Council Regulation (EC) No 1487/2005 of 12 September 2005 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: 2005-09-12
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, man-made fibre, textile industry

16.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 240/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1487/2005

of 12 September 2005

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,

Regulation was based. All parties were granted a period
within which they could make representations in relation
to these disclosures.

(4)

(5)

(6)

Having regard to the Treaty
Community,

establishing the European

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)

(2)

(3)

A. PROCEDURE

1. Provisional measures

On 15 March 2005, the Commission imposed, by Regu-
lation (EC) No 426/2005 (2) (the provisional Regulation),
a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain
finished polyester
fabrics originating in the
People’s Republic of China (PRC).

filament

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

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

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation

(EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 12).

(2) OJ L 69, 16.3.2005, p. 6.

Some interested parties submitted comments in writing.
Those parties who so requested were also granted an
to be heard orally. The Commission
opportunity
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
been modified
accordingly.

anti-dumping

duty

has

B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

It

filament apparel

filaments, dyed or printed.

It is recalled that, in recital (11) of the provisional Regu-
lation, the product concerned was defined as finished
polyester
fabrics, which are woven
fabric of synthetic filament yarn containing 85 % or
textured and/or non-textured
more by weight of
polyester
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
fabrics as
described above are covered by the product definition,
the product
regardless of
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.

final use. Whether

finished polyester

filament

their

L 240/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.9.2005

(7)

(8)

(9)

is also confirmed that

fabrics dyed white also fall
It
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
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 69 10,
ex 5407 51 00,
these CN codes had to be added to the operational
part of this Regulation.

the raw material

ex 5407 61 10,

and

for

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.
finished fabric is
normally used for soft furnishing applications, whereas
the product concerned is almost exclusively used for
making clothing.

such type of

In addition,

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, 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.

gation, which ensure that different product
compared like with like.

types are

(13)

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 should not
be published, as to do so would have a significantly
adverse effect upon them. As
them buy
polyester yarns (their main raw materials) from Chinese
suppliers, there is a risk of retaliation. Their request was
found to be sufficiently substantiated and was, therefore,
granted.

some of

(10)

is used for

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

(16)

D. DUMPING

1. Market economy treatment (MET)

is

recalled that

in the present

in the PRC made

investigation, 49
It
exporting producers
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.

(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)

It should be recalled in this respect that differences in
type and in price have been accounted for by the product
control numbers (PCN) codes established for the investi-

(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 cooperate 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
reasons
summarised in the table below:

the basic Regulation,

the

for

16.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 240/3

Company

Article 2(7)(c)
first indent

Article 2(7)(c)
second indent

Criteria

Article 2(7)(c)
third indent

Article 2(7)(c)
fourth indent

Article 2(7)(c)
fifth indent

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Not met

Met

Met

Not met

Not met

Met

Met

Met

Not met

Not met

Met

Met

Met

Not met

Not met

Not met

Not met

Not met

Met

Met

Met

Not met

Met

Not met

Met

Met

Not met

Not 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
If
they operate under market economy conditions.
doubts remain,
for example because the company/ies
concerned did not, or was/were not able to provide the
necessary information, or
information was
insufficient, MET cannot be granted.

that

this

(20)

It is further noted that each one of all five criteria listed
under Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation 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
it is the EC Institutions’
only partly fulfilled. Likewise,
consistent practice to examine whether a group of
related companies as a 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.

Met

Not met

Not met

Not met

Not met

Not met

Not met

Not met

Met

Met

Met

Not met

Not met

Met

(21)

(22)

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

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 recital (20).

Companies 4 and 5 also claimed that the findings of the
Commission were insufficient to conclude that they did
not fulfil the first criterion. 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
investigation. The
be State-owned during the on-spot
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.
it was found during the
As to the second company,
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.
the verification was strongly
Under those conditions,

L 240/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.9.2005

impeded and it could not be verified whether the corre-
sponding costs were made in response to market signals
and without State interference. The claims made by the
companies were therefore rejected.

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 inter-
national standards. Moreover, those accounts were not
even adopted by the shareholders. The claims made by
those companies were therefore rejected.

(23)

(24)

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 the second
criterion of Article 2(7)(c) of
the basic Regulation 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
the second criterion should be considered
audited,
fulfilled.

From a general point of view,
it is recalled that the
second criterion of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation
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
the companies, such as
in the accounting records of
revenue,
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 guar-
anteed by an approval without
reservations by the
auditor.

costs, profit

the

(25) More specifically, concerning Companies 3, 9 and 14, it
the reservations made by the
should be noted that
In the case of one
auditors were rather significant.
company,
to verify the
auditors were unable
validity of the year-end balance of stocks and 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
that
the accounts provided by the
company.
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
reservations were in the 2002
company,
in
annual

accounts. Despite no obvious

the balance sheet

In addition,

significant

total of

change

(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
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
information provided by the company,
any further
those findings are hereby confirmed and the claim
rejected.

for other purposes. The

accounts

(27)

In the case of Companies 4 and 5, significant discre-
pancies were found in the accounts during the verifi-
cation visit. The companies claimed that those discre-
pancies 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 verifi-
cation 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
those
accounts could not be considered to be audited in line
with international
In the absence of any
further information provided by the companies, those
conclusions are hereby confirmed and the claims were
rejected.

therefore confirmed that

standards.

is

(28)

The same last two companies and Company 6 claimed
that the conclusions that they did not fulfil the third
criterion were unfounded.

(29)

the Commission had no
Company 4 claimed that
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

16.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 240/5

that price for

casts doubts as to the reliability of the valuation report.
More importantly, it also appeared that the new share-
holders only paid a portion of
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
documents
all
obtained during the verification visit are treated as such
by the authorities, in accordance with Article 19(1) of the
basic Regulation, and would thus in any event not be
further disclosed in any way. The claim was therefore
rejected.

investigations

confidential

(30)

(31)

Company 5 challenged the Commission’s negative MET
determination with respect to the third criterion 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.

the same flat rate should not

Company 6 claimed that the fact that all assets are depre-
ciated at
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
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.

reflect

(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 veri-
fication visit of the MET claim form and of the ques-
tionnaire reply on dumping worked to their disad-
the three months
vantage, and so did the breach of
deadline for the Commission to take a decision of MET
pursuant to Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.

(34)

that

carried out where

In the present case,

In this respect, it is recalled that according to Article 16
the basic Regulation, verification visits are not
of
compulsory and shall be
is
it
the MET
considered appropriate.
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 deadline are explained by the
this proceeding involved a large number of
fact
exporting producers
the provisions on
sampling could only be used with respect to dumping
calculations. The
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 conse-
quences, 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.

investigation therefore

that

and

(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
the
obtain MET, since they were found to meet all
requirements for IT set
the
forth in Article 9(5) of
basic Regulation.

L 240/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.9.2005

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.

spot. Finally, the company claimed that it should have
received a notification of the consequences of the non-
cooperation, as set out
the basic
Regulation.

in Article 18(1) of

(37)

(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 defi-
ciency letter, to also submit a claim form within a certain
to their related companies also
deadline with respect
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 estab-
lishment of dumping, granting extensions would also
the investigation
have prevented the completion of
within the deadline.
the
activity of a company is limited does not exempt that
company from proving it meets the relevant criteria. The
claims were therefore rejected.

In addition,

the fact

that

(42)

(43)

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.

(41) Another exporting producer contested the conclusions
that, since it had explicitly refused to be included in
it could not be considered a cooperating
the sample,
party. The company firstly claimed that pursuant
to
Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation 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
it
company fulfils the five relevant criteria, so that
could still be granted MET.
is
this
evidenced by the fact that MET has been granted to 22
companies, but only 7 companies were visited on the

It argued that

the

that

final

the parties concerned. Furthermore,

Concerning the first claim, it is noted that according to
Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the consent of the
parties is not a necessary condition, since that Article
provides
selection rests with the
Commission and that only preference shall be given to
choosing a sample in consultation with, and with the
the
consent of
selection of the sample in this case was made in consul-
tation 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 veri-
fication 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.

to Article 18 of

the basic Regulation,

The second claim was considered unfounded since,
the
pursuant
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) of the basic Regulation,
and refusing a verification visit, the provisions of Article
18 of the basic Regulation would have had to be used.
Finally, the last claim made by the company should also
be rejected because the consequences of the non-coop-
eration 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 metho-
dology 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
deemed
adjustments
necessary. Those issues have been re-examined and the
necessary amendments have been made where necessary.

that were

assessing

the

16.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 240/7

(46)

(47)

4.2. Determination of normal value for all exporting producers

not granted MET

(a) A n a l o g u e c o u n t r y

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 cooperation 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.

economy

envisaged.

In that respect, it should be noted first of all that Article
2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation provides that the parties
should be informed shortly after the initiation of the
market
In the
third country
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
cooperation 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
cooperation.

(48)

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

(49)

findings

including the provisionally

Finally, the interested parties were informed of the provi-
sional
selected
analogue country, i.e. Turkey, and were given the oppor-
tunity to comment. No comment was received that
Turkey
an appropriate
analogue country in this case. It is therefore considered
that there was no breach of 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.

could not

considered

be

and that any adjustment of the export price when sales
were made to the Community via related companies
established in a
should rather be
third country
addressed by applying the provisions of Article 2(10)
of the basic Regulation.

(52)

(53)

In this respect,
it is confirmed that the provisions of
Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, and more speci-
fically of
that paragraph, have
indeed been applied, as mentioned under recital (53) of
the provisional Regulation.

subparagraph (i) of

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

the adjustments made pursuant

(54) One sampled exporting producer which was granted
MET claimed that
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)

respect,

the investigation revealed that

the
In this
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.

(b) D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f n o r m a l v a l u e

(56)

(50)

In the absence of any comments, the general metho-
dology used for the determination of the normal value,
as described in the recitals (49) and (50) of the provi-
sional Regulation is confirmed.

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.

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

(57)

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) of the basic Regu-
lation for the purpose of a fair comparison (see recital
(51) above).

L 240/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.9.2005

(58)

(59)

(60)

it

is

the

amount of

considered that

the
Finally,
adjustment was duly calculated in conformity with the
provisions of Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation, i.e.
on the basis of
the mark-up received by the related
company. The mark-up in this case was calculated as
selling, general and administrative
being the actual
costs of
reasonable
amount of profit, and should not be limited to only
direct
the
exporting producers concerned were therefore rejected.

selling expenses. The

related companies

claims made by

and a

the

Various interested parties claimed that the adjustment
related to the non-refunded VAT was unwarranted and
the system.
based on an erroneous understanding of
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 non-refundable VAT.

The first claim was rejected because it was not substan-
tiated and no further elements were provided that would
confirm the fact
is based on an
erroneous understanding.

the adjustment

that

(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
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 provi-
sional 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 cooperating exporting producers granted MET/IT

(a) M E T

the shareholders link between all

no longer reflects reality, on the grounds that, shortly
after the IP,
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.

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.

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.

(64)

(65)

(66)

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

(67)

it

is claimed that

interested parties contested the
Furthermore, various
correct use of
the provisions on sampling. Since the
three sampled companies granted MET were found to
they form one single
be related,
entity and that therefore their dumping margin cannot
constitute a valid average in view of the wording of
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 should necessarily be
based on the findings for more than one company.
Reference was made to the WTO Appellate Body
the EC-India bed linen
report,
in the framework of
case (1), where it was concluded that
the weighted
average should necessarily refer
to more than one
company.

(63)

Two of the three companies which were granted MET
claimed that their established relationship during the IP

(1) WT/DS141/AB/R

16.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 240/9

(68)

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 Anti-
Dumping Agreement, and a different case, are not
the
directly applicable in this specific case. Secondly,
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,
companies
their exports via the company for which
channel all
is
the

lowest dumping margin was established.

in view of

relationship,

their

the

It

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.

(b) I T

(69)

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.

(70) On the basis of

the definitive dumping
margins
the CIF
of
as
Community frontier price, duty unpaid, are:

the above,

percentage

expressed

a

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

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

14,1 %

14,1 %

14,1 %

37,1 %

14,1 %

37,1 %

14,1 %

14,1 %

37,1 %

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 %

L 240/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.9.2005

Company

Definitive dumping margin

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

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

14,1 %

37,1 %

37,1 %

36,3 %

46,4 %

37,1 %

14,1 %

37,1 %

14,1 %

56,2 %

14,1 %

14,1 %

37,1 %

37,1 %

37,1 %

14,1 %

14,1 %

14,1 %

14,1 %

14,1 %

7.2. For all other exporting producers

(71)

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

they claimed that
Community industry. Furthermore,
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.

E. INJURY

1. Community production

(74)

(72)

In the absence of any comments submitted, the provi-
total Community
sional
findings
production as set out
to (63) of the
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

in recitals (62)

concerning

the

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 industry. The investigation
confirmed that no company included in the Community
industry imported the product concerned in the IP. They
the raw
did, however
material
should,
for
therefore, be dismissed.

i.e.
arguments

the grey product,

import
the

FPFF. These

2. Definition of the Community industry

(73) One interested party claimed that there was not enough
support
the Community
from a major proportion of
production. They argued that one company had gone
bankrupt during the investigation and should, therefore,
the
not be taken into account

for the definition of

(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.

16.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 240/11

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 Regu-
lation 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
the provisional Regulation is
recitals (69)
hereby confirmed.

to (71) of

5. Situation of the Community Industry

(79)

It is recalled that in recital (98) of the provisional Regu-
lation, 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 inter-
pretation relating to the situation of
the Community
industry as presented in recitals (72) to (98) of the provi-
sional Regulation. Therefore, the findings as set out in
these recitals of the provisional Regulation are hereby
the Community
confirmed and it
is concluded that
industry has
injury within the
meaning of Article 3 of the basic Regulation.

suffered material

F. CAUSATION

(81)

the

exports

it was

sales of

found that

industry was

export performance of
also examined.

In addition to the other factors examined in the provi-
the
sional Regulation,
In this
Community
respect,
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.
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,
the
injury to the
Community exports did not

it can be concluded that

In parallel,

cause

Community 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

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

findings as

set out

2. Interest of unrelated importers

Several submissions from unrelated importers and impor-
ters/users were received. Hearings were also granted to
those parties who so requested. The arguments of the
the users and are
importers coincided with those of
discussed under recitals (87) to (90) below. It is to be
noted that the overall quantities imported from China by
the
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.

importers who made

themselves

(82)

(83)

(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 Regu-
lation 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 Regu-
lation). However, after
the imposition of provisional
four users which had so far not come
measures,
forward in the investigation submitted comments. Two
of them produce home decoration fabrics. All of them
PRC.
imported
Considering that
their
representativeness is estimated at less than 2 %.

from the
the sector is very fragmented,

the product

concerned

L 240/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.9.2005

(87)

(88)

the

raw material

The users which produce clothes claimed that their busi-
nesses 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
the product
anti-dumping duties on the imports of
concerned, which is
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-dumping duties on
the raw material, they claim that they would not be
to keep production in the Community and,
able
therefore, would have to close down their production
sites.

for

the imports of

textile quota on 1 January 2005.

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

the main pressure

true that

these

that

for

is

(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.

that

(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
the Community
over 30 % of
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
the allegedly precarious situation in which
also that
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.

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
the
provisional Regulation and taking into account
is
it
the
submissions made
concluded that there are no compelling reasons not to
impose definitive anti-dumping measures against dumped
imports of FPFF originating in the PRC.

various parties,

by

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.

the

(94) When calculating the injury margin in the provisional
the Community
for
target profit
Regulation,
industry was
set at 8 %, a level which could be
reasonably achieved by 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 provi-
sional Regulation) and the situation of the Community
industry had already started to be precarious. For this
reason,
to a
it was considered appropriate to refer
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.

(91)

In the absence of any other comments with respect to
the interest of the users, the conclusions as set out in

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

as follows:

16.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 240/13

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

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

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

14,1 %

14,1 %

14,1 %

37,1 %

14,1 %

37,1 %

14,1 %

14,1 %

37,1 %

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 %

33,9 %

14,1 %

37,1 %

37,1 %

33,9 %

46,4 %

37,1 %

14,1 %

37,1 %

14,1 %

56,2 %

14,1 %

14,1 %

37,1 %

37,1 %

37,1 %

14,1 %

14,1 %

14,1 %

14,1 %

14,1 %

L 240/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.9.2005

(99)

duty

applicable

countrywide

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
other
companies’) are thus exclusively applicable to imports
of products originating in the country concerned and
produced by the
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’.

companies

‘all

to

the amounts secured by way of

it is considered necessary
to the Community Industry,
the provisional
that
anti-dumping duty,
imposed by the provisional Regu-
lation, should be collected at the rate of the duty defi-
nitely imposed. Where the definitive duties are higher
than the provisional duties, only the amounts secured
at the level of the provisional duties should be defini-
tively collected, while the amounts secured in excess of
the definitive rate of anti-dumping duties should be
released,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

(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 (1) forthwith with all relevant information,
in particular any modification in the company’s activities
linked to production, domestic and export sales asso-
ciated with e.g. that name change or that change in the
production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regu-
lation will accordingly be amended by updating the list
of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.

Article 1

A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on
1.
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, origi-
nating in the People’s Republic of China,
falling within
ex 5407 51 00 (TARIC code 5407 51 00 10),
CN codes
(TARIC
5407 52 00,
code
ex 5407 61 10
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)

5407 54 00,

2. Collection of provisional duties

(101)

In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found
and in the light of the level of the material injury caused

2.
The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to
the net free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, 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

(1) European Commission

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

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

16.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 240/15

Company

Definitive anti-dumping duty

TARIC Additional code

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

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

All other companies

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 %

56,2 %

14,1 %

14,1 %

37,1 %

37,1 %

37,1 %

14,1 %

14,1 %

14,1 %

14,1 %

14,1 %

56,2 %

A623

A617

A617

A623

A617

A617

A617

A617

A623

A623

A619

A617

A617

A621

A617

A623

A623

A620

A622

A623

A617

A623

A617

A618

A617

A617

A623

A623

A623

A617

A617

A617

A617

A617

A999

L 240/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.9.2005

Unless otherwise

3.
concerning customs duties shall apply.

specified,

the provisions

Article 2

in force

treatment was granted in accordance with Article 9(5) of Regu-
lation (EC) No 384/96, or (ii) to the companies subject to the
weighted average duty rate 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.

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

Article 3

— 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,

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,
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.

5407 54 00,

5407 61 30,

5407 61 90

The amounts secured in excess of the amount of the definitive
anti-dumping duties shall be released. Where the definitive
duties
than the provisional duties, only the
amounts secured at the level of the provisional duties shall be
definitively collected.

are higher

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
either (i) to the companies subject to the weighted average duty
rate of 37,1 % applicable to companies to whom individual

Article 4

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

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

Done at Brussels, 12 September 2005.

For the Council
The President

J. STRAW