  All export sales of the company to which MET was granted were made via related traders in third 
countries  to  independent  customers  in  the  Community.  Therefore,  the  export  price  was 
established on the basis of the resale prices to independent customers in the Community. 

(86)  For the exporting producers not granted MET the export price had to be established on the basis 
of facts available since the export prices of some producers were not found reliable. Therefore the 
export  prices  of  the  exporting  producers  referred  to  in  recital  (43)  above  were  not  taken  into 
consideration  when  establishing  the  export  price,  and  only  the  export  prices  of  the  producer 
whose export prices were considered reliable were used for this purpose. 

4.  Comparison 

(87)  For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due 
allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting price comparability in 
accordance  with  Article  2(10)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  On  this  basis,  adjustments  were  made 
where  appropriate  with  regard  to  indirect  taxes,  discounts,  level  of  trade,  transport  (including 
handling costs), ocean freight and insurance costs, packing and credit costs. The adjustments in 
the export price in respect of inland freight in the exporting country and credit costs were made 
based on the costs established in the analogue country with regard to companies to which MET 
was  not  granted.  Adjustments  were  also  made  where  the  export  sales  were  made  via  a  related 
company located in a country other than the country concerned or  the Community, pursuant to 
Art 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation. 

(88)  The  CCCME  and  exporting  producers  in  the  PRC  argued  that  adjustments  made  for  inland 
transport  and  interest  rate  linked  to  credit  costs  established  in  the  analogue  country  were  not 
justified,  since  the  absence  of  market  economy  conditions  for  these  costs  incurred  by  the  co-
operating exporting producers had not been demonstrated by the investigation. In this respect, it 
should  be  noted  that  all  the  MET  claims  of  co-operating  exporting  producers  in  the  PRC  were 
rejected, i.e. it was found that these companies do not operate under market economy conditions. 
Therefore, the costs incurred by these companies could not be used since they did not arise from 
a situation where market economy conditions prevail. On this basis, the argument was rejected. 

(89)  The  Vietnamese  companies  claimed  that  the  adjustment  made  for  commissions  pursuant  to 
Article  2(10)(i)  was  unwarranted.  The  companies  explained  that  the  related  traders  situated  in 
third countries were mere ‘paper companies’ (i.e. companies with no personnel that do not carry 
any  function  and  activity)  and  should  be  considered  as  single  economic  entities  with  the 
exporting producers in Vietnam. In this regard, it is to be noted that invoices were issued by these 
traders  to  customers  in  the  Community  and  payments  were  received  by  these  traders  from  the 
customers in the Community. Furthermore, it is to be noted that the sales made by these related 
traders  included  a  mark-up.  Where  these  related  traders  had  audited  accounts,  it  could  be 
established that this mark-up was even higher than the amount of the adjustment. Therefore, this 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
claim  was  rejected  and  the  adjustment  was  retained  at  the  level  of  5%  since  this  level  was 
considered reasonable to reflect commissions paid to independent agents involved in the trade of 
the product concerned.  

5.  Dumping margin 

5.1.  PRC  

(90) 

In accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin was established on 
the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export 
prices per product type. A comparison of the normal value and the export price of the sampled 
PRC  exporting  producers  showed  a  dumping  margin  of  36,8%  during  the  IP.  This  dumping 
margin was attributed to all co-operating companies, i.e. sampled and non-sampled.  

(91)  The comparison of the data concerning exports to the Community provided by the co-operating 
PRC exporting producers (sampled and non-sampled) and the total volume of imports as derived 
from  the  Eurostat  import  statistics,  indicated  that  the  level  of  cooperation  was  low,  since  these 
exports represented 54% of total Community imports from the PRC during the IP. Therefore, for 
the export volumes of non-co-operating Chinese exporting producers, the level of dumping was 
determined on the basis of the two product categories of the product concerned (see recital 20) 
with  the  highest  margins  established  for  the  sampled  exporting  producers.  This  approach  was 
deemed  appropriate  since  no  indication  was  found  that  any  of  the  non-co-operating  producers 
dumped the product at a lower level than that of the sampled exporting producers.  

(92)  Finally, a country-wide average dumping margin was calculated using as a weighing factor, the 
CIF  value  of  each  group  of  exporters,  i.e.  co-operators  and  non  co-operators.  The  established 
country-wide  dumping  margin,  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  CIF  Community  frontier  price 
duty unpaid, was 48,5%. 

(93)  The CCCME argued that the approach followed for the determination of the dumping margin of 
non-cooperating  exporting  producers  is  inconsistent  with  the  methodology  followed  by  the 
Commission  in  the  previous  expiry  review  investigation  concerning  imports  of  bicycles  from 
China,  and  this  could  lead  to  unreasonably  artificial  results  in  the  framework  of  a  single 
proceeding.  The  methodology  used  to  calculate  the  dumping  margin  of  non-cooperating 
exporting producers in the previous expiry review investigation was the average export price for 
all  transactions  on  the  basis  of  Eurostat  figures,  after  deduction  of  exports  by  co-operating 
producers.  It  further  argued  that  in  determining  the  overall  dumping  on  the  basis  of  the 
assumption that the non-cooperating companies did not dump the product concerned at a lower 
level than co-operating exporting producers, the Commission had failed to take into account the 
specific  types  exported  by  non-cooperating  exporting  producers,  whereas  available  information 
should  be  used  with  special  circumspection,  in  accordance  with  Articles  18(6)  and  6(8)  of  the 
basic Regulation and paragraph 7 of Annex II of the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement. 

(94) 

In this respect, it should be firstly noted that the methodology used in the previous expiry review 
investigation  was  considered  to  be  appropriate  in  view  of  determining  whether  dumping  was 
likely  to  recur.  In  this  respect,  the  institutions  considered  that  the  dumping  margin  could  be 
determined without absolute precision as this margin was not going to be applied in practice. In 
the framework of the present investigation, it was necessary to calculate a dumping margin on a 
more precise manner. For this purpose, the export volumes of non-cooperating Chinese producers 
were  determined  using  Eurostat  figures.  As  for  the  export  price,  Eurostat  figures  were  not 
considered  a  suitable  source  of  information  since  the  specific  types  exported  by  the  non-

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
cooperating companies were not known and therefore any comparison with the weighted average 
normal  value  established  in  the  analogue  country  could  not  necessarily  reasonably  reflect  the 
dumping margin of these exporters. Moreover, by applying the methodology as suggested by the 
CCCME,  the  overall  dumping  margin  would  have  been  significantly  higher,  i.e.  more  than 
double. The use of the two product categories of the product concerned with the highest margins 
established for the sampled exporting producers was therefore deemed to be more appropriate, in 
accordance with Articles 18(6) and 6(8) of the basic Regulation as well as with paragraph 7 of 
Annex  II  of  the  WTO  Anti-dumping  Agreement.  On  the  basis  of  the  above,  the  argument  was 
rejected.  

5.2.  Vietnam  

(95) 

In accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin was established on 
the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export 
prices per product type. A comparison of the normal value and the export price of the Vietnamese 
exporting producer with MET showed a dumping margin of 15,8% during the IP. 

(96)  The  comparison  of  the  data  concerning  exports to the Community provided by the Vietnamese 
exporting  producers  and  the  total  volume  of  imports  originating  in  Vietnam  indicated  that  the 
level  of  co-operation  was  high,  since  these  exports  represented  more  than  95%  of  total 
Community imports from Vietnam during the IP. 

(97)  Since, as described  in recital (96), the level of co-operation was high, the countrywide average 
dumping margin was determined on the basis of the weighted average dumping margin of those 
co-operating  exporting  producer  which  were  not  granted  MET  or  IT  and  whose  information 
regarding  export  prices  could  be  considered  reliable  as  referred  to  in  recital  (85).  Therefore,  a 
country  wide  dumping  margin  of  34,5%,  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  CIF  Community 
frontier price duty unpaid, was attributed to all other exporting producers in Vietnam. 

1. 

Impact of anti-competitive conduct 

D. 

INJURY 

(98)  During the investigation it was found that two subsidiaries, Batavus N.V. and Koga N.V., of one 
of  the  sampled  Community  producers,  Accell  Group  N.V.,  were  fined  for  involvement  in  anti-
competitive  behaviour  by  the  Dutch  competition  authorities7.  The  infringement  concerned  an 
agreement between the two subsidiaries with two other Community producers (non-sampled) and 
Giant Europe B.V., a company related to a Chinese exporter, Giant China Co. Ltd., in regard to 
common minimum price lists (price cartel) for bicycles which was applied in the retailer channels 
on  the  Dutch  bicycle  market.  It  should  be  noted  that  Accell  Group  N.V.  has  appealed  to  the 
Dutch competition authorities against their decision regarding the price cartel. 

(99)  The price cartel took place for the bicycle season 2001 (1 September 2000 to 31 August 2001). 
The  period  for  the  examination  of  dumping  and  injury  in  the  current  investigations  is  1  April 
2003  to  31  March  2004,  whereas  the  examination  of  trends  relevant  for  the  injury  assessment 
covers  the  period  from  January  2000  to  the  end  of  the  IP.  Consequently,  there  is  an  overlap 
between the occurrence of the anti-competitive conduct and the period considered.  

7 

Decision by the Nederlandse Mededingingsautoritet No 1615/691 of 21 April 2004. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(100)  In view of the above, it cannot be excluded that the impact of the anti-competitive conduct has 
had  some  effect  on  part  of  the  Community  market,  i.e.  the  Dutch  market,  during  part  of  the 
period  considered  and  consequently  on  the  injury  indicators  of  the  Community  producers 
involved  in  the  cartel.  It  has  been  common  practice  in  cases  where  decisions  concerning  price 
cartels have been taken by public authorities that a particularly prudent approach be adopted even 
when  such  decisions  are  still  under  appeal.  In  order  to  avoid  any  doubts  that  the  overall 
performance  of  the  sampled  Community  producer,  Accell  Group  N.V.,  could  have  been 
influenced  by  the  anti-competitive  conduct  of  some  its  subsidiaries,  it  has  been  decided  to 
exclude  this  producer  from  the  injury  analysis,  although  it  was  found  that  only  some  of  the 
companies  in  the  group  were  involved  in  the  anti-competitive  conduct.  Regarding  the  anti-
competitive conduct of the other two Community producers that also participated in the cartel, it 
is noted that they were not part of the sample of Community producers. For these two producers, 
considering that the cartel was based on common minimum price lists, the likely impact of the 
cartel  on  these  producers’  performance  would  be  reflected  in  prices  and  profit  levels.  Since  no 
assessment  of  trends  in  prices  and  profitability  for  the  non-sampled  Community  producers  has 
been  made,  the  participation  in  the  cartel  of  these  two  companies  has  no  impact  on  the  injury 
analysis.  It  has  also  been  considered  whether  the  anti-competitive  behaviour  in  part  of  the 
Community  market  may  have  had  an  impact  also  on  the  performance  of  the  other  sampled 
Community producers. However, it has been found that these producers’ operations on the Dutch 
market have been of an extremely limited nature during the period considered (less than 1% of 
total units sold).  Furthermore,  the  consumption on  the  Dutch  market  only represents  7% of the 
total consumption in the Community and, in addition, the duration of the cartel was very limited 
in time. It is therefore not considered necessary to make any adjustments to the injury findings 
concerning the performance of these other producers.  

(101)  Furthermore,  it  was  also  considered  whether  the  injury  picture  would  have  been  substantially 
different  if  Accell  Group  N.V.  had  been  included  in  the  injury  analysis.  However,  even  if  the 
Accell Group N.V. ’s data had been taken into consideration, the injury trends would overall have 
remained the same as concluded below. 

(102)  As the cartel took place during the 2001 bicycle season, the participation of Giant Europe B.V. 
therein had no impact on the related exporter’s findings for the investigation period of the current 
anti-dumping proceeding. 

2.  Community production 

(103)  In the course of the present investigation it was found that bicycles have been manufactured by: 

– 

– 

– 

8 sampled producers,  

12 other complainant Community producers, 

39 other Community producers supporting the complaint. 

3.  Definition of the Community industry 

(104)  The complainant Community producers (both the sampled and non-sampled) together with other 
Community  producers  supporting  the  complaint  (both  sampled  and  non-sampled)  which 
responded  to  the  sampling  exercise  and  declared  themselves  ready  to  cooperate  in  the 
investigation, accounted for more than 80% of Community production of the product concerned. 
They were therefore deemed to constitute the Community industry within the meaning of Article 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
4(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  The  remaining  non-complainant  Community  producers  did  not 
oppose  the  investigations.  The  sampled  Community  producers  in  the  investigations,  after  the 
exclusion  of  one  of  the  producers  (as  explained  in  recitals  (98)  to  (101)  above),  (hereafter 
referred  to  as  “sampled  producers”)  accounted  for  around  37%  of  the  total  Community 
production of bicycles during the IP. 

4.  Community consumption 

(105)  The Community producers’ sales were assessed on the basis of data collected from producers in 
the  reply  to  the  sampling  questionnaire  and  data  reported  in  the  complaint  lodged  by  the 
applicant.  The  data  in  the  complaint  were  collected  from  various  bicycle-manufacturing 
associations in the Community.  

(106)  The  apparent  Community  consumption  was  established  on  the  basis  of  the  sales  of  all 
Community producers on the Community market, as estimated per above, plus imports from all 
countries as reported by Eurostat.  

(107)  The Community consumption declined by 10% at the beginning of the period considered, from 
17  348  000  units  in  the  year  2000  to  15  695  000  units  in  the  year  2002.  Thereafter  the 
consumption  gradually  increased,  to  18  037  000  units  during  the  IP.  Throughout  the  period 
considered the consumption increased by 4%. Detailed data, expressed in units, are as follows: 

Consumption 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003  

IP 

Units 

Index 

17 348 000  15 236 000 15 695 000 17 336 00 18 037 000 

100 

87

90

100

104 

5. 

Imports of bicycles from the PRC and Vietnam 

5.1.  Cumulation 

(108)  The Commission considered further whether the effects of imports of bicycles originating in the 
PRC  and  Vietnam  (“the  countries  concerned”)  should  be  assessed  cumulatively  in  accordance 
with Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation. 

(109)  This provision stipulates that the effects of imports from two or more countries simultaneously 
subject to the same investigation shall be cumulatively assessed when (i) the margin of dumping 
established  in  relation  to  the  imports  from  each  country  is  more  than  de  minimis  as  defined  in 
Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation; (ii) the volume of imports of each country is not negligible; 
and  (iii)  the  conditions  of  competition  between  the  imported  products  and  the  conditions  of 
competition  between  the  imported  products  and  the  like  Community  product  make  such  an 
assessment appropriate. 

(110)  As indicated above, the present investigations have shown that the dumping margins established 
for the PRC and Vietnam are well above the de minimis level, and the volume of imports from 
said countries is not negligible in the sense of Article 5(7) of the basic Regulation (their market 
shares attaining respectively 4,07% and 8,70% in the IP). 

(111)  In order to determine the appropriateness of a cumulative assessment in view of the conditions of 
competition  between  the  imported  products  and  the  like  Community  product,  the  Commission 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
has  analysed  the  exporters’  market  behaviour  in  terms  of  export  prices  and  volumes  based  on 
Eurostat data. 

(112)  Similar market behaviour of PRC and Vietnamese producers in terms of export prices was found. 
In fact, said countries have decreased their respective average unit selling prices of bicycles by 
22% and 52% throughout the period considered.  

(113)  As stated in recital (110), both countries hold significant market shares in the Community market. 

(114)  Furthermore,  as  explained  above  (see  recitals  (19)  and  following)  it  has  been  found  that  the 
product  concerned  imported  from  the  PRC  and  Vietnam  and  produced  by  the  Community 
industry  are  to  be  considered  alike  in  terms  of  interchangeability  and  substitutability,  thus 
competing with each other on a type by type basis. 

(115)  Thus,  it  was  established  that  exports  of  the  product  concerned  from  the  countries  concerned 

compete with bicycles manufactured by the Community industry. 

(116)  Further  to  the  disclosure  of  definitive  findings,  some  interested  parties  argued  that  cumulation 
was not justified since the models of the PRC and Vietnamese imports of bicycles are different. 
However, when comparing the imports on model by models basis it has been found that not only 
there  is  a  substantial  matching  between  the  imports  of  the  PRC  and  Vietnamese  bicycles  with 
those  produced  by  the  sampled  Community  producers,  but  that  there  is  also  a  substantial 
matching between the models imported from the PRC and those imported from Vietnam. It was 
also  claimed  that  the  market  segments,  in  which  the  Vietnamese  exporters  were  selling  their 
bicycles, were different from those served by the PRC exporters and the Community producers, 
thereby justifying a different price. This allegation was however not supported by any evidence. 
Moreover, it appears that in certain Member States, where Vietnamese imports have an important 
market share, bicycles from Vietnam are present in the various market segments. Therefore, both 
claims were rejected.  

(117)  On  the  basis  of  the  above,  it  was  concluded  that  all  conditions  justifying  the  cumulation  of 

imports of bicycles originating in the PRC and Vietnam were met. 

5.2.  Volume of the dumped imports and market share of bicycles originating in the PRC and 

the Vietnam 

(118)  The  volume  of  imports  of  the  product  concerned  was  established  on  the  basis  of  statistical 
information provided by Eurostat. The number of bicycles originating in, and imported from, the 
PRC increased between 2000 and the investigation period by 472%. The imports of bicycles from 
the  PRC  during  the  IP  are  more  than  55  times  higher  than  the  quantity  of  13  651  bicycles 
imported  during  the  IP  of  the  previous  investigation  (1  September  1997  to  31  August  1998). 
Between  2000  and  the  IP,  imports  of  bicycles  originating  in  Vietnam  increased  by  413%.  At 
cumulated level, the imports of the two countries have increased between 2000 and the IP from 
435 373 units to 2 311 638, an increase of 431%. 

(119)  Since the consumption during the period considered has only increased by 4%, the market share 
held  by  imports  of  the  product  concerned  originating  in  the  PRC  has  increased  from  0,73%  in 
2000 to 4,07% in the IP and the Vietnamese share has increased from 1,77% in 2000 to 8,70% in 
the IP. Consequently the cumulated market share has increased from 2,50% in 2000 to 12,77% in 
the IP.  

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
(120)  The developments of imports and market share of bicycles originating in the PRC and Vietnam 

during the period considered is shown in the following tables: 

Imports 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003  

IP 

PRC 

Volumes (units)  128 091  257 728 561 706 707 351 

733.901 

Index 

100 

201 

438 

552 

Market share %  0,73 

1,68 

3,58 

4,08 

572  

4,07 

Imports 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003  

IP 

Vietnam 

Volumes (units)  307 282  586 051 766 680 1 457 245 1 577 737 

Index 

100 

191 

250 

474 

Market share %  1,77 

3,84 

4,88 

8,40 

513 

8,70 

Imports 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003  

IP 

Cumulated 

Volumes (units)  435 373  843 779 1 328 386 2 164 596 2 311 638 

Index 

100 

194 

305 

497 

531 

Market share %  2,50 

5,52 

8,46 

12,48 

12,77 

Index 

100 

220 

338 

499 

510 

6. 

a) 

Prices of the imports concerned 

Evolution of prices 

(121)  Eurostat data could only be used to a limited extent for establishing the price trends of dumped 

imports for the period between 2000 and the IP for the following reasons:  

It  has  been  found  that  the  import  prices  based  on  Eurostat  data  do  not  take  into  account  the 
various  product  types  and  the  substantial  price  differences  among  the  various  types  of  the 
product concerned. The average prices per country are strongly influenced by the product mix 
of  each  country.  The  investigation  has  shown,  when  comparing  model  by  model  of  imports 
from the cooperating exporters that even within the same product types and models there exist 
substantial price differences depending on the components of the bicycles. Furthermore, it was 
found  that  the  import  prices  based  on  the  product  types  identified  among  the  cooperating 
exporters  truly  reflect  the  price  differences  between  bicycles  originating  in  the  PRC  and 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
 
Vietnam  and  the  Community  industry.  Consequently,  the  prices  found  in  Eurostat  are 
inconclusive for the purpose of this investigation. The import prices of Eurostat for the PRC and 
Vietnam can only serve as an indicator of price trends per country basis, but are not useful when 
comparing sales prices between various countries and the Community.  

(122)  According  to  Eurostat  data,  the  weighted  average  import  prices,  hereafter  indicated  by  index, 
from the PRC and Vietnam declined by 22% and 52% respectively between the year 2000 and 
the IP. On a cumulated level, the average sales prices declined by 50%. Detailed information is as 
follows: 

Import Prices 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003  

IP 

 (PRC) 

Index  

 (Vietnam) 

Index 

 (cumulated) 

Index 

100

100

100

83

82

81

70

71

62

75 

49 

50 

78

48

50

b) 

Price undercutting 

(123)  For the determination of the price undercutting of bicycles originating in the PRC and Vietnam, 
the Commission based its analysis on the information submitted in the course of the investigation 
by the sampled exporting producers and the sampled Community producers. This analysis took 
into account actual export prices of exporting producers (CIF Community frontier), and for the 
PRC,  both  with  and  without  anti-dumping  duty.  The  relevant  sales  prices  of  the  Community 
industry  where  those  to  independent  customers,  adjusted  when  necessary  to  ex-works  level. 
During  the  IP,  based  on  different  product  types  defined  in  the  questionnaire,  there  was  an 
undercutting margin of 53% without the anti-dumping duty for the PRC and 39% with the duty. 
For Vietnam, there was an undercutting margin between 25 and 60%. In this regard, it should be 
noted  that  the  weighted  average  sales  prices  from  the  PRC  and  Vietnam  are,  based  on  product 
type,  substantially  higher  than  the  import  prices  based  on  Eurostat  data.  This  reinforces  the 
conclusion  above  in  recital  (121)  that  the  product  mix  clearly  affects  the  sales  prices  between 
countries.  

7. 

Situation of the Community industry 

(124)  Pursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined all relevant economic 
factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Community industry. This analysis was 
carried  out  for  the  sampled  companies  as  mentioned  in  recital  (15),  with  the  exception  of  the 
company referred to in recital (100) above. However, in order to provide a complete picture of 
the situation of the Community industry, for those indicators for which reliable information was 
available for the Community industry as a whole, this information has also been provided below. 
On  this  basis,  the  industry’s  performances  as  measured  by  factors  such  as  prices,  wages, 
investments,  profits,  return  on  investment,  cash  flow  and  ability  to  raise  capital  have  been 
established on the basis of information from the sampled companies. The injury factors such as 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
market  share,  sales  volume  and  production  have  been  established  for  the  full  Community 
industry.  

(125)  Some  of  the  interested  parties  have  argued  that  when  analysing  the  injury  indicators,  only  the 
sampled  companies  should  be  taken  into  account.  It  is  normal  practice  in  anti-dumping 
proceedings to analyse injury factors for the full Community industry. However, in cases where 
the industry consists of a high number of producers, resort is made to sampling. The purpose of 
sampling is to provide that detailed data can be collected and verified from a limited number of 
producers  within  the  time  available.  This  data  concerns  factors  such  as  prices,  wages, 
investments, profit, return on investment, cash flow and ability to raise capital, where it would be 
unfeasible to verify the data for the full industry within the time available. For other factors such 
as  market  share,  sales  volume  and  production,  data  is  usually  readily  available  for  the  full 
industry. To base the injury analysis merely on data from sampled producers would ignore usable 
data  from  other  producers,  thereby  leading  to  an  incomplete  assessment.  Therefore,  in  the 
interests of having as complete an assessment as possible within the time available in this case, 
data  received  and  verified  for  trends  in  all  injury  factors  from  the  sampled  producers  was 
complemented by information relating to the full industry.  

a) 

Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation 

(126)  Between 2000 and the IP, the production of the like product by the sampled producers increased 

by 17%. The production capacity increased throughout the period considered by a total of 18%.  

(127)  Capacity utilisation was stable throughout the period considered. The detailed data is as follows: 

Production 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003  

IP 

Production  

3 231 842 

3 193 497 

3 222 858 

3 718 918 

3 788 660 

Index 

100 

99 

100 

115 

117 

Production 
capacity  

4 033 737 

4 125 649  

4 339 273 

4 613 939 

4 779 632 

Index 

100 

102 

108 

114 

118 

Capacity 
utilisation 

80,1% 

77,4% 

74,3% 

80,6% 

79,3% 

Index 

100 

97 

93 

101 

99 

(128)  The investigation revealed that the general increase in the production capacity was the result of 
investments in new production lines and of restructuring operations within the company groups. 
The fact that the sampled producers have in general increased their production is also the result of 
several other Community producers going out of business or reducing their capacity. However, 
the trend of an increase in production and production capacity for the sampled companies should 
be seen in the light of the performance of all Community producers. When taking into account 
the  overall  production  of  all  Community  producers,  the  trend  indicates  a  decrease  in  the 
production. The detailed data is as follows: 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
Production 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003  

IP 

Production  

12 700 000  11 028 000  10 083 000  10 165 000  10 160 00 

Index 

100 

87 

79 

80 

80 

b) 

Stocks 

(129)  One producer could not provide consistent information on stocks for the years 2000 and 2001 due 
to  internal  re-organisations.  Accordingly,  data  from  this  company  had  to  be  excluded  when 
carrying out the analysis of stocks for the period considered. 

(130)  Stocks of bicycles increased over the analysis period from 219 370 units in 2000 to 362 095 units 
in the IP, an increase of 65%. The main build up occurred during 2003 and the IP and was due to 
the fact that one of the sampled producers had to satisfy a very big delivery immediately after end 
of the IP. Therefore, the increase of level of stock does not necessarily show a deterioration of the 
situation of the sampled producers in this particular aspect. Detailed data is shown below: 

Stocks 

Units 

Index 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003  

IP 

219 370 

206 854 

210 968 

317 345 

362 095 

100 

94

96

145 

165

c) 

Sales volume and market share 

(131)  The  sales  on  the  Community  market  of  bicycles  produced  by  the  sampled  producers  increased 
steadily during the period considered from 3 156 451 units in 2000 to 3 683 176 units in the IP, 
an  overall  increase  of  17%.  Similarly  the  sampled  producers  increased  their  market  share  from 
18% in 2000 to 20% in the IP. Detailed data is shown below: 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

IP 

3 156 451 

3 241 830 

3 203 020

3 600 670 

3 683 176 

Sampled 
producers sales 
(units) 

Index 

100 

103 

101 

114 

117 

Sampled 
producers market 
share 

18% 

21% 

20% 

20% 

20% 

(132)  However, this trend should be seen in the light of the performance of all Community producers. 
When taking into account the sales of all Community producers, there is a decrease in the sales. 
The detailed data is as follows: 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
 
 
2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

IP 

Sales of all 
Community 
producers 

11 718 000 

10 035 000 

9 175 000 

9 100 000 

9 300 000 

Index 

100 

86 

78 

78 

79 

Market 
share 

67% 

66% 

58% 

52% 

51% 

d) 

Sales prices and costs 

(133)  The  investigation  has  shown  that  the  sampled  producers  have  maintained  their  product  mix, 
mainly in categories A, B and C. Furthermore, they have expanded their sales activities to mass-
merchandiser  and  supermarkets,  but  less  so  with  the  dealers/retailers,  where  the  sampled 
producers  were  already  highly  present  with  their  high-end  products.  The  mass-merchandisers 
have increased their presence on the bicycle market. This has had an effect on the end-consumers 
since the sales through mass merchandisers are normally at lower prices than through retailers. In 
order  for  the  sampled  producers  to  maintain  their  presence  on  the  mass-market,  they  had  to 
compensate the lower prices with higher volumes.  

(134)  The  weighted  average  sales  price  of  bicycles  expressed  per  unit  fell  from  EUR  124  in  2000  to 
EUR 115 in the year 2003, a decrease of 7%. However, during the IP the average price increased 
to EUR 122. Over the period considered there was a decrease of 2%. 

Sales Price 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

Sales price (EUR 
per unit) 

Index 

124 

100 

127 

103 

120 

97 

115 

93 

IP 

122 

98 

(135)  The cost of production was calculated on the basis of the weighted average of all types of the like 

product produced by the sampled producers. 

(136)  Between  2000  and  2001  the  cost  of  production  increased  from  EUR  119  to  EUR  122,  a  total 
increase  of  2%.  Thereafter,  the  cost  of  production  decreased  to  EUR  110  in  the  year  2003,  a 
decrease  by  9%  since  2001.  During  the  IP,  the  cost  of  production  increased  to  EUR  117. 
Consequently,  the  cost  of  production  throughout  the  period  decreased  by  2%.  This  decrease  is 
mainly  due  to  more  effective  assembling  lines  and  parts  produced  by  the  sampled  producers 
themselves, such as frames, have been replaced by cheaper imports.  

Costs 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003  

IP 

Cost of 
production (EUR 
per unit) 

119 

122 

115 

110 

117 

Index 

100 

102 

97 

92 

98 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
e) 

Profitability  

(137)  The overall profitability of the sampled producers in respect of the product concerned during the 
first year of the period considered was 3,26% and increased to 4,08% in 2003. The profitability 
thereafter decreased to 3,58% during the IP. On an overall basis, the profit increased by a mere 
0.32 percentage points during the period considered.  

(138)  Although the above trend indicates that the industry’s financial situation has partially recovered 
during  the  period  considered,  the  profitability  achieved  should  be  looked  at  in  the  light  of  the 
level considered to be the minimum the industry could achieve in the absence of dumped imports 
originating in the PRC and Vietnam, i.e. 8% of the turnover of sales of bicycles, which was also 
used  in  the  previous  investigation.  As  the  characteristics  of  the  market  have  remained 
substantially the same as in the previous investigation, it is considered that 8% still represents the 
minimum profitability that could be achieved by producers in the Community market. 

Profitability 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

IP 

Profitability (EC 
sales) 

3,26% 

3,89% 

3,50% 

4,08% 

3,58% 

Index 

100 

119 

107 

125 

110 

(139)  Several parties in the PRC argued that the Community industry has improved its situation since 
the IP of the previous investigation, where the Community industry was facing a loss of – 0,6%, 
and  that  the  Community  industry  should  therefore  be  considered  as  not  being  in  an  injurious 
situation in the current investigation. As explained above in recital (137), the profit has improved 
since  the  previous  investigation,  but  it  still  remains  very  far  from  what  would  be  considered  a 
normal level of profitability. 

(140)  Further to the disclosure of definitive findings, some interested parties argued that the profit level 
of  8%  indicated  above  in  recital  (138)  is  too  high  and  that  the  sampled  producers  are  already 
performing  sufficiently  well,  with  a  stable  profit  level.  However,  these  parties  did  not  provide 
any indication of the reasons why the level of 8% would not be reasonable, nor did they provide 
any indication of which level of profit would instead be appropriate and why. As stated in recital 
(195)  below,  the  profit  level  of  8%  is  the  minimum  profit  that  could  be  achieved  by  the 
Community industry in the absence of dumped imports. Although the profit level of the sampled 
producers  has  improved  to  some  extent,  this  is  still  very  far  from  being  sufficient  for  the 
complete recovery of the Community industry from injurious dumping. 

f) 

Investments and return on investments 

(141)  Investment  in  the  business  of  the  product  concerned  significantly  increased  during  the  period 
considered, from EUR 1 938 556 in 2000 to 3 950 636 during the IP. It has to be noted that this 
substantial increase in investments was mainly due to the increase in the production capacity of 
one of the sampled producers, which accounts for more than 60% of all investments during the 
period. Detailed data is shown below:  

Investments 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003  

IP 

Investments 
(EUR ’000) 

1 938 

4 820 

1 645 

3 901 

3 950 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
Index 

Return on 
investment 

100 

15% 

249 

30% 

85 

12% 

201 

23% 

204 

24% 

(142)  Return  on  investment  increased  from  the  year  2000  to  the  year  2001  by  15  percentage  points. 
From the year 2002 the return on investment decreased, but increased again during the year 2003 
and remained positive during the IP at 24%.  

g)  Cash flow and ability to raise capital 

(143)  Cash flow  of the sampled producers  increased significantly over the period considered, both in 

absolute values, as well as expressed as a percentage of sales turnover.  

Cash flow 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003  

IP 

Cash flow 
(EUR ’000) 

Index 

Cash flow 
expressed as 
percentage of 
turnover 

10 005 000 

20 557 000  13 425 000  20 541 000  20 541 000 

100

205

134

205 

205

2,5%

4,9%

3,5%

4,9% 

4,6%

(144)  The sampled producers raise capital either internally when they belong to a group of companies, 
or  by  bank  loans.  In  other  cases,  cash  flow  generated  by  the  company  is  used  as  a  source  of 
financing. None of the sampled producers have shown any major difficulties to raise capital. 

h) 

Employment, productivity and wages 

(145)  Employment  decreased  by  6%  during  the  period  considered.  Given  that  production  increased 
substantially over the period considered, the decrease in employment is explained by the fact that 
productivity,  as  measured  by  output  per  worker,  has  significantly  increased  by  24%  during  the 
period considered. 

Employment 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

IP 

Number of 
employees 

1 981 

1 871 

1 784 

1 838 

1 871 

Index 

100 

94 

90 

93 

94 

Wage costs per 
employee (in 
EUR) 

23 575  

25 846 

27 130 

27 593 

28 153 

Index 

100 

110 

115 

117 

119 

Production per 

1 631 

1 707 

1 807 

2 023 

2 025 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
employee 
(units/year) 

Index 

100 

105 

111 

124 

124 

(146)  When taking into account the employment of all the Community producers the trend is similar as 
per above, i.e. there is a decrease, but at a more pronounced level. The detailed data is as follows: 

Employment 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

IP 

Number of 
employees 

14 300 

12 670 

11 860 

11 500 

11 500 

Index 

100 

88 

83 

80 

80 

i) 

Growth 

(147)  Overall, it has to be noted that the market share of all Community producers fell by 16 percentage 
points while the level of consumption increased by 4%, which indicates clearly that they have not 
been able to grow. 

j)  Magnitude of dumping and recovery from past dumping 

(148)  As  concerns  the  impact  on  the  Community  industry  of  the  magnitude  of  the  actual  margin  of 
dumping found in the IP (48,7% for the PRC and between 16,1 and 34,5% for Vietnam), given 
the volume and prices of imports from these two countries, this impact cannot be considered to 
be negligible. It should be noted that the margin for the PRC is higher than that which was found 
in the original investigation. It should also be noted that the volume of dumped imports from the 
PRC has increased since the previous investigation.  

(149)  The  expected  recovery  of  the  Community  industry  from  the  effects  of  past  dumping  has  not 
happened  to  the  extent  anticipated  as  in  particular  shown  by  the  decrease  of  sales  prices,  low 
profitability and decrease in the capacity utilisation. The industry has in recent years been faced 
with increased dumping of imports from the PRC and Vietnam which has hampered its expected 
recovery. 

8.  Conclusion on injury 

(150)  It  should  be  noted  that  measures  are  already  in  force  with  regard  to  one  of  the  countries 
concerned. These measures have clearly had an effect on the injury indicators, in particular for 
the sampled producers. Despite the overall decrease of the Community production, the sampled 
producers have managed to maintain and even increase their production. The sampled producers 
have managed to some extent to benefit from the existence of the measures, but any possibilities 
for further growth has been undermined by the dumped imports. In addition, since the imposition 
of  the  measures  on  imports  from  the  PRC,  the  imports  from  Vietnam  have  now  become  a 
substantial negative factor for the Community industry. In the period following the imposition of 
the existing measures on imports from the PRC, the economic situation of the sampled producers 
has improved in terms of productivity, production, production capacity, sales and market share. 
This  must  be  viewed  in  the  light  of  the  existence  of  measures.  However,  sales  prices  have 
decreased  and  the  profit  levels  have  remained  at  low  levels  despite  the  increase  in  sales.  In 
addition, the stock levels have increased and employment has decreased. However, the positive 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
developments, as per above, do not put into question the overall injurious picture which would 
have  been  even  worse  without  the  existing  measures.  This  is  reinforced  by  the  fact  that  the 
overall performance of the Community producers is negative. The total Community production 
had decreased by 20%, the overall sales have decreased by 21% and the market share of the total 
Community industry has fallen by 16%. 

(151)  Import volumes from the PRC and Vietnam have increased considerably, both in absolute terms 
and in terms of market share. Indeed, during the period considered they gained 10,3 percentage 
points  in  market  share.  Moreover,  the  weighted  average  prices  of  imports  have  decreased 
considerably  over  the  period  considered,  resulting  in  significant  levels  of  price  undercutting  in 
the IP. 

(152)  On this basis, it is concluded that the Community industry, as a whole, remains in a vulnerable 
economic situation and has suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3 of the basic 
Regulation.  

(153)  As have been concluded above, the injury picture of the sampled Community producers differs to 
some  extent  from  the  injury  picture  of  the  Community  producers  as  a  whole.  However,  this 
should be viewed against the fact that the producers selected for the sample are those producers 
which have the highest volume of production and sales of bicycles and because of the economy 
of scale, these producers have managed to partly recover from the dumped imports. Despite these 
advantages, the sampled producers are still in a vulnerable situation which reflects the situation 
for the Community industry as a whole.  

E. 

LASTING NATURE OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES AND LIKELIHOOD OF 

CONTINUATION OF DUMPING AND INJURY 

(154)  In regard to imports from the PRC, it was analysed in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic 
Regulation,  whether  the  circumstances  with  regard  to  dumping  and  injury  have  changed 
significantly, and if this change could reasonably be said to be of a lasting nature. 

(155)  By  comparing  the normal values and export prices found between the previous and the current 
investigation,  it  has  been  established  that,  account  being  taken  of  comparable  models,  whereas 
average normal value has slightly increased, the average export price has significantly decreased 
leading to the increased levels of dumping. As for the PRC export prices to other markets, they 
have been found to generally be in line with exports to the EU market. No evidence was found to 
indicate that exports from the PRC would not continue to be made at these low dumped prices. 
Given all of the above, it is considered that there is no reason to doubt that the new higher level 
of dumping found is of lasting nature. 

(156)  Despite the fact that the sampled producers recovered to a certain extent from past dumping of 
imports  originating  in  the  PRC,  it  was  also  found  that  the  sampled  producers  still  suffered 
material  injury  within  the  meaning  of  Article  3  of  the  basic  Regulation.  This  conclusion  is 
reinforced when looking at the picture of the Community industry as a whole (see above recitals 
(150)-(153)).  The  injury  margins  found  in  this  investigation  have  increased  as  compared  to  the 
original investigation because the dumped imports have continued to substantially undercut the 
Community industry’s prices. It has been established through detailed analysis of the distribution 
network  that  the  majority  of  the  sampled  producers  mostly  produce  for  sales  to  mass-
merchandisers.  As  the  exporting  producers  from  the  PRC  mainly  compete  in  these  same  high 
volume  sales  channels,  pressure  on  the  Community  industry  is  strong  there.  No  evidence  was 
found  to  indicate  that  exporters  in  the  PRC  would  not  continue  to  sell  through  these  sales 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
channels,  if  the  measures  were  allowed  to  expire,  and  less  in  the  dealer/retailer  sales  channels 
(which  account  for  around  22%  of  the  total  sales  of  the  sampled  producers).  Considering  the 
lasting nature of the dumping findings and the effects of the dumped imports on profitability, it is 
concluded that the circumstances leading to injury are of a lasting nature and that the expiry of 
the original measures would be likely to lead to the continuation of the injury. 

(157)  It was also examined to what extent there was a likelihood that there would be a continuation of 
dumping  should  the  measures  on  imports  from  the  PRC  be  allowed  to  expire.  Based  on  the 
complaint and the information provided by exporters in the PRC, it has been established that the 
production  capacity  in  the  PRC  is  over  80  000  000  bicycles  per  year.  The  PRC  producers  are 
producing around 66 000 000 bicycles per year and their internal demand is around 22 000 000 
bicycles. Bicycles originating in the PRC are present on the main markets worldwide and around 
96% of the USA consumption consists of bicycles originating in the PRC. This demonstrates the 
export-oriented  nature  of  the  bicycles  industry  in  the  PRC  with  the  consequent  likelihood  of 
continued exports to the Community. 

(158)  It was found that the product concerned was still dumped on the Community market during the IP 
(recitals  90  to  97).  In  this  regard,  the  dumping  margins  for  the  product  concerned  were 
significantly  higher  than  the  dumping  margins  found  in  the  original  investigation.  Since  the 
imposition  of  measures  following  the  previous  investigation,  the  PRC  has  continued  to  sell 
bicycles  to  the  Community  at  dumped  prices.  During  the  period  considered,  the  volume  of 
dumped imports increased by 472% and the prices of dumped imports from the PRC decreased 
by  22%.  As  seen  above  (recital  157),  exporters  in  the  PRC  have  a  spare  production  capacity 
which is almost at the same level as total Community consumption. It should also be recalled that 
before the imposition of the original anti-dumping duties, the level of dumped imports from the 
PRC was around 2,5 million bicycles which represented at that time around 15% market share in 
the Community. This indicates the likelihood that in the absence of anti-dumping measures, the 
PRC  imports  would  again  return  to  the  market  at  these  or  even  higher  levels.  These  imports 
would  likely  be  at  dumped  prices  given  that  the  high  levels  of  dumping  found  in  the  current 
investigation are considered to be of a lasting nature. 

1. 

Introduction 

F. 

CAUSATION 

(159)  In  accordance  with  Article  3(6)  and  (7)  of  the  basic  Regulation  it  was  examined  whether  the 
material  injury  suffered  by  the  Community  industry  had  been  caused  by  the  dumped  imports 
concerned.  Known  factors  other  than  the  dumped  imports,  which  could  at  the  same  time  have 
injured the Community industry, were also examined to ensure that the possible injury caused by 
these factors was not attributed to the dumped imports. 

2. 

Effect of the dumped imports 

(160)  Despite the measures in force on imports from the PRC, the exporting producers in the PRC have 
increased their market share significantly from 0.73% to 4.07%. The combined market share in 
the  Community  of  imports  from  the  PRC  and  Vietnam  has  increased  from  2,50%  to  12,77% 
during  the  period  considered.  Even  with  an  overall  stable  consumption  between  the  year  2000 
and the IP, they saw an increase of their market share of more than 10 percentage points.  

(161)  At  the  same  time,  although  the  sampled  Community  producers  have  managed  to  increase  their 
production, the total Community production has decreased by 20%. As stated in recital (128), this 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
resulted of several other  Community producers  either going out of business or decreasing their 
production. The total sales of all Community producers have decreased by 21% (or 16 percentage 
points) between the year 2000 and the IP, even if the sampled producers have somewhat managed 
to increase their market share by 2 percentage points. Moreover, as can be seen from the table in 
recital  (166)  below,  the  market  share  of  the  imports  from  countries  other  than  the  PRC  and 
Vietnam has increased, but only by 7 percentage points.  

(162)  Therefore, although the sampled Community producers have managed to continue operating and 
even to slightly increase their market share, it is the remaining Community producers who have 
lost market share and have gone out of business in recent years or have been forced to drastically 
reduce  their  production  due  to  the  pressure  exerted  by  the  dumped  imports.  Such  pressure  has 
been  twofold:  (i)  from  the  point  of  view  of  volumes,  where  as  said  in  recital  (160)  above,  the 
dumped imports have increased their market share by more than 10 percentage points; while, (ii) 
the  sales  prices  have  continuously  decreased  and  significantly  undercut  the  Community 
industry’s prices. 

(163)  The  profit  of  the  sampled  producers  increased  slightly  due  to  relatively  stable  prices  (which 
decreased  slightly  in  line  with  costs)  but  not  to  the  extent  expected  after  the  imposition  of 
measures. The profit that could be achieved in the absence of dumped imports was not achieved 
because  of  the  increased  dumping  of  imports  from  the  PRC  and  the  occurrence  of  dumped 
imports from Vietnam. 

(164)  It  is  therefore  concluded  that  the  pressure  exerted  by  the  imports  concerned,  which  increased 
their  volume  and  market  share  from  2000  onwards,  and  which  were  made  at  very  low  and 
dumped  prices,  played  a  determining  role  in  vulnerable  economic  situation  in  which  the 
Community industry currently finds itself. 

3. 

Effect of other factors 

Imports from other countries  

(165)  Imports originating in other third countries could also have contributed to the injury suffered by 
the  Community  industry.  Several  parties  in  the  PRC  and  Vietnam  also  argued  that  the  imports 
from other third countries have increased substantially and at prices that undercut the Community 
industry prices.  

(166)  Based  on  Eurostat  data,  imports  from  other  third  countries  increased  from  5  193  000  units  in 
2000  to  6  423  000  units  in  the  IP,  for  an  overall  increase  of  24%.  The  market  share  of  these 
imports increased from  29%  to 36% during the period considered. However as stated in recital 
(121), the prices in Eurostat do not take into consideration the various product mixes from each 
country and therefore only indexes are used to indicate the price trends. Since the product mix of 
the imports from other third countries is unknown, it is not meaningful to compare prices of the 
imports below with those of the Community industry. Nevertheless, some additional information 
was  sought  and  obtained  regarding  imports  from  those  countries  that  account  for  most  other 
imports of bicycles. Detailed data is shown below:  

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
All Types 

Taiwan 

Indexed 

India 

Indexed 
Thailand 
Indexed 
Indonesia 

Indexed 
Philippines 
Indexed 
Poland 
Indexed 
Bangladesh 
Indexed 
Lithuania 
Indexed 

Czech Republic 

Indexed 
Turkey 
Indexed 
Others 
Indexed 

2000 
Units 
‘000 
2 520  14,5%  

Market 
share 

Price 
EUR/unit 

2001 
Units 
‘000 
1 894  12,4% 

Market 
share 

Price 
EUR/unit 

2002  
Units 
‘000 
2 106  13,4% 

Markets 
share  

Price 
EUR/unit 

2003  
Units 
‘000 
2 052  11,8%  

Market 
share 

Price 
EUR/unit 

100 

309 

100 
41 
100 
104 
100 

470 
100 
540 
100 
157 
100 
237 
100 
297 
100 
67 
100 
450 
100 

100 

100 

1,8% 

100 
0,2% 
100 
0,6% 
100 

2,7% 
100 
3,1% 
100 
0,9% 
100 
1,3% 
100 
1,7% 
100 
0,4% 
100 
2,6% 
100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

75 

210 

68 
43 
103 
82 
79 

399 
85 
522 
97 
189 
120 
284 
120 
253 
85 
77 
114 
402 
89 

86 

1,4% 

77 
0,3% 
150 
0,5% 
83 

2,6% 
96 
3,4% 
109 
1,2% 
133 
1,8% 
138 
1,6% 
94 
0,5% 
125 
2,6% 
100 

100 

97 

114 

97 

88 

109 

92 

103 

98 

100 

98 

84 

169 

55 
181 
434 
87 
83 

539 
115 
620 
115 
273 
174 
298 
126 
189 
64 
97 
145 
630 
140 

92 

79 

1,1% 

61 
1,2% 
600 
0,5% 
83 

3,4% 
126 
3,9% 
125 
1,7% 
188 
1,9% 
146 
1,2% 
70 
0,6% 
150 
4,0% 
154 

78 

93 

91 

73 

122 

73 

101 

112 

94 

83 

81 

130 

42 
333 
800 
222 
213 

631 
134 
772 
143 
382 
243 
336 
142 
235 
79 
160 
237 
815 
181 

81 

74 

0,7% 

38 
1,9% 
950 
1,3% 
216 

3,6% 
133 
4,4% 
142 
2,2% 
244 
1,9% 
146 
1,3% 
76 
0,9% 
225 
4,7% 
181 

68 

86 

69 

63 

111 

58 

86 

139 

76 

51 

IP 
Units 
‘000 
2 106 11,6% 

Market 
share 

Price 
EUR/unit 

84 

130 

42 
375 
900 
241 
231 

662 
141 
830 
154 
423 
270 
336 
142 
220 
74 
203 
301 
906 
201 

80 

73 

0,7% 

38 
2,0% 
1000 
1,3% 
216 

3,7% 
137 
4,6% 
148 
2,3% 
255 
1,8% 
138 
1,2% 
70 
1,1% 
275 
5,0% 
192 

65 

85 

68 

62 

113 

59 

86 

145 

74 

51 

EN 

37 
EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TOTAL 

Indexed 

5 193  29% 

4 354  28% 

5 194  33% 

6 073  35% 

6 423 36% 

100 

100 

100 

84 

97 

98 

100 

114 

84 

117 

121 

70 

124 

124 

70 

EN 

38 
EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Taiwan  

(167)  The imports from Taiwan represent 11,6% of the market share during the IP which is 
more than 2 000 000 units. In volumes, the imports from Taiwan are far bigger than 
from  any  of  the  other  import  sources.  However,  during  the  period  considered  their 
market  share  declined  by  20%.  Moreover,  the  imports  of  bicycles  from  Taiwan  are 
aimed for the high-end market. On the basis of evidence submitted by the complainant 
it has been demonstrated, applying model comparison, that imports from Taiwan are 
sold at a higher prices than the similar models produced by the Community industry.  

Thailand 

(168)  Imports originating in Thailand have increased during the period considered and their 
market share has increased to reach 2,0% in the IP. However considering that they (i) 
started from a very low import level, and (ii) that their market share still remains very 
low in comparison to that of the PRC and Vietnam it is concluded that these exports 
cannot be considered as a cause of injury to the Community industry.  

Philippines 

(169)  Imports  originating  in  the  Philippines  have  increased  by  41%  during  the  period 
considered.  Their  market  share  during  the  IP  was  3,7%.  However,  the  imports  from 
the Philippines are currently the subject of an investigation by OLAF (European Anti-
Fraud Office) to examine possible misdeclaration of the origin of the goods. In these 
circumstances,  it  is  not  possible  to  conclude  on  whether  imports  reported  as 
originating  from  the  Philippines  are  contributing  to  the  injury  suffered  by  the 
Community industry.  

Bangladesh 

(170)  Imports  originating  in  Bangladesh  have  increased  by  170%  during  the  period 
considered and their market share during the IP was 2,3%. However considering that 
(i)  they  started  from  a  very  low  import  level,  and  (ii)  that  their  market  share  still 
remains  very  low  in  comparison  to  the  PRC  and  Vietnam  it  is  concluded  that  these 
exports cannot be considered as a cause of injury to the Community industry.  

(171)  After disclosure of definitive findings, some interested parties argued that the imports 
from  certain  third  countries  (namely  Bangladesh,  Philippines  and  Thailand)  had 
increased substantially, in a way similar to the increase of imports from Vietnam and 
that  their  market  share  was  not  negligible.  They  argued  that  for  these  reasons  these 
countries  also  should  have  been  subject  to  the  proceeding  and,  by  not  doing  so,  the 
Council would operate in  a discriminatory manner. In this regard, and in addition to 
what  is  already  mentioned  in  recitals  (168)  to  (170)  above,  it  should  be  noted  that 
imports  from  these  three  countries  have  increased  at  a  much  lower  rate  than  that  of 
imports originating in the PRC and Vietnam. For this reason, and the reasons already 
mentioned in recitals (168) to (170), the claim was rejected. 

Trade with accession countries 

(172)  Imports  originating  in  Poland  and  Lithuania,  which  are  meanwhile  members  of  the 
European Union since 1 May 2004, increased by 54% and 42% respectively during the 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
period considered. However, it should be noted that the prices of imports from Poland 
increased by 13% through the period considered. Poland was one of the two countries 
(the other being the Czech Republic) to show an increase in prices. The imports from 
Lithuania  have  remained  at  a  very  low  level  compared  to  those  of  the  PRC  and 
Vietnam.  It  is  concluded  that,  given  the  prices  and  volumes  of  these  imports,  they 
cannot  be  considered  as  having  had  a  significant  negative  impact  on  the  injurious 
situation of the Community industry. 

4.  Development of consumption. 

(173)  As mentioned in recital (107), from 2000 to the IP the consumption increased by 4%. 

Thus, this cannot be a source of injury. 

5.  Community producers other than the sampled producers 

(174)  As has been seen from recitals (128) and (132) above, the overall production and sales 
of the Community producers have decreased. This suggests that they are in a similar, 
or even worse, situation to the sampled producers, i.e. that they have suffered injury 
from  the  dumped  imports.  Therefore,  it  cannot  be  concluded  that  other  Community 
producers may have caused material injury to the sampled producers. 

6.  Currency fluctuations 

(175)  One Chinese exporting producer argued after disclosure of the definitive findings, that 
an adjustment should have been made for exchange rate developments since the CNY 
is linked to the USD rate, and the latter had depreciated substantially against the euro 
during  the  IP.  However,  although  prima  facie  it  cannot  be  excluded  that  the 
appreciation  of  the  euro  vis-à-vis  the  USD  might  have  favoured  the  imports  of  the 
product concerned, the fact that currency fluctuations did not have an effect on imports 
from other countries, into the Community, indicates that it cannot be considered as a 
causal  factor  in  this  case.  It  is  also  noted  that  the  benchmark  for  the  causal  link 
analysis is whether the dumped imports, i.e. the volumes and prices of these imports, 
have caused injury. The argument of the Chinese exporters tries rather to explain why 
the dumped imports are at a certain price level. However, in the causal link context, 
the  question  as  to  why  the  prices  of  these  dumped  imports  were  at  a  given  level  is 
irrelevant.  

7.  Conclusion 

(176)  The  dumped  imports  from  the  PRC  and  Vietnam  were  found  to  be  substantially 
undercutting the prices of the Community industry in the IP. The increased presence of 
these imports on the market, as seen in their increased market share, coincides with a 
period  of  continued  economic  vulnerability  of  the  Community  industry  (see  recitals 
(150) to (153) above). It is concluded, therefore, that there is a causal link between the 
imports from these two countries and the injury suffered by the Community industry. 
As regards imports from other countries, they have also increased their presence on the 
market,  but  at  a  significantly  lesser  rate  than  imports  from  the  PRC  and  Vietnam. 
From  among  those  other  countries  that  export  bicycles  to  the  Community,  imports 
from Taiwan were the biggest during the IP. However, their share of the market has 
been  decreasing  and  prices  in  the  IP  were  found  not  to  be  undercutting  those  of  the 
Community industry. Imports from Taiwan cannot, therefore, have contributed to the 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
injury  suffered  by  the  Community  industry.  As  regards  imports  from  all  other 
countries  excluding  Taiwan,  these  have  also  seen  their  market  share  grow,  but  to  a 
lesser  extent  than  the  imports  from  the  PRC  and  Vietnam.  While  it  has  not  been 
possible  to  establish  whether  the  prices  of  these  imports  undercut  the  Community 
industry  prices  as  explained  in  recital  (166)  above,  it  was  found  that  the  impact  of 
these imports from other third countries, in particular given their volumes and market 
share,  could  not  in  any  significant  way  contribute  to  the  injury  suffered  by  the 
Community industry. 

G. 

COMMUNITY INTEREST 

1.  General considerations 

(177)  In  accordance  with  Article  21(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  it  has  been  examined 
whether, despite the conclusion on injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed that 
could lead to the conclusion that it would not be in the Community interest to maintain 
the  anti-dumping  measures  against  imports  from  the  PRC  or  to  adopt  anti-dumping 
measures  on  imports  from  Vietnam.  The  impact  of  possible  measures  on  all  parties 
involved  in  the  proceeding  and  also  the  consequences  of  not  taking  or  maintaining 
measures  were  considered.  In  this  respect,  it  should  also  be  recalled  that  in  the 
previous investigation concerning imports from the PRC the adoption of measures was 
considered not to be against the Community interest. 

(178)  The  Commission  sent  questionnaires  to  importers,  but  no  questionnaire  replies  were 
received  concerning  the  initiation  of  the  review  on  measures  applicable  to  imports 
from  the  PRC.  For  the  proceedings  concerning  Vietnam,  the  Commission  received 
replies from 3 importers.  

2. 

Interest of the Community industry  

(179)  It  is  recalled  that  the  Community  industry  has  suffered  material  injury  as  set  out  in 
recitals  (150)  and  following.  After  the  imposition  of  measures  on  imports  from  the 
PRC,  the  Community  industry  has  been  able  to  partially  recover.  However,  the 
continuation of dumped imports from the PRC combined with the additional surge of 
dumped  imports  from  Vietnam,  which  were  not  a  cause  of  injury  in  the  previous 
investigation, prevented the Community industry from reaching a satisfying financial 
situation and fully recovering from the injurious situation. 

(180)  The  imposition  of  anti-dumping  measures  would  allow  the  Community  industry  to 
increase its sales, markets shares, and in certain segments of the market also the prices. 
In  that  way,  the  Community  industry  can  be  expected  to  reach  the  levels  of 
profitability  which  it  would  have  been  able  to  achieve  in  the  absence  of  dumped 
imports.  Considering  that  new  bicycle  models  are  to  a  high  extent  developed  by  the 
industry in the Community, they would also fully benefit from such developments, in 
terms  of  sales  volumes  and  prices,  if  the  pressure  of  dumped  imports  ceased.  The 
Community bicycle industry has shown that it is viable and competitive, if fair market 
conditions prevail. Therefore, effective competitive conditions need to be restored on 
the Community market. 

(181)  However,  without  measures  on  imports  from  the  PRC  and  Vietnam,  there  will  be 
further trade distortions which would inevitably lead to a halt in the recover process of 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
the Community industry. Despite the fact that measures are in place against the PRC, 
imports have steadily increased and the import prices have decreased. Considering the 
production  capacity  of  the  PRC,  the  high  volumes  of  imports  that  existed  before  the 
imposition of the original anti-dumping measures, the substantial increase of imports 
and gain of substantial market shares of imports from Vietnam, it is clear that without 
the continuation of measures on imports from the PRC and the imposition of measures 
on  imports  from  Vietnam,  it  would  be  very  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  for  the 
Community industry to recover. Otherwise, the injurious situation of the Community 
industry  is  likely  to  further  deteriorate,  which  may  lead  to  further  Community 
producers  going  out  of  business  or  reducing  their  capacity.  As  examples  of  recent 
bicycle  production  going  out  of  business,  the  following  companies  could  be  noted 
Kynast (Germany), Merkers-Rad (Germany), Confersil Portugal and Ceasare Rizzato 
(Italy).  It  is  therefore  clear  that  anti-dumping  measures  are  in  the  interest  of  the 
Community industry. 

3. 

Interest of unrelated importers 

(182)  No  questionnaire  reply  or  comments  were  received  from  unrelated  importers 
concerning  the  imports  from  the  PRC.  As  regards  Vietnam,  one  of  the  importers 
(representing  around  14%  of  the  total  imports)  alleged  that  any  import  duties  on 
bicycles from Vietnam would be detrimental to customers in EU since it would result 
in  a  sharp  decline  of  Vietnamese  imports.  Another  importer  also  argued  that  the 
imported  bicycles  are  mostly  children  bicycles  which  the  Community  producers  are 
not producing. 

(183)  It should be noted first of all that in view of the low level of cooperation of importers, 
it was impossible to make a proper full assessment of the possible effects of taking or 
not  taking  measures.  It  should  also  be  recalled  that  the  purpose  of  the  anti-dumping 
measures is not to prevent imports, but to restore fair trade and ensure that imports are 
not made at injuriously dumped prices. As fairly-priced imports will still be allowed to 
enter  into  the  Community  market,  and  as  imports  from  third  countries  will  also 
continue, it is likely that the traditional business of importers will not be substantially 
affected.  It  is  also  clear  that  the  Community  producers  have  sufficient  capacity  to 
supply  a  possible  increase  in  demand  of  bicycles.  Moreover,  as  seen  from  table  in 
recital  (166),  imports  from  other  third  countries  indicate  that  there  is  a  substantial 
capacity  to  produce  bicycles  in  these  countries.  It  is  therefore  highly  unlikely  that  a 
shortage  of  bicycles  would  occur.  Furthermore,  when  analysing  the  imports  from 
Vietnam it has been established that the imports cover all categories of bikes, not only 
children bicycles. It should also be added that part of the sampled producers are in fact 
also producing children bicycles. 

(184)  As fairly-priced imports will still be allowed to enter into the Community market, it is 
likely that the traditional business of the importers will continue even if anti-dumping 
measures against dumped imports are maintained on the PRC and imposed on imports 
from Vietnam. The low cooperation by unrelated importers and the fact that after the 
imposition  of  measures  on  the  PRC,  importers  do  not  seem  to  have  experienced 
particular difficulties further underscores this conclusion. 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
4. 

Interest of retailers 

(185)  One  of  the  importers  of  bicycles  from  Vietnam  also  functions  as  a  bicycle  retailer 
organisation which consists, according to the annual account of the year 2003, of 720 
members.  These  members  form  part  of  a  retailer  network  under  the  umbrella  of  the 
importer and the importer supplies, amongst others, bicycles imported from Vietnam. 
The  720  members  are  claimed  to  employ  4  900  people  in  the  year  2003.  The 
Commission also received signed declarations from 1 287 retailers (consequently not 
all  of  them  members  of  the  retailer  network)  indicating  that  they  are  supporting  the 
submissions  filed  by  the  importer.  As  stated  in  recital  (182),  they  claim  that  if 
measures would be imposed against bicycles from Vietnam, there would be a decline 
in imports, decreased sales of bicycles and consequently also a loss of jobs among the 
retailers. In this regard, it should be noted that, as stated in  recital (183),  there is  no 
risk of shortage of bicycles nor a decline of sales, since retailers can be expected to be 
able to switch their supply of bicycles to other sources than Vietnam, if needed. 

(186)  Following  disclosure  of  the  definitive  findings,  some  interested  parties  claimed  that 
the availability of fairly priced bicycles is not the only issue at stake when looking at 
the interests of retailers in respect of bicycles originating in Vietnam. These interested 
parties also claimed that they cannot switch from one brand to another easily because 
of  the  quality  aspects.  However,  no  further  evidence  was  submitted  in  this  regard  to 
show that the bicycles imported from Vietnam are of some particular type or quality 
which  is  not  produced  elsewhere.  On  the  contrary,  when  comparing  the  Vietnamese 
imports with bicycles produced by the sampled Community producers for purposes of 
calculating  the  price  undercutting  margin  (see  recital  (123)  above)  it  was  found  that 
there  is  a  substantial  matching  between  the  various  models.  These  claims  were 
therefore rejected. 

(187)  The  Commission  also  received  comments  from  another  retailer  association 
representing more than 6 000 retailers, supporting the measures against imports from 
the PRC, but objecting against the current proceeding concerning  Vietnam, claiming 
that the imports from Vietnam were neither dumped nor causing any injury. However, 
as  it  was  set  out  in  recitals  (95)  to  (97),  the  imports  of  bicycles  from  Vietnam  were 
found to be dumped and causing injury to the Community industry. 

(188)  Given  the  above,  it  was  found  that  the  anti-dumping  measures  against  imports  of 

bicycles from the PRC and Vietnam are not contrary to the interests of the retailers. 

5. 

Interest of suppliers 

(189)  One  Italian  supplier  (and  its  association)  made  themselves  known  during  the 
investigation. They argued that in Italy there exist more than 200 factories which are 
supplying  components  to  the  bicycle  producers  and  that  the  further  existence  of  the 
supplier industry was therefore inevitably depending on the continuation of the bicycle 
production  in  Europe.  In  this  respect,  it  was  found  that  without  the  existence  of  the 
measures, it is to be expected that further closures of bicycle production in Europe will 
occur, which would have negative consequences for the Community parts industry and 
would  jeopardise  employment  in  the  supplier  industry.  It  is  therefore  concluded  that 
the imposition of anti-dumping measures would be in the interest of the suppliers.  

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
6. 

Impact on consumers 

(190)  The  Commission  did  not  receive  any  comments  from  Community  consumers’ 
associations,  concerning  the  measures  on  PRC  or  the  possibility  of  imposition  of 
measures  on  imports  from  Vietnam.  It  should  be  noted,  in  any  event,  that  the 
consumers  have  a  wide  range  to  choose  from  in  all  segments,  even  without  bicycles 
originating  in  the  PRC  or  the  Vietnam.  The  Community  industry  contributes 
significantly  to  the  exhaustive  product  range  on  offer.  The  investigation  has  not 
brought to light  any  supply problems. In  this regard, it should also be noted that the 
Commission  received  comments  from  the  same  association  as  mentioned  in  recital 
(185)  above.  The  retailers  represented  by  the  association  purchase  the  major  part  of 
their bicycles from European producers and they have lost a considerable part of their 
market  share  to  other  distribution  channels,  notably  the  mass-merchandisers  market. 
Although  they  claim  that  the  imported  bicycles  from  the  PRC  do  not  appear  in  the 
retailer  chain,  the  low  prices  in  the  mass-merchandisers  market  affect  the  end 
consumers  preferences  despite  the  quality  differences  between  the  bicycles  available 
with the retailers compared with the mass-merchandisers. For all these reasons, it was 
found  that,  any  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  against  the  PRC  and  Vietnam  is  not 
contrary to the interests of the consumers. 

7.  Conclusion on Community interest 

(191)  The  continuation  of  measures  on  imports  of  bicycles  originating  in  the  PRC  and  the 
imposition of measures on imports of bicycles originating in Vietnam would clearly be 
in  the  interest  of  the  Community  industry  and  in  the  interest  of  the  Community 
suppliers  of  bicycle  parts.  It  will  allow  the  Community  industry  to  grow  and  fully 
recover from the injury caused by the dumped imports. If, however, measures are not 
imposed, it is likely that the Community production will continue to decline and more 
operators will go out of business. Furthermore, the importers and the retailers will not 
be  substantially  affected  since  fairly  priced  bicycles  will  still  be  available  in  the 
market.  As  regards  consumers,  the  Commission  did  not  receive  any  comments  from 
these parties. 

(192)  In  view  of  the  above,  it  is  concluded  that  there  are  no  compelling  reasons  not  to 
impose  anti-dumping  duties  against  imports  of  bicycles  originating  in  the  PRC  and 
Vietnam. 

H. 

PROPOSED DUTIES 

(193)  In  view  of  the  conclusions  reached  with  regard  to  dumping,  resulting  injury  and 
Community interest, measures on imports from Vietnam should be imposed in order to 
prevent  further  injury  being  caused  to  the  Community  industry  by  the  dumped 
imports.  As  regards  imports  from  the  PRC,  the  existing  measures,  as  maintained  by 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  1524/2000,  should  be  modified  in  order  to  take  account  of 
the findings in this interim review. Pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, 
the modified measures should be imposed for a new period of five years. 

(194)  The measures should be imposed at a level sufficient to eliminate the injury caused by 
these  imports  without  exceeding  the  dumping  margin  found.  When  calculating  the 
amount  of  duty  necessary  to  remove  the  effects  of  the  injurious  dumping,  it  was 
considered that any measures should allow the Community industry to cover its costs 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
of production an to obtain overall a profit before tax that could be reasonable achieved 
by an industry of this type in the sector under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in 
the  absence  of  dumped  imports,  on  the  sales  of  the  like  product  in  the  Community. 
The pre-tax profit margin used for this calculation was 8% of turnover of the sales of 
bicycles. It is the same as in the previous investigation since there was no indication 
found that this rate should be changed.  

(195)  Several  cooperating  exporters  in  the  PRC  and  Vietnam  argued  that  8%  is  very  high 
and referred to the percentage indicated in the complaint, 3,3%, as a profit attributable 
to  a  healthy  industry.  In  addition  they  made  reference  to  the  previous  investigation 
where it was found that the Community industry was suffering losses of -0,6%. It was 
considered  however,  that  the  profitability  found  (3,5%)  during  the  IP  of  this 
investigation,  only  indicates  that  the  Community  industry  has  partly  recovered  from 
past dumping, and cannot be considered as a profit level that could be achieved in the 
absence  of  dumped  imports.  In  this  regard,  it  is  noted  that,  despite  the  existence  of 
measures  on  imports  from  the  PRC,  imports  from  the  PRC  have  increased 
considerably over the period considered while there has been a huge growth in imports 
from Vietnam at dumped prices. In these circumstances, a profit level of 8%, as used 
in the previous  investigation, is considered appropriate since there was no indication 
found  that  this  rate  should  be  changed.  On  this  basis,  a  non-injurious  price  was 
calculated for the Community industry of the like product.  

(196)  The necessary price increase was then determined on the basis of a comparison of the 
weighted  average  import  price,  as  established  for  the  undercutting  calculations,  with 
the weighted average total cost of production of the sampled producers, increased by a 
profit margin of 8%.  

(197)  Since the injury margins are higher than the dumping margins found, the anti-dumping 
duties should be based on the dumping margins in accordance with the provisions of 
Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation. 

(198)  The  CCCME  expressed  its  willingness  to  offer  an  undertaking  together  with  co-
operating exporting producers in the PRC. In this respect, it should be noted that the 
acceptance  of  undertakings  for  consumer  products  has  historically,  not  usually  been 
accepted due inter alia, to the complexity of the models, the number of different types 
and the variety and the regularity with which they are upgraded or otherwise modified. 
This makes it practically impossible to establish meaningful minimum import prices. 
In  addition,  these  considerations  lead  to  virtually  insurmountable  difficulties  in 
monitoring,  which  render  acceptance  of  such  undertakings  impracticable.  These 
general  considerations  also  apply  to  the  present  case.  It  was  therefore  considered  by 
the  Commission  that  the  acceptance  of  an  undertaking  was  not  appropriate  in  this 
particular investigation and the offer had to be rejected. The Commission informed the 
CCCME accordingly. 

(199)  The  individual  company  anti-dumping  duty  rates  specified  in  this  Regulation  were 
established  on  the  basis  of  the  findings  of  the  present  investigation.  Therefore,  they 
reflect  the  situation  found  during  that  investigation  with  respect  to  these  companies. 
These  duty  rates  (as  opposed  to  the  countrywide  duty  applicable  to  “all  other 
companies”) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the 
country  concerned  and  produced  by  the  companies  and  thus  by  the  specific  legal 
entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with its name and address, including 
entities  related  to  those  specifically  mentioned,  cannot  benefit  from  these  rates  and 
shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to “all other companies”. 

(200)  Any claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty 
rates (e.g. following a change of name of the entity or following the setting-up of new 
production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission8 forthwith with all 
relevant information, in particular any modification in the company’s activities linked 
to production, domestic and export sales associated with e.g. that name change or that 
change  in  the  production  and  sales  entities.  If  appropriate,  the  Regulation  will 
accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual 
duty rates. 

(201)  In view of the findings above, the anti-dumping duty rates are as follows: 

Country 

Company 

Anti-dumping duty (%) 

People’s Republic of China 

All companies 

Vietnam 

Always Co., Ltd.  

Tan Thuan Export processing 
Zone,  

District 7,  

Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam 

All other companies 

48,5 

15,8 

34,5 

(202)  In  accordance  with  Article  20  of  the  basic  Regulation,  all  parties  concerned  were 
informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations,  on  the  basis  of  which  it  was 
intended to propose amendment of the level of the existing measures in the PRC and 
to  impose  measures  on  imports  of  bicycles  from  Vietnam.  They  were  given  the 
opportunity to comment and to request a hearing. Comments were received and taken 
into consideration where appropriate, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of bicycles and other cycles 
(including delivery tricycles, but excluding unicycles), not motorised, falling within CN codes 
ex 8712 00 10 (TARIC code 8712 00 10 90), 8712 00 30 and ex 8712 00 80 (TARIC code 
8712 00 80 90), originating in Vietnam. 

8 

European Commission 
Directorate-General for Trade 
Direction B 
Office J-79 5/16 
B-1049 Brussels. 

EN 

46 

   EN 

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

Country 

Company 

Vietnam 

Always Co., Ltd. ,Tan 
Thuan Export 
processing Zone, 
District 7, Ho Chi 
Minh City, Vietnam 

Anti-dumping  duty 
(%) 

Taric 
code 

additional 

15,8 

A667 

All other companies 

34,5 

A999 

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

Article 2 

Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1524/2000 imposing definitive anti-dumping duty 
on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China shall be replaced by the 
following: 

‘A  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  is  hereby  imposed  on  imports  of  bicycles  and  other  cycles 
(including delivery tricycles, but excluding unicycles), not motorised, falling within CN codes 
ex 8712 00 10 (TARIC code 8712 00 10 90), 8712 00 30 and ex 8712 00 80 (TARIC code 
8712 00 80 90), originating in the People’s Republic of China’. 

Article  1(2)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1524/2000  imposing  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  on 
imports  of  bicycles  originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of  China  shall  be  replaced  by  the 
following: 

‘The rate of the definitive duty applicable to the net, free-at-Community-frontier price, before 
duty, shall be 48,5%’. 

Article 3 

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

47 

   EN