Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain finished polyester filament fabrics originating in the People's Republic of China
Date: 2005-08-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, clothing, import, man-made fibre, originating product, textile product

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 16.8.2005 
COM(2005) 374 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of certain finished polyester filament fabrics originating in the 
People's Republic of China 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1)  CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

110 

•  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 
certain  finished  polyester  filament  fabrics  originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of 
China. 

120 

•  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. 

139 

141 

219 

229 

230 

•  Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

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

•  Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

2)  CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

•  Consultation of interested parties 

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

•  Collection and use of expertise 

There was no need for external expertise. 

•  Impact assessment 

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

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

3)  LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

305 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
On  17  June  2004,  the  Commission  announced  the  initiation  of  an  anti-dumping 
proceeding  with  regard  to  imports  into  the  Community  of  certain  finished  polyester 
filament  fabrics  originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China  ('PRC').  On  17  March 
2005,  the  Commission  imposed,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  426/2005  ('the  provisional 
Regulation'),  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  the  imports  into  the  Community  of 
certain finished polyester filament fabrics originating in the country concerned. 

The  enclosed  Commission  proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  contains  the  definitive 
conclusions regarding dumping, injury, causality and Community interest.  

It  is  proposed  that  definitive  anti-dumping  duties  should  be  imposed  on  imports  of 
certain finished polyester filament fabrics originating in the PRC. 

It  is  proposed  that  the  Commission  adopts  the  enclosed  proposal  for  a  Council 
Regulation,  with  a  view  to  have  definitive  anti-dumping  measures  adopted  by  the 
Council and published in the Official Journal on 16 September 2005 at the latest. 

310 

•  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  

329 

•  Subsidiarity principle 

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

•  Proportionality principle 

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

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

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

•  Choice of instruments 

Proposed instruments: regulation. 

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

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

331 

332 

341 

342 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
4)  BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget. 

409 

E-2336 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of certain finished polyester filament fabrics originating in the 
People's Republic of China 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 

Having  regard  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22  December  1995  on  protection 
against  dumped  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European  Community(1)  (the 
‘basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9 thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

1. Provisional Measures 

A. 

PROCEDURE 

(1) 

(2) 

On  17  March  2005,  the  Commission  imposed,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  426/2005(2) 
(‘the provisional Regulation’), a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain 
finished  polyester  filament  fabrics  originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of  China 
(‘PRC’). 

It  is  recalled  that  the  investigation  period  of  dumping  and  injury  (‘IP’)  covered  the 
period  from  1  April  2003  to  31  March  2004. The  examination  of  trends  relevant  for 
the  injury  analysis  covered  the  period  from  1  January  2000  to  the  end  of  the  IP 
(‘period considered’). 

2. Subsequent procedure 

(3) 

Following  the  imposition  of  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  certain 
finished  polyester  filament  fabrics  from  the PRC, all parties received  a disclosure of 
the  facts  and  considerations  on  which  the  provisional  Regulation  was  based.  All 
parties were granted a period within which they could make representations in relation 
to these disclosures.  

1 

2 

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 69, 16.3.2005, p .6. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

Some  interested  parties  submitted  comments  in  writing.  Those  parties  who  so 
requested were also granted an opportunity to be heard orally. The Commission sought 
and  verified  all  information  it  deemed  necessary.  The  oral  and  written  comments 
submitted  by  the  parties  were  examined,  and,  where  considered  appropriate,  the 
provisional findings were modified accordingly. 

The  Commission  further  disclosed  all  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the 
basis of which it intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping 
duty and the definitive collection of amounts secured by way of the provisional duty. 
The  interested  parties  were  also  granted  a  period  within  which  they  could  make 
representations  subsequent  to  this  disclosure.  The  oral  and  written  comments 
submitted  by  the  parties  were  considered  and,  where  appropriate,  the  proposal  for  a 
definitive anti-dumping duty has been modified accordingly. 

B. 

PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

It is recalled that, in recital (11) of the provisional Regulation, the product concerned 
was defined as finished polyester filament apparel fabrics, which are woven fabric of 
synthetic  filament  yarn  containing  85%  or  more  by  weight  of  textured  and/or  non 
textured  polyester  filaments,  dyed  or  printed.  It  is  hereby  clarified  that  even  if  the 
product concerned is normally used for apparel applications, i.e. inter alia for making 
lining  for  clothing  and  for  making  anoraks,  sports  wear,  ski  wear,  underwear  and 
fashion items,  it  can also be  used, although to a lesser extent, for other applications. 
Therefore, all finished polyester filament fabrics as described above are covered by the 
product definition, regardless of their final use. Whether the product concerned is used 
for one or another application, its basic physical technical and chemical characteristics 
remain identical and therefore the difference in use does not affect the definition of the 
product concerned. 

It  is  also  confirmed  that  fabrics  dyed  white  also  fall  within  the  scope  of  the  product 
definition.  Those  fabrics  are  however  to  be  distinguished  from  unbleached  woven 
fabric  of  synthetic  filament  yarn  (also  called  grey  fabrics)  that  is  a  product  formed 
after  weaving  but  before  dyeing,  and  which  forms  the  raw  material  for  the  product 
concerned. The latter is therefore not covered by the scope of the product definition. 
As dyed white woven fabrics as defined above fall within CN codes ex 5407 51 00, ex 
5407 61 10, and ex 5407 69 10, these CN codes had to be added to the operational part 
of this Regulation  

Finally, it is also confirmed that the product concerned should be distinguished from 
woven polyester filament fabrics of yarns of different colours, for which pre-dyed yarn 
is  woven  into  cloth,  and  the  design  is  created  by  weaving  the  pattern.  The  latter 
product  has  different  basic  physical  and  chemical  characteristics,  since  the  raw 
material used (pre-dyed yarn) is different, and the design is obtained through weaving 
and not printing or dyeing. In addition, such type of finished fabric is normally used 
for soft furnishing applications, whereas the product concerned is almost exclusively 
used for making clothing. 

(9) 

Several  interested  parties  claimed  that  finished  polyester  filament  fabrics  (‘FPFF’), 
which  are  used  for  furniture  or  home  decoration,  should  not  be  included  in  the  anti-
dumping  measures.  One  interested  party,  importing  polyester  fabrics  for  umbrellas, 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
argued also that the use of the textile they import is different and not suitable for the 
clothing industry, due to a difference in weight. 

(10) 

Indeed, it was confirmed in the investigation that a certain part of product concerned, 
although  to  a  lesser  extent,  is  used  for  furniture  and  home  decoration  purposes. 
However, these fabrics have, despite differences in a variety of factors such as colour, 
size  of  the  yarns  and  finish,  the  same  basic  technical,  physical  and  chemical 
characteristics as the fabrics for apparel use. It is, therefore, concluded that they should 
not be excluded from the product definition. 

(11)  One interested party argued that depending on the use of the product, e.g. as lining for 
low-end garments or as fabric material for high-end garments the price and the quality 
is  significantly  different  and  that  these  products  should  not  be  seen  as  one  product 
concerned. 

(12) 

(13) 

It  should  be  recalled  in  this  respect  that  differences  in  type  and  in  price  have  been 
accounted  for  by  the  PCN  codes  established  for  the  investigation,  which  ensure  that 
different product types are compared like with like. 

In  recital  (15)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  it  was  stated  that  the  Commission  had 
found  that  FPFF  produced  by  the  Community  industry  and  sold  on  the  Community 
market  as  well  as  FPFF  produced  in  the  countries  concerned  and  exported  to  the 
Community  were  like  products,  since  no  differences  in  the  basic  physical  and 
chemical characteristics and uses of the existing different types had been found. 

(14) 

In the absence of any further comments regarding the product definition and the like 
product,  the  contents  and  provisional  conclusions  of  recitals  (11)  to  (16)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

C. 

PARTIES CONCERNED BY THE PROCEEDING 

(15)  One  interested  party  requested  that  the  details  of  the  cooperating  Community 
producers  should  be  published  in  order  to  make  it  possible  for  interested  parties  to 
assess whether the standing requirements are satisfied. As stated in recital (8)(a) of the 
provisional Regulation, the Community producers requested in terms of Article 19 of 
the  basic  Regulation  that  their  details  are  not  published,  as  to  do  so  would  have  a 
significantly  adverse  effect  upon  them.  As  some  of  them  buy  polyester  yarns  (their 
main raw materials) from Chinese suppliers, there is a risk of retaliation. The request 
was found to be sufficiently substantiated and was, therefore, granted. 

1. Market economy treatment (’MET’)  

D. 

DUMPING 

(16) 

It is recalled that in the present investigation, 49 exporting producers in the PRC made 
themselves  known  and  requested  MET  pursuant  to  Article  2(7)(c)  of  the  basic 
Regulation.  Each  single  MET  application  was  analysed  against  the  five  criteria  laid 
down in that Article. 

(17)  On  this  basis,  as  set  out  in  recital  (23)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  25  companies 
could  successfully  demonstrate  that  they  met  the  five  relevant  MET  criteria.  MET 
could not be granted to the remaining companies: 10 of them did not sufficiently co-

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
operate in the investigation by not submitting the necessary information requested, and 
the  14  others  were  found  not  to  meet  the  criteria  of  Article  2(7)(c)  of  the  basic 
Regulation, for the reasons summarised in the table below:  

Company 

Article  2(7)(c) 
indent 1 

Article  2(7)(c) 
indent 2 

Article  2(7)(c) 
indent 3 

Article  2(7)(c) 
indent 4 

Article 2(7)(c) 
indent 5 

Criteria 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

Not met 

Not met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Not met 

Not Met 

Not Met 

Not Met 

Not Met 

Not Met 

Not Met 

Not Met 

Not Met 

Not Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Not Met 

Not Met 

Not Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Not Met 

Met 

Met 

Not Met 

Not Met 

Not Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Not Met 

Not Met 

Not Met 

Not Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Met 

Source: verified questionnaire replies of cooperating Chinese exporters. 

(18)  The companies concerned and the complainant were given the opportunity to comment 
on  the  above  findings.  The  results  of  the  analysis  of  the  comments  received  by  the 
various interested parties are addressed below.  

(19)  As a general remark, it should be recalled that in accordance with Article 2(7)(c) of the 
basic  Regulation  the  burden  of  proof  is  on  the  exporting  producers  claiming  MET, 
since this Article provides that it is up to the companies to supply sufficient evidence 
that  they  operate  under  market  economy  conditions.  If  doubts  remain,  for  example 
because  the  company/ies  concerned  did  not,  or  was/were  not  able  to  provide  the 
necessary  information,  or  that  this  information  was  insufficient,  MET  cannot  be 
granted.  

(20) 

It is further noted that each one of all five criteria listed under Article 2(7)(c) needs to 
be  fully  met  in  order  for  MET  to  be  granted  to  a  company.  In  other  words,  MET 
cannot  be  granted  if  one  criterion  is  only  partly  fulfilled.  Likewise,  it  is  the 
Institutions’ consistent practice to examine whether a group of related companies as a 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
whole  fulfils  the  conditions  for  MET,  which  means  that  each  related  company 
producing and/or selling the product concerned should demonstrate it fulfils the MET 
criteria. 

(21) 

In  this  context,  Companies  4,  5,  9  and  14  claimed  that  the  assessment  on  whether  a 
company  should  be  granted  MET  has  to  be  made  on  an  overall  basis  and,  since  the 
Commission found that only certain aspects for the relevant criteria were not fulfilled, 
MET should be granted to them. Those claims were rejected on the grounds mentioned 
in the above recital. 

(22)  Companies 4 and 5 also claimed that the findings of the Commission were insufficient 
to conclude that they did not fulfil criterion 1. In this respect, it should be noted that 
in  the  case  of  both  companies,  the  verification  visit  revealed  that  either  misleading 
information  was  submitted  by  the  companies  in  their  MET  claim  form  or  important 
information  was  simply  omitted.  For  one  company,  a  significant  supplier  of  raw 
material  was  reported  to  be  a  private  company,  but  later  found  to  be  State-owned 
during the on-spot investigation. The argument made by the company that it cannot be 
expected  to  know  the  details  concerning  ownership  of  its  suppliers  could  not  be 
accepted  since  the  company  explicitly  reported  in  the  MET  claim  form  that  this 
supplier  was  private-owned,  which  was  also  expressly  confirmed  by  the  company 
during  the  verification  visit.  As  to  the  second  company,  it  was  found  during  the 
verification  visit  that,  although  specifically  requested  in  the  MET  claim  form,  the 
company omitted to report its purchases of the main raw material, thus no information 
was  given  as  to  the  details  of  the  relevant  suppliers.  Under  those  conditions,  the 
verification  was  strongly  impeded  and  it  could  not  be  verified  whether  the 
corresponding  costs  were  made  in  response  to  market  signals  and  without  State 
interference. The claims made by the companies were therefore rejected. 

(23)  Companies 3, 9 and 14 claimed that the mere fact that the auditors issued a qualified 
opinion on their annual accounts is not sufficient to consider that criterion 2 of Article 
2(7)(c) is not fulfilled. Company 2 challenged the Commission’s conclusions that this 
company does not have one clear set of independently audited accounting records used 
for all purposes. Finally, Companies 4 and 5 claimed that since they have a clear set of 
accounts independently audited, criterion 2 should be considered fulfilled. 

(24)  From a general point of view, it is recalled that criterion 2 of Article 2(7)(c) requires 
the  companies  concerned  to  demonstrate  that  they  have  a  basic  set  of  accounts 
independently  audited  in  line  with  international  accounting  standards,  in  order  to 
assess  the  reliability  of  those  accounts  in  view  of  ensuring  a  proper  assessment  of 
dumping.  Indeed,  the  dumping  calculation  is  mainly  based  on  data  included  in  the 
accounting  records  of  the  companies,  such  as  revenue,  costs,  profit  and  inventory, 
which must therefore be reliable. The anti-dumping verification visit precisely consists 
in verifying those items. Moreover, it is also recalled that the opinion expressed by the 
auditor (approval without or with qualifications, or refusal to approve) depends on the 
materiality of the discrepancies found in the accounts. The fact that an auditor does not 
refuse  to  approve  the  accounts  does  not  mean  in  itself  that  the  accounts  are  correct, 
which could only be guaranteed by an approval without reservations by the auditor. 

(25)  More  specifically,  concerning  Companies  3,  9  and  14,  it  should  be  noted  that  the 
reservations made by the auditors were rather significant. In the case of one company, 
the  auditors  were  unable  to  verify  the  validity  of  the  year-end  balance  of  stocks  and 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
selling costs of  the year.  In  the  case of another company, the auditors stated in their 
report that they were unable to check the inventory as of year-end due to “restricted 
conditions”.  It  is  noted  that  the  inventory  value  represented  more  than  10%  of  the 
balance  sheet  total  of  that  company.  In  addition,  the  accounts  provided  by  the 
company  did  not  match  with  those  referred  to  by  the  auditors  report,  which  casts 
doubts  as  to  whether  the  correct  audited  accounts  were  submitted.  As  to  the  last 
company,  significant  reservations  were  in  the  2002  annual  accounts.  Despite  of  no 
obvious  change  in  accounting  policy,  nor  any  adjustment  of  issues  raised  in  earlier 
years, the 2003 accounts did not have the same reservations, which raised doubts as to 
whether the accounts were independently audited in line with international standards. 
Moreover,  those  accounts  were  not  even  adopted  by  the  shareholders.  The  claims 
made by those companies were therefore rejected. 

(26)  As far as the claim made by Company 2 is concerned, it is noted that the significant 
adjustments  requested  by  the  auditors,  having  the  effect  of  halving  the  profits,  were 
only  recorded  in  the  annual  accounts,  but  not  in  the  accounts  of  the  company.  The 
reason for this was that the company wanted to show higher profits in its accounts for 
other purposes. The accounts could therefore not be reconciled with the audited annual 
accounts,  which  would  have  had  a  direct  and  significant  impact  on  any  dumping 
calculation.  This  led  to  the  conclusion  that  the  company  did  not  have  a  clear  set  of 
accounts used for all purposes. In the absence of any further information provided by 
the company, those findings are hereby confirmed and the claim rejected.  

(27) 

In the case of Companies 4 and 5, significant discrepancies were found in the accounts 
during the verification visit. The companies claimed that those discrepancies were due 
to  clerical  mistakes  and  that  the  Commission  had  not  made  a  thorough  analysis  and 
misunderstood the situation. It is firstly recalled that it is on the companies to clarify or 
remove  doubts  which  may  arise  during  the  verification.  In  addition,  it  is  noted  that 
certain  requested  documents  were  not  provided  by  the  companies  during  the  time 
dedicated  to  the  verification  of  the  MET  claim  form  and  could  therefore  not  be 
verified  and  taken  into  consideration.  The  discrepancies  identified  seriously  put  into 
question  the  reliability  of  the  accounts,  and  it  is  therefore  confirmed  that  those 
accounts could not be considered to be audited in line with international standards. In 
the absence of any further information provided by the companies, those conclusions 
are hereby confirmed and the claims were rejected. 

(28)  The same last two companies and Company 6 claimed that the conclusions that they 

did not fulfil criterion 3 were unfounded.  

(29)  Company  4  claimed  that  the  Commission  had  no  plausible  grounds  to  conclude  that 
the  price  paid  by  the  shareholders  in  the  framework  of  the  privatisation  process  was 
reduced. The investigation, however, firstly revealed that the company was valued for 
only 25% of its net book value at the time of privatisation, which casts doubts as to the 
reliability  of  the  valuation  report.  More  importantly,  it  also  appeared  that  the  new 
shareholders only paid a portion of that price for the ownership of the company. The 
remaining  portion  was  found  to  have  been  paid  by  a  third  company  whose  details, 
namely on ownership, were refused to be disclosed by Company 4. It could therefore 
not  remove  the  doubts  that  this  third  company  was  State-owned.  The  claim  that  the 
information could not be disclosed due to business confidentiality cannot be accepted 
since  in  anti-dumping  investigations  all  confidential  documents  obtained  during  the 
verification  visit  are  treated  as  such  by  the  authorities,  in  accordance  with  Article 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
19 (1) of the basic Regulation, and would thus in any event not be further disclosed in 
any way. The claim was therefore rejected. 

(30)  Company 5 challenged the Commission’s negative MET determination with respect to 
criterion  3  on  the  grounds  that  it  allegedly  purchased  its  main  equipment  from  a 
related private company, and that the assets were thus transferred at market prices. It 
should be noted that in this specific case, the Commission’s conclusions were based on 
the  fact  that  the  company  originally  stated  in  the  MET  claim  form  that  all  its  assets 
were bought from the open market, which was found incorrect during the verification 
visit. Indeed, it was found that all assets were actually transferred from the company’s 
shareholder. The company could not clarify how the assets concerned were originally 
purchased  by  its  shareholder,  and  at  what  price.  The  company  therefore  failed  to 
demonstrate  that  the  assets  were  transferred  at  market  prices,  and  could  thus  not 
demonstrate  that  its  production  costs  and  financial  situation  were  not  subject  to 
significant  distortions carried  over from the former non-market economy system. By 
providing  misleading  information  as  to  the  origin  of  its  fixed  assets,  the  verification 
work  was  also  strongly  impeded.  In  the  absence  of  any  further  information,  those 
conclusions are hereby confirmed and the claim was rejected. 

(31)  Company  6  claimed  that  the  fact  that  all  assets  are  depreciated  at  the  same  flat  rate 
should  not  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the  financial  situation  of  the  company  is 
distorted. Moreover, the company claimed that the purchase price of the land right use, 
which was found to be abnormally low by the Commission services, is a pure market 
transaction, without State interference. Those claims were rejected on the grounds that 
the use of the same depreciation rate for all assets, by this former collectively owned 
company, does not reflect the economic reality and implies a significant distortion of 
the production costs and the financial situation of the firm. As to the acquisition of the 
State-owned land use right, it involved by nature the State, and the company could not 
demonstrate  that  the  purchase  price,  which  appeared  abnormally  low  in  comparison 
with the normal annual rent previously paid by the company, reflected market value.  

(32) 

It should be noted that some exporting producers also claimed that the Commission’s 
conclusions not to grant them MET were based on wrong findings. However, they did 
not  provide  any  additional  element  in  this  respect,  so  that  their  claims  had  to  be 
rejected. Only one company could provide valid clarifications, while the claims made 
by the others had to be rejected. 

(33)  More generally, it was claimed, by Company 9, that the absence of verification visit 
was  unfavourable  to  them  and  discriminatory  as  compared  to  those  companies  that 
have  been  subject  to  a  verification  visit.  Two  other  companies  claimed  that  carrying 
out a simultaneous verification visit of the MET claim form and of the questionnaire 
reply  on  dumping  worked  to  their  disadvantage,  and  so  did  the  breach  of  the  three 
months  deadline  for  the  Commission  to  take  a  decision  of  MET  pursuant  to  Article 
2(7)c) of the basic Regulation. 

(34) 

In  this  respect,  it  is  recalled  that  according  to  Article  16  of  the  basic  Regulation, 
verification visits are not compulsory and shall be carried out where  it  is  considered 
appropriate. In the present case, the MET claim by Company 9 was rejected already at 
the  stage  of  a  first  analysis  since  –  despite  the  sending  of  the  deficiency  letter  -  the 
company failed to show that all the criteria were met. As to the other claims, it should 
be noted that simultaneous verification visits and the non-respect of the three months 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
deadline  are  explained  by  the  fact  that  this  proceeding  involved  a  large  number  of 
exporting  producers  and  that  the  provisions  on  sampling  could  only  be  used  with 
respect to dumping calculations. The investigation therefore entailed a significant and 
time consuming analysis of each single MET claim form. In any event, it is considered 
that the simultaneity of the verification visits and the non-respect of the deadlines do 
not  entail  any  apparent  legal  consequences,  nor  adverse  effects  and,  as  already 
concluded in previous investigations, a valid MET determination could be made under 
those circumstances. The claims were therefore also rejected. 

(35)  Finally, the claim by the complainant that a verification visit of the MET claim forms 
should be carried out at the premises of all companies concerned was rejected for the 
reasons explained above in recital (34). 

2. Individual treatment (‘IT’)  

(36) 

It  is  recalled  that  individual  treatment  was  granted  to  18  companies,  13  of  which 
having  claimed  but  failed  to  obtain  MET,  since  they  were  found  to  meet  all  the 
requirements for IT set forth in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation. 

(37)  Three companies which were not granted IT claimed that they were either not granted 
sufficient  time  to  submit  an  MET/IT  claim  form with  respect to their subsidiaries or 
that the limited activity of their subsidiary did not justify the need for a valid MET/IT 
claim form to be submitted.  

(38) 

In the case of those three companies, it should be noted that no MET/IT claim form 
was  originally  submitted  within  the  deadline  set  for  all  companies.  Following  a  first 
analysis, those companies were requested, by a deficiency letter, to also submit a claim 
form within a certain deadline with respect to their related companies also active in the 
sales/production  of  the  product  concerned.  No  such  claim  forms  were  however 
received, and no additional deadline could be granted in order not to discriminate with 
those  companies  that  had  submitted  the  relevant  information  within  the  granted 
deadlines. In this respect, it is noted that given the complexity of the case involving a 
high number of companies, for which MET/IT claims had to be individually examined 
and provisions on sampling had to be used for the establishment of dumping, granting 
extensions  would  also  have  prevented  the  completion  of  the  investigation  within  the 
deadline. In addition, the fact that the activity of a company is limited does not exempt 
that  company  from  proving  it  meets  the  relevant  criteria.  The  claims  were  therefore 
rejected.  

3. Sampling 

(39)  One  exporting  producer  claimed  that  the  selection  of  the  sample  was  unfair  since  it 
was  merely  based  on  export  volumes  considerations,  and  that  it  should  have  been 
included in the sample considering the high added value of the products it exported to 
the Community.  

(40)  This claim was however rejected since the selection of the companies included in the 
sample was done in conformity with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, i.e. on the 
basis  of  the  largest  representative  volume  of  exports  that  could  reasonably  be 
investigated within the time available. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
(41)  Another  exporting  producer  contested  the  conclusions  that,  since  it  had  explicitly 
refused to be included in the sample, it could not be considered a co-operating party. 
The company firstly claimed that pursuant to Article 17(2) the selection of the sample 
must be made with the consent of the parties, thus leaving them the possibility not to 
be part of the sample. Secondly, it claimed that according to Article 2(7) of the basic 
Regulation,  a  verification  visit  is  not  a  necessary  condition  for  demonstrating  that  a 
company  fulfils  the  five  relevant  criteria,  so  that  it  could  still  be  granted  MET.  It 
argued that this is evidenced by the fact that MET has been granted to 22 companies, 
but  only  7  companies  were  visited  on  the  spot.  Finally,  the  company  claimed  that  it 
should have received a notification of the consequences of the non-cooperation, as set 
out in Article 18(1). 

(42)  Concerning the first claim, it is noted that  according to  Article 17(2), the consent of 
the  parties  is  not  a  necessary  condition,  since  that  Article  provides  that  the  final 
selection  rests  with  the  Commission  and  that  only  preference  shall  be  given  to 
choosing a sample in consultation with, and with the consent of the parties concerned. 
Furthermore, the selection of the sample in this case was made in consultation with the 
Chinese authorities and, during this process, the company concerned again expressed 
that it did not wish to be included in the sample, namely on the grounds that it would 
have  difficulties  to  receive  a  verification  visit.  Finally,  it  is  also  noted  that  the 
company  did  not  ask  for  an  individual  examination,  pursuant  to  Article  17(3)  of  the 
basic Regulation. 

(43)  The second claim was considered unfounded since, pursuant to Article 18 of the basic 
Regulation, the refusal to provide access to the necessary information, thus also with 
respect to MET determination, should be considered as non-cooperation. It was made 
clear  to  the  company  that  the  inclusion  in  the  sample  implied  replying  to  a 
questionnaire  and  accepting  an  on-the-spot  verification  of  their  response,  which  was 
refused by the company. In any event, it is noted that, even if MET had been granted 
to  the  company,  by  refusing  to  be  included  in  the  sample,  not  submitting  a 
questionnaire  reply  pursuant  to  Article  17(3),  and  refusing  a  verification  visit,  the 
provisions of the Article 18 would have had to be used. Finally, the last claim made by 
the company should also be rejected because the consequences of the non-cooperation 
were made clear by paragraph 8 of the notice of initiation. 

4. Normal value 

4.1 Determination of normal value for exporting producers granted MET 

(44) 

In the absence of any comments, the general methodology used for the determination 
of  the  normal  value,  as  described  in  the  recitals  (31)  to  (40)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation is confirmed. 

(45)  The exporting producers granted MET claimed the occurrence of certain clerical errors 
in the calculation of the normal value or contested the methodology used for assessing 
the adjustments that were deemed necessary. Those issues have been re-examined and 
the necessary amendments have been made where necessary. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
4.2 Determination of normal value for all exporting producers not granted MET 

(a) Analogue country  

(46)  Certain  interested  parties  claimed  a  breach  of  Article  2(7)  of  the  basic  Regulation 
because,  prior  to  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  they  were  not  informed  of 
the choice of an analogue country other than that proposed in the notice of initiation. 
They  further  claimed  that  by  not  being  aware  of  the  absence  of  co-operation  by  any 
producer in Mexico, the analogue country proposed at initiation stage, they were not 
able to provide assistance to the Commission for the choice of an alternative country. 

(47) 

In  that  respect,  it  should  be  noted  first  of  all  that  Article  2(7)(a)  provides  that  the 
parties  should  be  informed  shortly  after  the  initiation  of  the  market  economy  third 
country  envisaged.  In  the  present  case,  Mexico  was  still  envisaged  as  an  analogue 
country  shortly  after  the  initiation  and  the  parties  were  invited  to  comment  on  this 
choice. At the early stage of the investigation there was indeed no indication that no 
co-operation from any Mexican producer would be obtained. It is only at a later stage 
that  it  became  clear  that  another  country  had  to  be  selected  in  the  absence  of  co-
operation. 

(48) 

In  addition,  Article  2(7)(a)  does  not  provide  that  the  parties  should  assist  the 
Commission in its choice of an appropriate analogue country. 

(49)  Finally, the interested parties were informed of the provisional findings including the 
provisionally selected analogue country, i.e. Turkey, and were given the opportunity to 
comment.  No  comment  was  received  that  Turkey  could  not  be  considered  an 
appropriate analogue country in this case. It is therefore considered that there was no 
breach  of  the  Article  2(7)(a)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  and  the  findings  laid  down  in 
recitals (44) to (48) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

(b) Determination of normal value 

(50) 

In the absence of any comments, the general methodology used for the determination 
of  the  normal  value,  as  described  in  the  recitals  (49)  and  (50)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation is confirmed. 

5. Export price 

(51)  Two  exporting  producers  claimed  that  the  requirements  for  the  construction  of  the 
export  price,  as  laid  down  in  Article  2(9)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  had  not  been 
fulfilled  and  that  any  adjustment  of  the  export  price  when  sales  were  made  to  the 
Community  via  related  companies  established  in  a  third  country  should  rather  be 
addressed by applying the provisions of Article 2(10). 

(52) 

In  this  respect,  it  is  confirmed  that  the  provisions  of  Article  2(10),  and  more 
specifically  of  the  indent  (i)  of  that  Article,  have  indeed  been  applied,  as  mentioned 
under recital (53) of the provisional Regulation. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
(53)  The exporting producers granted MET claimed the occurrence of certain clerical errors 
in the calculation of the export price or contested the methodology used for assessing 
certain adjustments that were deemed necessary. Those issues have been re-examined 
and the necessary amendments have been made where applicable. 

6. Comparison 

(54)  One  sampled  exporting  producer  which  was  granted  MET  claimed  that  the 
adjustments made pursuant to Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation with respect to 
its  sales  to  the  Community  via  its  subsidiary  established  in  a  third  country  was  not 
warranted since the subsidiary in question merely performed the functions of an export 
sales  department.  It  further  claimed  that  if  nevertheless  an  adjustment  is  made,  it 
should in any event be limited to a normal commission rate paid to unrelated agents. 
Two other exporting producers also claimed that the adjustment should be limited to 
direct selling expenses.  

(55) 

(56) 

(57) 

In  this  respect,  the  investigation  revealed  that  the  functions  discharged  by  the  sales 
subsidiary  concerned  were  going  beyond  those  typically  assumed  by  an  exporter’s 
export  sales  department,  and  should  rather  be  compared  to  those  left  to  an  agent 
working  on  a  commission  basis,  in  accordance  with  Article  2(10)(i)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. 

It is therefore considered that the related party incurred costs which effectively reduce 
the  amounts  received  by  the  exporters,  and  which  should  thus  be  deducted  from  the 
price paid by the first independent buyer in the Community.  

It is noted that the two other exporting producers, who are in the same situation as the 
exporting producer above, shared the Commission’s view that an adjustment should be 
made pursuant to Article 2(10)(i) for the purpose of a fair comparison (see recital (51) 
above).  

(58)  Finally,  it  is  considered  that  the  amount  of  the  adjustment  was  duly  calculated  in 
conformity with the provisions of Article 2(10)(i), i.e. on the on the basis of the mark-
up received by the related company. The mark-up in this case was calculated as being 
the actual SGA of the related companies and a reasonable amount of profit, and should 
not  be  limited  to  only  direct  selling  expenses.  The  claims  made  by  the  exporting 
producers concerned were therefore rejected. 

(59)  Various  interested  parties  claimed  that  the  adjustment  related  to  the  non-refunded 
VAT was unwarranted and based on an erroneous understanding of the system. Some 
other  exporting  producers,  including  one  which  agreed  with  the  principle  of  the 
adjustment, contested the methodology used to compute the adjustment and requested 
that the adjustment be based on the actual amount of un-refundable VAT. 

(60)  The first claim was rejected because it was not substantiated and no further elements 
were provided that would confirm the fact that the adjustment is based on an erroneous 
understanding. 

(61)  As  regards  the  claim  that  the  actual  amounts  should  be  used,  those  were  in  many 
instances either not submitted by the exporting producers concerned or not adequately 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
supported by evidence and could therefore not be taken into consideration. The claims 
were therefore rejected. 

(62)  Following  comments  made  by  several  parties,  it  is  hereby  clarified  that,  where 
necessary, the prices for the like product types sold on the domestic market in Turkey, 
which  were  used  for  the  determination  of  the  normal  value,  were  adjusted  so  as  to 
ensure a fair comparison with those product types exported to the Community by the 
Chinese  producers  concerned,  in  accordance  with  Article  2(10)(a)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. Those adjustments were made on the basis of a reasonable estimate of the 
market value of the differences. In the case of two companies, the adjustment made at 
provisional stage had to be revised so as to better reflect their individual situation and 
the relevant margins were revised accordingly.  

7. Dumping margin 

7.1. For the co-operating exporting producers granted MET/IT 

a) MET 

(63)  Two  of  the  three  companies  which  were  granted  MET  claimed  that  their  established 
relationship during the IP no longer reflects reality, on the grounds that, shortly after 
the IP, the shareholders link between all three companies has been removed since all 
shares  concerned  have  been  sold  to  independent  persons.  The  companies  therefore 
claimed that this new situation should be taken into consideration and that, since they 
can  no  longer  be  considered  as  related,  each  company  should  be  attributed  an 
individual dumping margin reflecting its own situation. 

(64)  The  investigation  revealed,  however,  that  the  relationship  between  the  companies 
concerned  during  the  IP  actually  consisted  of  more  than  just  a  shareholding  link.  It 
was  indeed  established  that  in  addition  to  that  link,  the  three  companies  also  shared 
members  of  their  respective  board  of  directors.  The  presence  of  shared  directors 
between  the  companies  therefore  reinforced  the  relationship  that  existed  through  the 
shareholding link. 

(65)  For  those  reasons,  it  was  found  that  the  companies  had  to  be  considered  as  being 
related during the IP. Even if the situation has allegedly changed shortly after the IP, it 
would in any event be too early to conclude that these changes are of a lasting nature. 
In  view  of  the  nature  of  the  established  relationship  during  the  IP,  the  risk  of 
circumvention through the company with the lowest duty imposed cannot be excluded. 
Moreover, it is also noted that since this relationship may have affected the findings 
for the IP, any changes in the relationship after the IP cannot be considered as relevant. 

(66) 

It is therefore concluded that the claims made by the companies should be rejected. 

(67)  Furthermore, various interested parties contested the correct use of the provisions on 
sampling. Since the three sampled companies granted MET were found to be related, 
it is claimed that they form one single entity and that therefore their dumping margin 
cannot constitute a valid average in view of the wording of the Article 9(6) of the basic 
Regulation.  This  is  based  on  the  fact  that  this  Article  refers  to  the  weighted  average 
margin of dumping established for the parties in the sample, thus the dumping margin 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
should  necessarily  be  based  on  the  findings  for  more  than  one  company.  Reference 
was made to the WTO Appellate Body report, in the framework of the EC-India bed 
linen case3, where it was concluded that the weighted average should necessarily refer 
to more than one company. 

In this respect, it should be noted that the conclusions of the Appellate Body, which 
were made in a different context, namely that of Article 2.2.2 (ii) of the ADA, and a 
different case, are not directly applicable in this specific case. Secondly, the argument 
should be rejected because in the present case, the weighted average of the sample is 
based on each company’s own normal value and export prices, and those companies 
do  not  constitute  one  single  entity.  It  is  only  after  establishing  the  three  individual 
margins  that  a  weighted  average  of  those  margins  was  calculated  for  the  related 
companies in order to avoid that, in view of their relationship, the companies channel 
all  their  exports  via  the  company  for  which  the  lowest  dumping  margin  was 
established.  It  is  further  noted  that  Article  9(6)  of  the  basic  Regulation  does  not 
specifically  exclude  the  use  of  margins  of  dumping  established  for  related  parties  in 
the sample. The claims were therefore rejected. 

In the absence of comments, the methodology used to establish the dumping margins 
with respect to the companies that were granted IT, as laid down in recital (57) of the 
provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.  

(68) 

b) IT  

(69) 

(70)  On the basis of the above, the definitive dumping margins expressed as a percentage 

of the CIF Community frontier price, duty unpaid, are: 

Company 

Definitive 
dumping margin 

Far Eastern Industries (Shanghai) Ltd 

Fuzhou Fuhua Textile & Printing Dyeing Co., Ltd 

Fuzhou Ta-Tung Textile Works Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou CaiHong Textile Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou De Licacy Textile Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou Fuen Textile Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou Hongfeng Textile Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou Jieenda Textile Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou Jinsheng Textile Co., Ltd 

14,1% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

37,1% 

14,1% 

37,1% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

37,1% 

3 

WT/DS141/AB/R 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Hangzhou Mingyuan Textile Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou Shenda Textile Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou Xiaoshan Phoenix Industry Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou Yililong Textile Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou Yongsheng Textile Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou Zhengda Textile Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou ZhenYa Textile Co., Ltd 

Huzhou Styly Jingcheng Textile Co., Ltd 

Nantong Teijin Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing Ancheng Cloth industrial Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing  China  Light  &  Textile  Industrial  City  Somet  Textile 
Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing County Fengyi Textile Printing & Dyeing Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing County Huaxiang Textile Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing County Jiade Weaving and Dyeing Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing County Pengyue Textile Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing  County  Qing  Fang  Cheng  Textiles  Imp.  &  Exp.  Co., 
Ltd 

Shaoxing County Xingxin Textile Co Ltd 

Shaoxing  Golden  tree  silk  Printing  Dyeing  and  Sandwashing 
Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing Nanchi Textile Printing-Dyeing Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing Ronghao Textiles Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing Tianlong Import and Export Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing Xinghui Textile Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing Yinuo Printing & Dyeing Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing Yongda Textiles Co., Ltd 

14,1% 

14,1% 

37,1% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

37,1% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

37,1% 

37,1% 

26,7% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

36,3% 

14,1% 

37,1% 

37,1% 

36,3% 

46,4% 

37,1% 

14,1% 

37,1% 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
Shaoxing Zhengda Group Co., Ltd 

Wujiang Canhua Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd 

Wujiang Longsheng Textile Co., Ltd 

Wujiang Xiangsheng Textile Dyeing & Finishing Co., Ltd 

Zhejiang Golden Time Printing and Dyeing knitwear Co., Ltd 

Zhejiang Huagang Dyeing and Weaving Co., Ltd 

Zhejiang Shaoxiao Printing and Dyeing Co., Ltd 

Zhejiang  Shaoxing  Tianyuan  Textile  Printing  and  Dyeing  Co., 
Ltd 

Zhejiang Shaoxing Yongli Printing and Dyeing Co., Ltd 

Zhejiang XiangSheng Group Co., Ltd 

Zhejiang Yonglong Enterprises Co., Ltd 

Zhuji Bolan Textile Industrial Development Co., Ltd 

7.2. For all other exporting producers 

14,1% 

56,2% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

37,1% 

37,1% 

37,1% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

(71) 

In absence of any comments, the findings of the recitals (59) to (61) of the provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

1. Community production 

E. 

INJURY 

(72) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  submitted,  the  provisional  findings  concerning  the 
total  Community  production  as  set  out  in  recitals  (62)  to  (63)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2. Definition of the Community industry 

(73)  One  interested  party  claimed  that  there  was  not  enough  support  from  a  major 
proportion  of  the  Community  production.  They  argued  that  one  company  had  gone 
bankrupt during the investigation and should, therefore, not be taken into account for 
the  definition  of  the  Community  industry.  Furthermore,  they  claimed  that  one 
producer imported the product concerned during the period considered and should be 
excluded  from  Community  industry  according  to  Article  4(1)(a)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. 

(74) 

It has to be noted that one Community producer is under judicial administration, but 
was  producing  during  the  investigation  period  and  is  currently  still  operating  its 
production. Therefore, this company was included in the definition of the Community 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
industry.  The  investigation  confirmed  that  no  company  included  in  the  Community 
industry imported the product concerned in the IP. They did, however import the grey 
product,  i.e.  the  raw  material  for  the  FPFF.  These  arguments  should,  therefore,  be 
dismissed. 

(75) 

In the absence of any further comments, the definition of Community industry as set 
out in recital (64) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

3. Community consumption 

(76) 

In the absence of any comments, the calculation of Community consumption as set out 
in recitals (65) to (66) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

4. Imports into the Community from the country concerned 

4.1.  Volume and market share of the imports concerned 

(77) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments,  the  calculation  of  volume  and  market  share  of  the 
imports concerned as set out in recitals (67) and (68) of the provisional Regulation is 
hereby confirmed. 

4.2. 

Prices of imports and undercutting 

(78) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments,  the  calculation  of  prices  and  undercutting  of  the 
imports  concerned  as  set  out  in  recitals  (69)  to  (71)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  is 
hereby confirmed. 

5. Situation of the Community Industry 

(79) 

It  is  recalled  that  in  recital  (98)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the  Commission 
provisionally  concluded  that  the  Community  industry  had  suffered  material  injury 
within the meaning of Article 3 of the basic Regulation. 

(80)  No  interested  party  questioned  the  figures  or  their  interpretation  relating  to  the 
situation  of  the  Community  industry  as  presented  in  recitals  (72)  to  (98)  of  the 
provisional  Regulation.  Therefore,  the  findings  as  set  out  in  these  recitals  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed and it is concluded that the Community 
industry  has  suffered  material  injury  within  the  meaning  of  Article  3  of  the  basic 
Regulation. 

F. CAUSATION 

(81) 

In  addition  to  the  other  factors  examined  in  the  provisional  Regulation,  the  export 
performance  of  the  Community  industry  was  also  examined.  In  this  respect,  it  was 
found  that  exports  sales  of  the  Community  industry  remained  stable  for  the  whole 
period at around 25 million running metres. It is to be noted that these exports refer to 
the product used for lining, sold at a notably lower price. In parallel, the product mix 
exported by the whole EU 25 industry was sold, during the IP at a price 270% higher 
than imports from China. In any event, only the sales made on the Community market 
were taken into consideration for the establishment of profitability data, so that these 
data are not influenced by export performance. For the reasons set out above, it can be 
concluded  that  the  Community  exports  did  not  cause  injury  to  the  Community 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
industry.  
Furthermore, concerning imports from all other third countries taken together, prices 
were constantly, on average, higher than prices from PRC. On the basis of the above, 
and in the absence of any comments in respect to causation, the conclusion drawn in 
(99) to (111) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.  

G. 

COMMUNITY INTEREST 

1. Interest of the Community industry and of other Community producers 

(82) 

In the absence of any comments with respect to the interest of the Community industry 
and to other Community producers, the findings as set out in recitals (112) to (118) of 
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2. Interest of unrelated importers 

(83)  Several  submissions  from  unrelated  importers  and  importers/users  were  received. 
Hearings  were  also  granted  to  those  parties  who  so  requested.  The  arguments  of  the 
importers  coincided  with  those  of  the  users  and  are  discussed  under  recitals  (87)  to 
(90)  below.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  overall  quantities  imported  from  China  by  the 
importers who made themselves known are negligible and account only for around 2% 
of the total imports from China during the IP. The remainder 98% did not react to the 
measures. 

(84) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  with  respect  to  the  interest  of  the  unrelated 
importers,  the  findings  as  set  out  in  recitals  (119)  to  (121)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3. Interest of suppliers 

(85) 

In the absence of any comments in respect of the interest of the Community suppliers, 
the  findings  as  set  out  in  recitals  (122)  to  (125)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are 
hereby confirmed. 

4. Interest of users 

(86) 

It is recalled that nine users submitted a questionnaire response whereas only one of 
those  users  imported  the  product  concerned  (recital  (127)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation). However, after the imposition of provisional measures, four users which 
had  so  far  not  come  forward  in  the  investigation  submitted  comments.  Two  of  them 
produce  home  decoration  fabrics.  All  of  them  imported  the  product  concerned  from 
the  PRC.  Considering  that  the  sector  is  very  fragmented,  their  representativeness  is 
estimated at less than 2%. 

(87)  The users which produce clothes claimed that their businesses are at serious risk now 
because imports of ready made clothes from the PRC enter the Community market at 
very low prices whereas they have to produce at much higher costs. In addition, they 
would have to pay high anti-dumping duties on the imports of the product concerned, 
which  is  the  raw  material  for  their  production.  They  argue  that  they  can  sell  their 
finished  products  at  slightly  higher  prices  to  their  customers  as  they  are  much  more 
flexible and they can deliver smaller quantities at short notice. However, considering 
the current market conditions with low priced apparel entering the market and the anti-

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
dumping  duties  on  the  raw  material,  they  claim  that  they  would  not  be  able  to  keep 
production  in  the  Community  and,  therefore,  would  have  to  close  down  their 
production sites. 

(88) 

It is to be noted that these clothing producers are small and medium sized enterprises. 
They  are  under  huge  pressure  because  of  the  imports  of  finished  products  which 
strongly increased, inter alia as a result of the abolition of textile quota on 1 January 
2005. In addition, their raw material costs increase due to the duties. While it is true 
that  the  already  precarious  situation  in  the  clothing  sector  could  be  additionally 
deteriorated by the anti-dumping duties on FPFF, it is clear that the main pressure for 
these companies derives from the imports of clothes from the PRC.  

(89)  Some users claimed that also the dyeing and printing industry would be affected when 
textiles would not be imported any more into the Community due to the duties. They 
also  argued  that  high-tech  textile  machine  suppliers  in  the  Community  would  be 
affected because textile production in the PRC would decrease due to the duties. 

(90)  However,  as  set  out  in  recital  (128)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  it  is  likely  that 
imports from the PRC will continue to enter the market at fair non-dumped prices and 
other  non-dumped  sources  will  remain  available  considering  that  over  30%  of  the 
Community  consumption  is  represented  by  third  countries  imports  (excluding  PRC). 
Moreover, bearing in mind the fact that many exporting producers have been granted 
anti-dumping duty rates of 14,1% and that the FPFF is only a part of production costs 
of the users, the cost increase would be unlikely to be substantial. It should be noted 
also  that  the  allegedly  precarious  situation  in  which  certain  companies  might  be, 
appears to be mainly caused by the imports of finished clothes from the PRC, and the 
non-imposition  of  anti-dumping  measures  would  not  address  this  particular  issue.  In 
this respect, it is also to be recalled that users which account for a very small quantity 
of imports have come forward whereas the large majority has not made any comments 
in the investigation.  

(91) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  with  respect  to  the  interest  of  the  users,  the 
conclusions  as  set  out  in  recitals  (126)  to  (128)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are 
hereby confirmed. 

5. Conclusion on Community Interest 

(92) 

In  view  of  the  conclusions  drawn  in  the  provisional  Regulation  as  set  out  in  recitals 
(129) to (131) of the provisional Regulation and taking into account the submissions 
made by the various parties, it is concluded that there are no compelling reasons not to 
impose definitive anti-dumping measures against dumped imports of FPFF originating 
in the PRC. 

H. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 

(93)  Based  on  the  methodology  explained  in  recitals  (132)  to  (135)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation, an injury elimination level was calculated for the purposes of establishing 
the level of measures to be imposed.  

(94)  When calculating the injury margin in the provisional Regulation, the target profit for 
the Community industry was set at 8%, a level which could be reasonably achieved by 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
an industry of this type under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of 
dumped  imports  and  which  was  achieved  in  1998  and  1999  before  Chinese  exports 
started to cause a problem (recital (134) of the provisional Regulation). 

(95)  One interested party argued that the target profit of 8% on the basis of the years 1998 
and 1999 would not be appropriate. This party argued that, as the profit margins were 
already much lower in 2000, which is the first year of the period considered, when the 
effects of the dumped imports were not so clearly felt, these profit margins should be 
taken as target profit. However, it is recalled that in 2000 the market share of imports 
from the PRC was already high with 18,2% (recital (67) of the provisional Regulation) 
and the situation of the Community industry had already started to be precarious. For 
this reason, it was considered appropriate to refer to a more stable period in the past in 
order to establish the target profit which the Community industry could be expected to 
make in the absence of the dumped imports. 

(96) 

In  the  absence  of  any  new  comments  on  this  subject,  the  methodology  set  out  in 
recitals (132) to (135) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

1. Definitive measures 

(97) 

In  the  light  of  the  foregoing  and  in  accordance  with  Article  9(4)  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  should  be  imposed  at  the  level  of  the 
dumping  margin  and  at  the  level  of  the  injury  margin  calculated  in  all  cases,  where 
they were lower than the dumping margins found.  

(98)  On the basis of the above, the definitive duties should be as follows: 

Company 

Definitive anti-
dumping duty 

Far Eastern Industries (Shanghai) Ltd 

Fuzhou Fuhua Textile & Printing Dyeing Co., Ltd 

Fuzhou Ta-Tung Textile Works Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou CaiHong Textile Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou De Licacy Textile Co., Ltd. 

Hangzhou Fuen Textile Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou Hongfeng Textile Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou Jieenda Textile Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou Jinsheng Textile Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou Mingyuan Textile Co., Ltd 

14,1% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

37,1% 

14,1% 

37,1% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

37,1% 

14,1% 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
Hangzhou Shenda Textile Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou Xiaoshan Phoenix Industry Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou Yililong Textile Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou Yongsheng Textile Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou Zhengda Textile Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou ZhenYa Textile Co., Ltd 

Huzhou Styly Jingcheng Textile Co., Ltd 

Nantong Teijin Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing Ancheng Cloth industrial Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing  China  Light  &  Textile  Industrial  City  Somet  Textile 
Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing County Fengyi Textile Printing & Dyeing Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing County Huaxiang Textile Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing County Jiade Weaving and Dyeing Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing County Pengyue Textile Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing  County  Qing  Fang  Cheng  Textiles  Imp.  &  Exp.  Co., 
Ltd 

Shaoxing County Xingxin Textile Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing  Golden  tree  silk  Printing  Dyeing  and  Sandwashing 
Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing Nanchi Textile Printing-Dyeing Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing Ronghao Textiles Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing Tianlong Import and Export Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing Xinghui Textile Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing Yinuo Printing & Dyeing Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing Yongda Textiles Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing Zhengda Group Co., Ltd 

14,1% 

37,1% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

37,1% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

37,1% 

37,1% 

26,7% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

33,9% 

14,1% 

37,1% 

37,1% 

33,9% 

46,4% 

37,1% 

14,1% 

37,1% 

14,1% 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
Wujiang Canhua Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd 

Wujiang Longsheng Textile Co., Ltd 

Wujiang Xiangsheng Textile Dyeing & Finishing Co., Ltd 

Zhejiang Golden Time Printing and Dyeing knitwear Co., Ltd 

Zhejiang Huagang Dyeing and Weaving Co., Ltd 

Zhejiang Shaoxiao Printing and Dyeing Co., Ltd 

Zhejiang  Shaoxing  Tianyuan  Textile  Printing  and  Dyeing  Co., 
Ltd 

Zhejiang Shaoxing Yongli Printing and Dyeing Co., Ltd 

Zhejiang XiangSheng Group Co., Ltd 

Zhejiang Yonglong Enterprises Co., Ltd 

Zhuji Bolan Textile Industrial Development Co., Ltd 

56,2% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

37,1% 

37,1% 

37,1% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

(99)  The  individual  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  specifically  mentioned.  Imported  products  produced  by 
any other company not specifically mentioned by its name and address in the operative 
part  of  this  Regulation,  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". 

(100)  Any claim requesting the application of these individual anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. 
following  a  change  in  the  name  of  the  entity  or  following  the  setting-up  of  new 
production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission(4) 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.  

2. Collection of provisional duties 

4 

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

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
(101)  In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and in the light of the level of 
the material injury caused to the Community Industry, it is considered necessary that 
the  amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty,  imposed  by 
Regulation  (EC)  No  426/2005,  should  be  collected  at  the  rate  of  the  duty  definitely 
imposed.  Where  the  definitive  duties  are  higher  than  the  provisional  duties,  only  the 
amounts secured at the level of the provisional duties should be definitively collected, 
while the amounts secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping duties shall 
be released. 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 

2. 

A  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  is  hereby  imposed  on  imports  of  woven  fabrics  of 
synthetic  filament  yarn  containing  85%  or  more  by  weight  of  textured  and/or  non-
textured polyester filament, dyed (including dyed white) or printed, originating in the 
People’s  Republic  of  China,  falling  within  CN  codes  ex  5407  51  00  (TARIC  code 
5407 51 00 10), 5407 52 00, 5407 54 00, ex 5407 61 10 (TARIC code 5407 61 10 
10),  5407  61  30,  5407 61  90,  ex  5407  69  10  (TARIC  code  5407  69  10  10)  and  ex 
5407 69 90 (TARIC code 5407 69 90 10) 

The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable, before duty, to the net free-
at-Community-frontier  price  of  the  products  described  in  paragraph  1  and 
manufactured by the companies below shall be as follows: 

Company 

Definitive 
anti-dumping 
duty 

TARIC 
Additional 
code 

Far Eastern Industries (Shanghai) Ltd 

Fuzhou Fuhua Textile & Printing Dyeing Co., Ltd 

Fuzhou Ta-Tung Textile Works Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou CaiHong Textile Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou De Licacy Textile Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou Fuen Textile Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou Hongfeng Textile Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou Jieenda Textile Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou Jinsheng Textile Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou Mingyuan Textile Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou Shenda Textile Co., Ltd 

14,1% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

37,1% 

14,1% 

37,1% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

37,1% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

A617 

A617 

A617 

A623 

A617 

A623 

A617 

A617 

A623 

A617 

A617 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
Hangzhou Xiaoshan Phoenix Industry Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou Yililong Textile Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou Yongsheng Textile Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou Zhengda Textile Co., Ltd 

Hangzhou ZhenYa Textile Co., Ltd 

Huzhou Styly Jingcheng Textile Co., Ltd 

Nantong Teijin Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing Ancheng Cloth industrial Co., Ltd 

37,1% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

37,1% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

A623 

A617 

A617 

A623 

A617 

A617 

A617 

A617 

Shaoxing  China  Light  &  Textile  Industrial  City  Somet 
Textile Co., Ltd 

37,1% 

A623 

Shaoxing  County  Fengyi  Textile  Printing  &  Dyeing  Co., 
Ltd 

37,1% 

A623 

Shaoxing County Huaxiang Textile Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing County Jiade Weaving and Dyeing Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing County Pengyue Textile Co., Ltd 

26,7% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

A619 

A617 

A617 

Shaoxing County Qing Fang Cheng Textiles Imp. & Exp. 
Co., Ltd 

33,9% 

A621 

Shaoxing County Xingxin Textile Co., Ltd 

14,1% 

A617 

Shaoxing  Golden 
Sandwashing Co., Ltd 

tree 

silk  Printing  Dyeing  and 

37,1% 

A623 

Shaoxing Nanchi Textile Printing-Dyeing Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing Ronghao Textiles Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing Tianlong Import and Export Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing Xinghui Textile Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing Yinuo Printing & Dyeing Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing Yongda Textiles Co., Ltd 

Shaoxing Zhengda Group Co., Ltd 

37,1% 

33,9% 

46,4% 

37,1% 

14,1% 

37,1% 

14,1% 

A623 

A620 

A622 

A623 

A617 

A623 

A617 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
Wujiang Canhua Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd 

Wujiang Longsheng Textile Co., Ltd 

56,2% 

14,1% 

Wujiang Xiangsheng Textile Dyeing & Finishing Co., Ltd 

14,1% 

A618 

A617 

A617 

Zhejiang  Golden  Time  Printing  and  Dyeing  knitwear  Co., 
Ltd 

37,1% 

A623 

Zhejiang Huagang Dyeing and Weaving Co., Ltd 

Zhejiang Shaoxiao Printing and Dyeing Co., Ltd 

37,1% 

37,1% 

A623 

A623 

Zhejiang  Shaoxing  Tianyuan  Textile  Printing  and  Dyeing 
Co., Ltd 

14,1% 

A617 

Zhejiang Shaoxing Yongli Printing and Dyeing Co., Ltd 

Zhejiang XiangSheng Group Co., Ltd 

Zhejiang Yonglong Enterprises Co., Ltd 

Zhuji Bolan Textile Industrial Development Co., Ltd 

All other companies 

14,1% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

14,1% 

56,2% 

A617 

A617 

A617 

A617 

A999 

3. 

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

Article 2 

Where  any  new  exporting  producer  in  the  People’s  Republic  of  China  provides  sufficient 
evidence to the Commission that: 

-  it  did  not  export  to  the  Community  the  product  described  in  Article  1(1)  during  the 
investigation period (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004), 

-  it  is  not  related  to  any  of  the  exporters  or  producers  in  the  Peoples’s  Republic  of  China 
which are subject to the anti-dumping measures imposed by this Regulation, 

-  it  has  actually  exported  to  the  Community  the  product  concerned  after  the  investigation 
period  on  which  the  measures  are  based,  or  it  has  entered  into  an  irrevocable  contractual 
obligation to export a significant quantity to the Community, 

the  Council,  acting  by  simple  majority  on  a  proposal  submitted  by  the  Commission  after 
consulting  the  Advisory  Committee,  may  amend  Article  1(2)  by  adding  the  new  exporting 
producer (i) to the companies subject to the weighted average duty rate of 37.1 % applicable 
to  companies  to  whom  individual  treatment  was  granted  in  accordance  with  Article  9(5)  of 
Regulation (EC) No 384/96, or (ii) to the companies subject to the weighted average duty rate 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
of  14.1  %  applicable  to  companies  to  whom  market  economy  treatment  was  granted  in 
accordance with Article 2(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96. 

Article 3 

Amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  pursuant  to  Commission 
Regulation  (EC)  No  426/2005  on  imports  of  woven  fabrics  of  synthetic  filament  yarn 
containing 85% or more by weight of textured and/or non-textured polyester filament, dyed or 
printed, falling within CN codes 5407 52 00, 5407 54 00, 5407 61 30, 5407 61 90 and ex 5407 
69 90 (TARIC code 5407 69 90 10) and originating in the People’s Republic of China shall be 
definitely collected at the rate definitively imposed by the present Regulation, in accordance 
with the rules set out below. The amounts secured in excess of the amount of the definitive 
anti-dumping  duties  shall  be  released.  Where  the  definitive  duties  are  higher  than  the 
provisional  duties,  only  the  amounts  secured  at  the  level  of  the  provisional  duties  shall  be 
definitively collected. 

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

Article 4 

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President   

EN 

29 

   EN