Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand, and terminating the proceeding on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in Malaysia
Date: 2006-08-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, Malaysia, Thailand, anti-dumping legislation, import policy, originating product, packaging product, plastics

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 30.8.2006 
COM(2006) 470 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags 
originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand, and terminating the 
proceeding on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in Malaysia 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1)  CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

• 

Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This  proposal  concerns  the  application  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22 
December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of 
the European Community, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 
of 23 December 2005 ('the basic Regulation') in the proceeding concerning imports of 
certain  plastic  sacks  and  bags  originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China  (PRC), 
Malaysia and Thailand. 

• 

General context 

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

• 

Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

There are no measures in force concerning the imports of certain plastic sacks and bags 
originating in the PRC, Malaysia and Thailand. 

• 

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 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
• 

Summary of the proposed action 

On 30 June 2005, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard 
to  imports  of  certain  plastic  sacks  and  bags  originating  in  the  PRC,  Malaysia  and 
Thailand.  

The investigation showed that imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in 
the PRC and Thailand were made at dumped prices causing injury to the Community 
industry, whereas for imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in Malaysia 
no  dumping  was  found.  Consequently,  the  proceeding  regarding  imports  of  certain 
plastic sacks and bags originating in Malaysia should be terminated.  

The investigation also showed that imposition of the measures would not be against 
the overall Community interest. 

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopts the attached proposal for a Regulation 
which  should  be  published  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union  by  29 
September 2006 at the latest.  

• 

Legal basis 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22  December  1995  on  protection  against 
dumped  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European  Community,  as  last 
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 of 23 December 2005. 

• 

Subsidiarity principle 

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

• 

Proportionality principle 

The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reasons: 

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

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

• 

Choice of instruments 

Proposed instruments: regulation. 

Other means would not be adequate for the following reason: 

Other  means  would  not  be  adequate  because  the  basic  Regulation  does  not  foresee 
alternative options. 

4)  BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget.  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags 
originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand, and terminating the 
proceeding on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in Malaysia 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 

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

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

Whereas: 

A. PROCEDURE 

Initiation 

On  30  June  2005,  pursuant  to  Article  5  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  Commission 
announced by a notice (‘notice of initiation’) published in the Official Journal of the 
European Union2 the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports 
into  the  Community  of  certain  plastic  sacks  and  bags  originating  in  the  People’s 
Republic of China (‘the PRC’), Malaysia and Thailand ('the countries concerned’).  

The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 17 May 2005 by 29 
Community  producers  of  plastic  sacks  and  bags,  representing  a  major  proportion  (in 
this  case  more  than  25 %)  of  the  total  Community  production  of  plastic  sacks  and 
bags.  The  complaint  contained  evidence  of  dumping  of  the  said  product  and  of 
material  injury  resulting  therefrom,  which  was  considered  sufficient  to  justify  the 
initiation of a proceeding. 

Parties concerned by the proceeding 

The  Commission  officially  advised  the  complainant  Community  producers,  their 
association, other Community producers, the exporting producers, importers, suppliers 
and users as well as user associations known to be concerned and the representatives 

OJ  L  56,  6.3.1996,  p.  1.  Regulation  as  last  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  2117/2005  (OJ  L  340, 
23.12.2005, p. 17). 
OJ C 159, 30.6.2005, p. 19. 

1. 

(1) 

(2) 

2. 

(3) 

1 

2 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
of  the  exporting  countries  of  the  initiation  of  the  proceeding.  Interested  parties  were 
given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing 
within the time limit set in the notice of initiation. 

Given  the  large  number  of  known  exporting  producers  in  the  PRC,  Malaysia  and 
Thailand, as well as the large number of known Community producers and importers, 
sampling for the determination of dumping and injury was envisaged in the notice of 
initiation, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation (see below for further 
details regarding sampling).  

In  order  to  allow  exporting  producers  in  the  PRC  to  submit  a  claim  for  market 
economy  treatment  (‘MET’)  or  individual  treatment  (‘IT’),  if  they  so  wished,  the 
Commission sent claim forms to the exporting producers known to be concerned and 
to the authorities of the PRC. 108 companies and groups requested MET pursuant to 
Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation. All the companies and groups above also claimed 
IT should the investigation have established that they did not meet the conditions for 
MET. Three companies claimed IT only.  

The  Commission  sent  questionnaires  to  all  parties  known  to  be  concerned  and  to  all 
other companies that made themselves known within the deadlines set out in the notice 
of initiation. In addition to questionnaire replies received from parties selected in the 
samples  of  exporters,  importers  and  Community  industry,  replies  to  questionnaires 
were also received from two Community retailers. 

A  number  of  parties  also  made  their  views  known  in  writing.  All  parties  who  so 
requested within the set time limit and indicated that there were particular reasons why 
they should be heard were granted a hearing.  

The Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for the 
purpose of the preliminary determination of dumping, resulting injury and Community 
interest and carried out investigations at the premises of the following companies: 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

Community producers  

–  SP Metal, Paris, France and its related companies SP Metal Biel, Zaragoza, Spain and Jet 

Sac SA, Auchel, France 

–  Groupe Barbier SA, Ste Sigolene, France 

–  Plasticos Romero SA, Murcia, Spain 

–  Plasbel SA, Murcia, Spain  

–  Alplast SA, Ste Marie aux Mines, France 

Unrelated importers in the Community 

–  FIPP  GmbH  &  Co  KG  and  its  related  company  DEISS  GmbH  &  Co  KG,  Hamburg, 

Germany 

Exporting producers and related companies in the exporting countries 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
PRC 

–  Cedo Shanghai Ltd., Shanghai 

–  Chun Yip Plastics (Shenzhen) Ltd., Shenzhen 

–  Huizhou Jun Yang Plastics Co., Ltd., Huizhou  

–  Suzhou Guoxin Group Co., Ltd., Taicang 

–  Wuxi Jiayihe Packaging Co., Ltd. and Wuxi Bestpac Packaging Co., Ltd., Wuxi 

–  Zhongshan Qi Yu Plastic Products Co., Ltd., Zhongshan 

–  Weifang Lefu Plastic Products Co., Ltd., Weifang 

–  Jinguan (Longhai) Plastics Packing Co., Ltd., Longhai 

–  Sunway Kordis (Shanghai) Ltd. and Shanghai Sunway Polysell Ltd., Shanghai 

–  Nantong Huasheng Plastic Products Co.,Ltd., Nantong 

Malaysia 

–  Dragonpak Industries (M) S/B, Johor Bahru 

–  Europlastics Malaysia S/B, Shah Alam 

–  Hond Tat Industries S/B, Klang 

–  Plastic V S/B, Klang 

–  Poly Carrier Industries S/B, Klang 

–  Sido Bangun S/B, Negri Sembilan 

Thailand 

–  King Pac Industrial Company Limited, Chonburi 

–  Multibax Public Co., Ltd., Chonburi 

–  Naraipak Co., Ltd., Bangkok 

–  Sahachit Watana Plastic Industry Co., Ltd., Bangkok 

–  Thai Plastic Bags Industries Co., Ltd., Nakornpathorn 

Related importers in the Community 

–  Cedo Limited UK, Telford, United Kingdom 

–  Cedo GmbH, Mönchengladbach, Germany 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
–  Europackaging plc, Birmingham, United Kingdom 

–  3S’s Limited, Upton-upon-Severn, United Kingdom 

–  Kordis Limited and Kordis BV, Stratford-upon-Avon, United Kingdom 

3. 

(9) 

Investigation period 

The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005 
(‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of injury covered the period from 1 
January 2002 to 31 March 2005 (‘period considered’). 

B. SAMPLING 

1. 

Sampling for exporting producers in the PRC, Malaysia and Thailand 

(10)  As  stated  above,  in  view  of  the  large  number  of  exporting  producers  in  the  PRC, 
Malaysia  and  Thailand,  sampling  was  proposed  in  the  notice  of  initiation,  in 
accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation. 

(11) 

(12) 

In  order  to  enable  the  Commission  to  decide  whether  sampling  would  be  necessary 
and, if so, to select a sample, exporting producers were requested to make themselves 
known  within  15  days  from  the  date  of  the  initiation  of  the  investigation  and  to 
provide  basic  information  on  their  export  and  domestic  sales,  and  the  names  and 
activities of all their related companies involved in the production and/or selling of the 
said product. The authorities in the PRC, Malaysia and Thailand were also consulted. 

108  companies  and  groups  in  the  PRC,  36  companies  from  Malaysia  and  17  from 
Thailand  came  forward  and  provided  the  requested  information  within  the  given 
deadline. However, only 104 companies and groups from the PRC, 31 companies from 
Malaysia  and  14  from  Thailand  reported  exports  to  the  Community  during  the 
investigation period. 

(13)  Those exporting producers that exported the said product to the Community during the 
investigation period and expressed a wish to participate in the sample, were considered 
as cooperating companies and were taken into account in the selection of the samples.  

(14)  The cooperating exporting producers represented around 95 % of total exports of the 
product concerned from the PRC to the Community, 96 % of Malaysia’s and 88 % of 
Thailand’s total exports. 

(15)  The remaining companies were either traders or exporting producers without exports 
to the Community during the investigation period. Therefore, a dumping margin will 
not be determined for these companies.  

(16)  Exporting  producers  which  did  not  make  themselves  known  within  the  aforesaid 

period were considered as not cooperating with the investigation. 

(17)  According to Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the following criteria were taken 
into account in the selection of the sample: size of exporting producer with regard to 
export  sales  to  the  Community  as  well  as  size  of  exporting  producer  with  regard  to 
domestic sales. It was considered that for the reasons set out below, the sample should 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
include a sufficient number of companies selling on the domestic market. Therefore, a 
number  of  major  exporting  companies  having  representative  domestic  sales  were 
included in the sample.  

(18)  On  this  basis,  the  Commission  originally  selected  samples  of  ten  Chinese  exporting 
producers,  six  Malaysian  exporting  producers  and  six  Thai  exporting  producers.  The 
selected companies represented around 52 %, 62 % and 71 % of the exports of the said 
product to the Community from the PRC, Malaysia and Thailand respectively. 

(19) 

In  accordance  with  Article  17(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  cooperating  exporting 
producers and the authorities of the countries concerned were given the opportunity to 
comment on the selection of the sample. 

(20)  A  number  of  Chinese  exporters  argued  that  they  should  have  been  included  in  the 
sample,  because  of  particular  circumstances  regarding  their  companies  such  as: 
product  types,  business  model,  cost  structure,  or  affiliation  with  Hong  Kong  or  EU-
based groups. However, it would have been impractical, and not required by the basic 
Regulation, to aim for a sample reflecting all the above factors, given the amount of 
information  and  the  time  available  for  the  sample  selection.  Moreover,  the  basic 
Regulation  allows  limiting  the  investigation  to  the  largest  representative  volume  of 
exports which can reasonably be investigated within the time available. 

(21)  One  Chinese  exporter  argued  that  the  Commission  should,  according  to  the  Anti 
Dumping  Agreement  (‘ADA’)  of  the  WTO,  have  simply  selected  the  exporters  with 
the  largest  volume  of  export  sales  to  the  Community,  without  having  regard  to  the 
volume  of  domestic  sales.  Article  6.10  ADA  provides,  inter  alia,  that  a  sample  of 
exporters can be chosen based on “the largest percentage of the volume of the exports 
from  the  country  in  question  which  can  reasonably  be  investigated”.  This 
interpretation  of  Article  6.10  ADA  has  to  be  rejected.  First,  there  is  nothing  in  the 
wording  of  Article  6.10  ADA  that  precludes  that  exporters  with  representative 
domestic  sales  are  also  included  in  the  sample.  Second,  the  purpose  of  selecting  a 
sample of exporting producers is to collect the highest possible representative data on 
the basis of which a dumping margin could be calculated. In this respect, it is essential 
that  companies  with  domestic  sales  of  the  product  concerned  are  included  in  the 
sample in order to be able to determine normal value and SG&A and profit according 
to Articles 2(1) to (6) of the basic Regulation. For companies found to fulfil the MET 
criteria, establishing normal value without sufficient information on such SG&A and 
profit  would  be  problematic.  The  largest  volume  of  exports  that  can  reasonably  be 
investigated  should  thus  also  include  at  least  a  sufficient  number  of  companies  with 
domestic sales in the IP. As a consequence, only the major exporting companies which 
also represented a major part of the domestic sales have been selected in accordance 
with Article 6.10 ADA and Article 17 of the basic Regulation. 

(22)  During  the  investigation,  it  was  found  that  Wuxi  Jiayihe  Packaging  Co.,  Ltd.  and 
Wuxi Bestpac Packaging Co., Ltd. had in error declared large amounts of exports to 
the  EC  of  the  said  product  that  they  themselves  had  not  produced,  but  had  in  fact 
processed for other exporting producers. Given the small amount of their actual sales 
of  own-produced  said  product,  the  company  was  removed  from  the  Chinese  sample. 
However given that the company had already been inspected, it will in effect receive 
individual examination. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
(23)  The  Malaysian  Plastic  Manufacturers  Association  pointed  out  that  one  of  the 
companies not selected in the sample had failed to report its local sales of plastic bags 
of  a  related  company,  and  should  have  been  selected  for  the  sample.  As  the 
information  about  this  reporting  mistake  was  received  in  a  timely  manner,  the 
Commission  agreed  to  include  that  company  in  the  sample,  replacing  one  of  the 
companies previously selected which had a smaller volume of export sales. 

(24)  Questionnaires were sent for completion to the 22 originally sampled companies and 
replies from all of them were received within the given deadlines, with the exception 
of one Thai company which had been selected for the sample but ceased cooperation 
afterwards. 

(25) 

(26) 

In view of the large number of countries and parties involved and the time constraints, 
the  Commission  concluded  that  no  individual  examination  of  exporting  producers, 
with a view to the application of Articles 9(6) and 17(3) of the basic Regulation, could 
be granted because this would be unduly burdensome and would prevent completion 
of  the  investigation  in  good  time.  Accordingly,  the  Commission  informed  all 
cooperating exporting producers that it did not intend to grant individual examinations 
if  requested.  Moreover,  no  such  requests  were  received  by  the  40  day  deadline 
stipulated in the notice of initiation. 

It should be noted that one company in China not sampled, but cooperating with the 
investigation, submitted a request for change of name from Jiangmen Xiefeng Plastic 
Co., Ltd. to Jiangmen Toptype Plastic Products Co., Ltd. Evidence was submitted that 
this was a change of name of the same legal entity and therefore no change was made 
otherwise  to  the  company's  status,  structure  or  ownership.  As  such  the  name  of  the 
company was amended to the new name in the Annex to the Regulation. 

2. 

Sampling of Community producers 

(27) 

(28) 

In view of the large number of Community producers, sampling was proposed in the 
notice of initiation in accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation. For this 
purpose,  the  Commission  requested  Community  producers  to  provide  information 
concerning production and sales of the like product. 

34 Community producers came forward and provided the information requested in the 
notice of initiation. A total of five companies (three in France and two in Spain) were 
selected  for  the  sample  as  they  represented  the  largest  representative  volume  of 
production in the Community (around 18 %), which could be reasonably investigated 
within the time available. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the 
association  of  Community  producers  was  consulted  and  raised  no  objection.  All 
sampled  Community  producers  cooperated  and  sent  questionnaire  replies  within  the 
deadlines. In addition, the remaining complainant producers and producers supporting 
the  investigation,  situated  in  Belgium,  Denmark,  France,  the  Netherlands,  Poland, 
Portugal,  Spain  and  the  United  Kingdom,  duly  provided  certain  general  data  for  the 
injury analysis. 

3. 

Sampling of importers 

(29) 

In view of the large number of importers in the Community, sampling was envisaged 
in the notice of initiation in accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation. For 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
these  purposes, 
concerning imports and sales of the product concerned. 

the  Commission  requested 

importers 

to  provide 

information 

(30)  On  the  basis  of  the  information  received,  the  Commission  selected  five  importers  in 
three Member States, two in France, one in Germany and two in the United Kingdom. 
Two known associations of importers were consulted. These importers represented the 
largest representative volume of sales of known importers in the Community (around 
9 %), which could be reasonably investigated within the time available. Two importers 
finally cooperated and sent questionnaire replies.  

4. 

Disclosure 

(31)  All  parties  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the  basis  of 
which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty 
on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in the PRC and Thailand and 
terminating the proceeding as regards imports originating in Malaysia. They were also 
granted a period within which to make representations subsequent to the disclosure of 
the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the  basis  of  which  definitive  measures  are 
imposed. 

(32)  The  oral  and  written  comments  submitted  by  the  interested  parties  were  considered 

and, where appropriate, the findings have been modified accordingly. 

C. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

1. 

General 

(33)  Plastic  sacks  and  bags  made  of  polyethylene  are  generally  distributed  through  retail 
outlets  to  consumers,  who  use  them  mainly  for  purchased  goods  conveyance,  food 
packing or household waste disposal. 

2. 

The product concerned 

(34)  The  product  concerned  is  plastic  sacks  and  bags,  containing  at  least  20 %  of 
polyethylene  by  weight  and  of  a  thickness  not  exceeding  100  micrometers  (‘plastic 
bags’)  originating  in  the  PRC,  Malaysia  and  Thailand.  The  product  concerned  falls 
within CN codes ex 3923 21 00, ex 3923 29 10 and ex 3923 29 90.  

(35)  Plastic  bags  are  produced  from  polyethylene  polymers  by  extrusion  in  a  continuous 
tubular  form,  through  the  injection  of  air,  followed  by  cutting,  and  where  applicable 
welding, printing and adding of handles and/or closure systems. The bags can be made 
from several densities of polyethylene and blended with other resins or additives. The 
material  composition  will  affect  the  bag’s  properties  such  as  strength,  durability  or 
degradability which may be required for different applications.  

(36) 

In the course of the investigation, it was argued by the PRC authorities and by several 
importers and exporters that the investigation scope was too wide because it included 
items  such  as  carrier  bags,  garbage  bags,  freezer  bags,  fruit  and  vegetable  bags  and 
other items which are allegedly different in terms of physical characteristics, pricing, 
sales  channels,  end-uses  and  consumer  perception.  In  particular,  one  exporter  and 
several  importers  requested  that  zipper  bags  (polythene  bags  with  a  zipper  sealing 
function) should be excluded from the investigation scope due to alleged differences in 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
raw material, production process, appearance, usage, distribution, customer perception 
and price. Another importer made a similar argument concerning money bags, which 
allegedly  have  some  unique  technical  and  physical  characteristics  and  are  only 
produced by a limited number of companies. 

(37)  One  Malaysian  exporter  further  argued  that  a  patented  feature  of  the  dispensing 
mechanism of some of their carrier bags meant that they should be excluded from the 
scope of the investigation, since bags with these features allegedly cannot be produced 
by the Community industry. However this patented feature, while intended to bring a 
functional advantage over other carrier bags, does not represent a sufficient difference 
in physical characteristics for the bags in question to be considered a separate product. 
Indeed, they remain basically interchangeable with other carrier bags, with or without 
similar patented systems. 

(38)  While it is recognised that there are different types of plastic bags, which are designed 
for  different  applications  including  those  mentioned  above,  the  investigation  showed 
that  all  these  types  of  plastic  bags,  including  those  with  patented  features,  share  the 
same basic physical and chemical characteristics: they are basically flexible containers 
made  from  polyethylene  film  used  for  the  packaging  and  conveyance  of  goods.  The 
use  of  the  plastic  bags  is  always  the  same,  although  the  "goods"  being  conveyed  or 
packed  may  vary  (e.g.  retail  items,  foodstuffs,  waste).  In  this  respect  it  should  be 
noticed  that  the  basic  Regulation  does  not  require  that  investigations  cover  products 
that  are  identical  in  all  aspects,  e.g.  in  terms  of  production  process,  pricing,  sales 
channels,  uses  or  consumer  perception.  Rather,  it  has  been  the  Commission’s 
consistent  practice  to  require  that  for  product  types  to  be  considered  as  a  single 
product it is enough that they share the same basic physical, technical and/or chemical 
characteristics. 

(39)  Consequently, all different types of plastic bags, falling within CN codes ex 3923 21 
00, ex 3923 29 10 and ex 3923 29 90 originating in the PRC, Malaysia and Thailand 
are regarded as one single product for the purpose of the present investigation.  

3. 

Like product 

(40)  The Commission found that plastic bags produced and sold on the respective domestic 
markets  in  the  PRC,  Malaysia  (which  also  served  as  an  analogue  country)  and 
Thailand and those exported to the Community from the countries concerned, as well 
as  those  produced  and  sold  in  the  Community  by  the  Community  industry,  have  the 
same  physical,  chemical  and  technical  characteristics  and  uses.  It  is  therefore 
concluded  that  all  are  like  products  within  the  meaning  of  Article  1(4)  of  the  basic 
Regulation.  

1. 

General methodology 

D. DUMPING 

(41)  The general methodology set out below has been applied to all cooperating exporting 
producers in Malaysia and Thailand, as well as for the cooperating Chinese exporting 
producers for which MET was granted. The presentation of the findings on dumping 
for  each  of  the  countries  concerned  therefore  only  describes  matters  specific  to  each 
exporting country. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
1.1. 

Normal value 

(42) 

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

(43)  The Commission subsequently identified those product types sold domestically by the 
companies  having  overall  representative  domestic  sales,  which  were  identical  or 
directly comparable with the types sold for export to the Community. The criteria used 
were  the  following:  type  of  raw  material  used,  dimensions,  colouring,  printing, 
closure, handles and presentation of the plastic bags. 

(44)  Domestic  sales  of  a  particular  product  type  were  considered  as  sufficiently 
representative  when  the  volume  of  that  product  type  sold  on  the  domestic  market  to 
independent customers during the investigation period represented 5 % or more of the 
total volume of the comparable product type sold for export to the Community. 

(45)  The  Commission  subsequently  examined  whether  the  domestic  sales  of  each  type  of 
plastic  bag  sold  domestically  in  representative  quantities  by  each  company  in  each 
exporting country could be considered as being made in the ordinary course of trade 
pursuant  to  Article  2(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  This  was  done  by  establishing  the 
proportion  of  profitable  domestic  sales  to  independent  customers,  of  each  exported 
product type, on the domestic market during the investigation period: 

(46)  Where the sales volume of a product type, sold at a net sales price equal to or above 
the calculated cost of production, represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume 
of that type, and where the weighted average price of that type was equal to or above 
the cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price. This price 
was  calculated  as  a  weighted  average  of  the  prices  of  all  domestic  sales  of  that  type 
made during the IP, irrespective of whether these sales were profitable or not. 

(47)  Where the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 % or less of the 
total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was 
below  the  cost  of  production,  normal  value  was  based  on  the  actual  domestic  price, 
calculated  as  a  weighted  average  of  profitable  sales  of  that  type  only,  provided  that 
these sales represented 10 % or more of the total sales volume of that type. 

(48)  Where the volume of profitable sales of any product type represented less than 10 % of 
the total sales volume of that type, it was considered that this particular type was sold 
in insufficient quantities for the domestic price to provide an appropriate basis for the 
establishment of the normal value. 

(49)  Wherever domestic prices of a particular product type sold by an exporting producer 
could not be used in order to establish normal value, another method had to be applied. 
In  this  regard,  the  Commission  used  constructed  normal  value,  in  accordance  with 
Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.  

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
(50)  Normal value was constructed by adding to each exporter’s manufacturing costs of the 
exported types, adjusted where necessary, a reasonable amount for selling, general and 
administrative expenses (‘SG&A’) and a reasonable margin of profit.  

(51) 

In  all  cases  SG&A  and  profit  were  established  pursuant  to  the  methods  set  out  in 
Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation. To this end, the Commission examined whether 
the  SG&A  incurred  and  the  profit  realised  by  each  of  the  exporting  producers 
concerned on the domestic market constituted reliable data.  

1.2. 

Export price 

(52) 

In all cases where the product concerned was exported to independent customers in the 
Community,  the  export  price  was  established  in  accordance  with  Article  2(8)  of  the 
basic Regulation, namely on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable. 

(53)  Where  the  export  sale  was  made  via  related  importers  based  in  the  Community,  the 
export price was constructed, pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, on the 
basis of the price at which the imported products were first resold to an independent 
buyer, duly adjusted for all costs incurred between importation and resale, as well as a 
reasonable  margin  for  SG&A  and  profits.  In  this  regard,  the  related  importers’  own 
SG&A  costs  were  used.  The  profit  margin  was  established  on  the  basis  of  the 
information available from cooperating unrelated importers. 

1.3. 

Comparison 

(54)  The  comparison  between  normal  value  and  export  price  was  made  on  an  ex-factory 

basis. 

(55)  For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export 
price,  due  allowance  in  the  form  of  adjustments  was  made  for  differences  affecting 
prices  and  price  comparability  in  accordance  with  Article  2(10)  of  the  basic 
Regulation.  For  all  investigated  exporting  producers,  allowances  for  differences  in 
transport  costs,  ocean  freight  and  insurance  costs,  handling,  loading  and  ancillary 
costs, packing costs, credit costs and commissions were granted where applicable and 
justified. 

1.4. 

Dumping margins  

(56)  Pursuant  to  Articles  2(11)  and  (12)  of  the  basic  Regulation  dumping  margins  were 
established  on  the  basis  of  a  comparison  of  a  weighted  average  normal  value  by 
product  type  with  a  weighted  average  export  price  by  product  type  as  established 
above. 

(57)  The  dumping  margin  for  cooperating  exporting  producers,  which  made  themselves 
known in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, but were not part of the 
sample,  has  been  established  on  the  basis  of  the  weighted  average  of  the  dumping 
margins  of  the  companies  in  the  sample  pursuant  to  Article  9(6)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. 

(58) 

It  has  been  the  consistent  practice  of  the  Commission  to  consider  related  exporting 
producers or exporting producers belonging to the same group as one single entity for 
the  determination  of  a  dumping  margin  and  thus  to  establish  one  single  dumping 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
margin for them. This is in particular because calculating individual dumping margins 
might  encourage  circumvention  of  anti-dumping  measures,  thus  rendering  them 
ineffective,  by  enabling  related  exporting  producers  to  channel  their  exports  to  the 
Community through the company with the lowest individual dumping margin. 

In accordance with this practice, the related exporting producers belonging to the same 
groups  were  regarded  as  one  single  entity  and  attributed  one  single  dumping  margin 
which was calculated on the basis the weighted average of the dumping margins of the 
cooperating producers in the respective groups. 

In  order  to  determine  the  dumping  margin  for  non-cooperating  exporting  producers, 
the level of non-cooperation was first established. To this end, the volume of exports 
to  the  Community  reported  by  the  cooperating  exporting  producers  was  compared 
with the equivalent Eurostat import statistics.  

(59) 

(60) 

(61)  As  the  level  of  cooperation  in  Malaysia  and  Thailand  was  high  (above  85 %)  it  was 
considered  appropriate  to  set  the  residual  dumping  margin  for  any  non-cooperating 
exporting  producers  in  each  of  these  countries  concerned  at  the  level  of  the  highest 
duty imposed on a co-operating exporter. 

(62)  As regards China, it should be noted that although overall cooperation was high, three 
exporting producers provided false and misleading information and were thus declared 
non-cooperating  according  to  Article  18  of  the  basic  Regulation  as  described  below. 
As  these  companies  deliberately  abstained  from  cooperation,  the  residual  dumping 
margin  for  any  non-cooperating  exporting  producer  in  the  PRC  was  based  on  facts 
available.  It  was  therefore  considered  appropriate  that  the  residual  dumping  margin 
should  be  set  at  the  level  of  the  highest  margins  established  for  representative  types 
imposed on a co-operating exporter not granted MET or IT. There were no indications 
that the non-cooperating exporting producers dumped at a lower level. 

2. 

Malaysia 

2.1. 

Normal value 

(63)  Three companies had globally representative domestic sales. However, given the lack 
of matching domestic and exported types, normal value had to be constructed for these 
companies in accordance with the methodology set out above. For the three companies 
without  representative  domestic  sales,  normal  value  also  had  to  be  constructed  in 
accordance with the methodology set out above. 

(64)  For  the  three  companies  with  representative  domestic  sales,  their  profit  made  in  the 
ordinary course of trade was used to construct their normal value, as well as domestic 
SG&A based on their own domestic sales.  

(65)  For the three companies without representative domestic sales, an amount for SG&A 
expenses  was  determined  on  the  basis  of  the  average  SG&A  of  the  three  companies 
with domestic sales. 

(66)  Since  only  one  Malaysian  exporter  had  overall  profitable  domestic  sales  of  the  like 
product,  the  average  level  of  profit  achieved  on  domestic  sales  of  the  same  general 
category  of  products,  5.5 %,  was  used  to  construct  normal  value  for  the  three 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
companies  with  no  domestic  sales,  in  accordance  with  Article  2(6)(c)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. 

2.2. 

Export price 

(67)  The  six  exporting  producers  made  export  sales  to  the  Community  either  directly  to 
independent  customers  or  through  related  trading  companies  located  in  the 
Community  and  Indonesia.  Where  the  export  sale  was  made  via  related  importers 
based in the Community, the export price was constructed, pursuant to Article 2(9) of 
the basic Regulation, as set out in recital (53) above.  

2.3. 

Comparison 

(68)  The normal value and export prices were compared on an ex-works basis, as described 
in  recitals  (54)and  (55)  above,  with  adjustments,  where  appropriate,  in  accordance 
with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. 

(69)  For the sales  channelled through  Indonesia, an adjustment of 3.3 % for commissions 
was applied in accordance with Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation. The amount 
for  commissions  was  based  on  the  selling,  general  and  administrative  costs  of  the 
Indonesian company together with a profit margin of 3 %. Given that the profit of the 
Indonesian  company  was  influenced  by  sales  between  related  companies,  the  3 % 
profit margin was determined on the basis of that achieved by an unrelated trader.  

(70)  Another exporter claimed that an adjustment should be added to their sales prices in 
the Community to account for the fact that their latest (after the IP) contract with the 
end  customer  allows  for  a  price  increase,  allegedly  to  compensate  the  exporter  for 
losses incurred during the IP due to raw material increase. Since no price adjustment 
was  effected  during  the  IP  and  there  is  no  evidence  of  a  relation  between  the  new 
contract and the past evolution of costs, this cannot be granted. 

2.4. 

Dumping margins 

(71)  The  dumping  margins,  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  CIF  import  price  at  the 

Community border, duty unpaid, are the following: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Dragonpak  Industries  (M)  S/B,  Johor 
Bahru 

Europlastics Malaysia S/B, Shah Alam 

Hond Tat Industries S/B, Klang 

Plastic V S/B, Klang 

Poly Carrier Industries S/B, Klang 

Sido Bangun S/B, Negri Sembilan 

Cooperating  exporting  producers  not  in 
the sample 

0 % 

0 % 

4,0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

9,1 % 

7,3 % 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
– 

All other companies 

9,1 % 

(72)  The Commission examined whether the country-wide level of dumping for Malaysia 
could be shown to be above the de minimis 2 % level as provided in Article 9(3) of the 
basic  Regulation.  It  was  considered  appropriate  for  this  purpose  to  extrapolate  the 
results of the sample, including the companies with no dumping, to estimate the level 
of  dumping  of  the  non-sampled  companies.  The  amount  of  dumping  in  the  sample, 
expressed as a percentage of the CIF value of exports of the sample, was below 2 %. 
Therefore  the  overall  dumping  margin  established  for  Malaysia  was  below  the  de 
minimis level. In these circumstances, the proceeding should be terminated as regards 
imports  of  the  product  concerned  originating  in  Malaysia  and  no  duties  should  be 
imposed. 

(73)  The  Community  industry  argued  that  Article  9(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation  does  not 

provide for the determination of a country-wide de minimis dumping margin. 

(74)  This  interpretation  was  rejected  by  the  Commission.  Article  9(3)  of  the  basic 
Regulation  clearly  states  that  a  proceeding  must  be  terminated  where  the  margin  of 
dumping  is  less  than  2 %.  As  a  proceeding  is  opened  against  a  country,  this  refers 
specifically to a countrywide margin.  

(75)  The Community industry also argued that Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation provides 
that zero and de minimis margins should be disregarded when calculating the dumping 
duty applicable to cooperating exporting producers outside the sample. However, this 
article  merely  establishes  a  maximum  duty  applicable  to  those  exporting  producers, 
when  duties  are  to  be  applied.  Given  that  the  Malaysian  exporting  producers  found 
dumping  represent  only  a  minor  share  of  the  total  exports  from  Malaysia,  it  was 
considered  appropriate,  as  mentioned  in  recital  (72)  above,  to  base  the  countrywide 
calculation on the extrapolation of the results of the whole sample. 

3. 

Thailand 

3.1. 

Normal value 

(76)  Three companies had globally representative domestic sales. However, given the lack 
of matching domestic and exported types, normal value had to be constructed for these 
companies in accordance with the methodology set above. For the companies without 
representative domestic sales, normal value also had to be constructed in accordance 
with the methodology set out above. 

(77)  For  those  three  companies,  domestic  SG&A  based  on  their  own  domestic  sales  was 
used.  For  the  two  companies  without  representative  domestic  sales,  an  amount  for 
SG&A  expenses  was  determined  on  the  basis  of  the  average  SG&A  of  the  three 
companies with domestic sales. 

(78)  For  two  of  the  companies  with  representative  domestic  sales,  profit  made  in  the 
ordinary course of trade was used. For the third company with representative domestic 
sales, their own profit could not be used as less than 10 % of the sales were made in 
the ordinary course of trade.  

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
(79)  Since  no  Thai  exporter  had  overall  profitable  domestic  sales,  a  reasonable  profit 
margin, based on the profit of one Thai company on the sales in the domestic market 
of the same general category of products was used to construct normal value for the 
two companies with no domestic sales, and for the one company having less than 10 % 
of  domestic  sales  made  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade,  in  accordance  with  Article 
2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation.  

3.2. 

Export price 

(80)  The  exports  of  the  five  cooperating  exporting  producers  were  made  directly  to 
independent customers in the Community. The export prices were therefore based on 
the  prices  actually  paid  or  payable  for  the  product  concerned  in  accordance  with 
Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation. 

3.3. 

Comparison 

(81)  The normal value and export prices were compared on an ex-works basis, as described 
above,  with  adjustments,  where  appropriate,  in  accordance  with  Article  2(10)  of  the 
basic Regulation. 

3.4. 

Dumping margins 

(82)  The  dumping  margins,  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  CIF  import  price  at  the 

Community border, duty unpaid, are the following: 

– 

King  Pac  Industrial  Co  Ltd.,  Chonburi 
and Dpac Industrial Co., Ltd., Bangkok 

–  Multibax Public Co., Ltd., Chonburi 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Naraipak  Co.,  Ltd.  and  Narai  Packaging 
(Thailand) Ltd., Bangkok 

Sahachit  Watana  Plastic  Industry  Co., 
Ltd., Bangkok 

Thai  Plastic  Bags  Industries  Co.,  Ltd., 
Nakhonpathom 

Cooperating  exporting  producers  not  in 
the sample 

– 

All other companies 

4. 

People’s Republic of China 

14,3 % 

5,1 % 

10,4 % 

6,8 % 

5,8 % 

7,9 % 

14,3 % 

4.1. 

Market economy treatment (MET) and individual treatment 

(83) 

In  anti-dumping  investigations  concerning  imports  originating  in  the  PRC,  normal 
value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of Article 2(7)(b) of 
the  basic  Regulation  for  those  exporting  producers  which  were  found  to  meet  the 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
criteria  laid  down  in  Article  2(7)(c).  Briefly,  and  for  ease  of  reference  only,  these 
criteria are summarised below: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

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

accounting  records  are  independently  audited,  in  line  with  international 
accounting standards and applied for all purposes; 

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

(4) 

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

(5) 

currency exchanges are carried out at the market rate. 

(84)  From  the  cooperating  exporting  producers  in  the  PRC  considered  for  sampling  108 
requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation and replied to the 
MET  claim  form  for  exporting  producers  within  the  given  deadlines.  3  companies 
claimed  IT  only  and  returned  the  MET  claim  form  partially  completed  as  requested. 
For  the  ten  companies  investigated,  the  Commission  sought  all  information  deemed 
necessary and verified information submitted in the MET claims at the premises of the 
companies in question.  

(85) 

It has been concluded that of the ten Chinese exporting producers investigated, seven 
have  demonstrated  that  they  fulfil  the  five  criteria  of  Article  2(7)(c)  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  and  should  therefore  be  granted  MET,  while  it  was  determined  for  one 
exporting producer that it should not be granted MET.  

(86)  Furthermore, for the two remaining Chinese exporting producers investigated and one 
exporting  producer  not  selected  in  the  sample,  it  was  found  that  they  provided  false 
and misleading information within the meaning of Article 18 of the basic Regulation. 

(87)  Two  exporting  producers  did  not  declare  their  relationship  with  each  other  in  their 
respective replies to the market economy claim form and anti-dumping questionnaire 
response  and  one  of  them  submitted  falsified  evidence  in  order  to  partly  hide  the 
existing relationship.  

(88) 

In  this  context,  it  should  be  noted  that  is  the  Commission’s  consistent  practice  to 
examine whether a group of related companies, as a whole, fulfils the conditions for 
MET. This is necessary to avoid the channelling of sales of a group of companies via 
one of the related companies in the group with an individual duty rate and MES status, 
should  measures  be  imposed.  Therefore,  in  cases  where  a  subsidiary  or  any  other 
related company is a producer and/or a seller of the product concerned, all such related 
companies  have  to  be  declared  as  being  related  to  ensure  that  the  related  companies 
receive  one  dumping  margin,  should  measures  be  imposed.  Furthermore,  all  related 
companies  involved  in  the  production  or  sales  of  the  product  concerned  have  to 
provide a reply to the MET claim form in order that an examination can be made as to 
whether they also meet the criteria set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. 
All related producers would also have to reply to the questionnaire. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
(89) 

In  the  present  case,  although  both  companies  individually  complied  with  their 
obligation to submit a MET claim form, the related companies attempted to hide their 
relationship. As the relationship was not disclosed, one of the two related companies 
was not investigated together with the other one which was selected in the sample, as 
would normally have been the case. The information submitted to the Commission did 
thus not allow for proper investigation of all the related companies in the group. This 
led to the result that it could not be established that the group, as a whole, fulfilled the 
conditions for MET.  

(90)  As such, both the investigated exporting producer and its related company, a producer 
involved  in  the  production  and  sale  of  the  product  concerned,  were  declared  non-
cooperating exporting producers. 

(91)  For  the  other  remaining  company  it  was  found  evidence  that  it  had  submitted 
knowingly  wrong  information  in  its  questionnaire  reply  as  far  as  export  sales  were 
concerned as well as falsified export invoices during the verification visit, as described 
in  recital  (112)  below.  It  was  considered  that  since  it  had  been  declared  a  non-
cooperating  exporter,  no  determination  concerning  their  MET  claim  was  relevant,  as 
no  individual  margin  could  be  calculated  for  this  company  in  the  present 
circumstances. 

(92)  The  exporting  producers  concerned  and  the  Community  industry  were  given  an 

opportunity to comment on the above findings. 

(93)  The Chinese exporting producer referred to in recital (85) could not demonstrate that it 
fulfilled criteria 1, 2 and 3 above and was therefore refused MET. The investigation of 
this company and its related companies showed that this group includes two producing 
entities,  one  being  a  Chinese  company  and  the  other  a  branch  in  China  of  the  Hong 
Kong  parent  company.  The  company  was  not  able  to  demonstrate  that  the 
management  of  this  branch  is  not  influenced  by  the  Chinese  State.  Furthermore,  the 
business licence of the Chinese producing company states that a minimum percentage 
of the output should be exported. The company claimed that it could obtain from the 
local authorities the permission to sell domestically, i.e. obtain an unrestricted business 
licence.  However,  it  did  not  substantiate  this  allegation  and  neither  asked  for  the 
removal of the apparent restriction from its business licence, nor changed its Articles 
of Association in which the export requirement was also included. Consequently, it is 
concluded that the company did not provide sufficient evidence that it can freely and 
flexibly  sell  according  to  market  signals,  which  would  include  being  able  to  sell 
domestically. This restriction stems from significant State interference, i.e. a business 
licence which limits the company’s scope of activity to the export market.  

(94)  The  above  means  that  the  company’s  claim  for  individual  treatment  (‘IT’)  was  also 
rejected as the company failed the criteria set out in Article 9(5)(b), namely that export 
prices and quantities were freely determined. 

(95) 

In regard to criterion 2, given that the branch of the Hong Kong parent company is run 
on  a  cash  basis,  it  is  considered  that  its  accounts  do  not  comply  with  the  accrual 
principle in accordance with international accounting standards (‘IAS’). Furthermore, 
the  lack  of  separation  in  the  operations  of  this  branch  from  those  of  the  other 
producing company casts serious doubts on the accuracy of the accounts, in particular 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
relating  to  costs,  of  both  entities.  Therefore  the  second  criterion  for  MET  cannot  be 
considered to be fulfilled.  

(96)  As  for  the  land  use  rights  and  factory  building  of  this  branch,  the  company  did  not 
clearly  demonstrate  how  they  were  acquired,  or  whether  they  are  subject  to 
depreciation. Therefore the third criterion for MET cannot be considered to be fulfilled 
given that the company has not demonstrated that there are no distortions carried over 
from  the  former  non-market  economy  system  in  relation  to  land  use  rights  and  the 
acquisition of the factory buildings.  

(97)  Another  Chinese  exporting  producer  had  in  its  business  licence  and  Articles  of 
Association  a  provision  stating  that  100 %  of  the  output  of  the  company  should  be 
exported. As such, the company was subject to an export obligation during the IP and 
the  Commission  initially  concluded  that  it  was  not  free  to  take  business  decisions 
according  to  market  signals  and  therefore,  the  first  MET  criterion  was  not  met. 
However, this company submitted evidence that these restrictions had been removed 
in March 2006. The company also substantiated its decision not to sell in the domestic 
market  in  the  period  up  to  and  including  the  IP  by  providing  evidence  that  this 
decision was taken exclusively in view of the situation of the company and its market 
prospects,  and  was  therefore,  despite  the  export  sales  requirement  in  the  business 
licence,  in  effect,  free  from  State  interference.  Given  that  the  company’s  business 
licence  no  longer  contains  the  export  sales  requirement,  and  that  the  company 
substantiated  its  claim  that  the  apparent  restriction  was  already  obsolete  before  its 
removal, the company meets the first MET criterion.  

(98)  The Chinese government and several exporters argued that the Commission only made 
a  decision  on  the  MET  status  of  the  sampled  companies,  thus  failing  to  address  the 
MET  claims  of  around  100  non-sampled  companies.  According  to  their  claim,  the 
Commission  is  obliged  to  make  individual  determinations  with  regard  to  submitted 
MET claims irrespectively whether an exporter is sampled or not. 

(99) 

It  should  first  be  noted  that  the  Commission  was  faced  in  this  proceeding  with  an 
unprecedentedly large number of co-operating exporters, i.e. more than 100. Against 
this background, the Commission had to ensure that the investigation could be carried 
out  with  the  available  resources,  within  the  legal  time  frame  and  without 
compromising the standards of assessment of MET claims. 

(100)  The Commission considers that the existing provision on sampling (Article 17 of the 
basic  Regulation)  fully  encompasses  the  situation  of  companies  claiming  MET. 
Indeed,  exporters  are  by  the  nature  of  the  sampling  exercise  denied  individual 
assessment in both market economy countries and in economies in transition, and the 
conclusions reached for the sample are extended to them.  

(101)  Article  17  of  the  basic  Regulation  sets  out  a  general  method  to  deal  with  situations 
where  an  individual  examination  is  no  longer  possible  due  to  the  high  number  of 
companies involved i.e. the use of a representative sample. There is no reason why this 
method  cannot  equally  be  applied  where  the  high  number  of  companies  involved 
includes a high number of companies requesting MET.  

(102)  Indeed, the question whether a sampled company applied for and received MET/IT or 
not  is  a  technical  question  and  only  relevant  for  the  methodology  to  determine  the 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
dumping margin. It only affects the data used for their dumping calculation, either the 
own data of the company or analogue country data is used. As in any other sampling 
case,  a  weighted  average  of  all  sampled  companies  is  established,  regardless  of  the 
methodology  applied  for  the  dumping  calculation  in  respect  of  each  company  as  a 
result of the MET/IT assessment. MET/IT should thus not prevent the application of 
normal sampling techniques. 

(103)  The key rationale of sampling is to balance administrative necessities to allow a case 
assessment  in  due  time  and  within  the  margin  of  mandatory  deadlines,  with  an 
individualised analysis to the best extent possible. The number of requests for MET in 
this  case  was  so  substantial  that  an  individual  examination  of  the  requests  –  as 
sometimes  done  in  other  cases  –  was  administratively  impossible.  Therefore,  it  was 
considered  reasonable  to  apply  equally  to  all  non-sampled  companies  the  weighted 
average margin resulting from all the companies selected for the sample, according to 
the criteria set out in recital (17), with no distinction being made between companies 
obtaining MET/IT or not. 

(104)  The  Community  industry  contested  the  granting  of  MET  to  5  of  the  companies 

detailed above.  

(105)  The  Community  industry  argued  that  one  of  the  companies  granted  MET  is  widely 
regarded  as  a  State  company,  and  that  having  been  until  recently  one  of  the  major 
state-owned trading groups, it is still likely to benefit from a favourable position with 
regard  to  the  Chinese  State,  and  be  influenced  by  it.  The  Community  industry  also 
pointed  out  that  the  transfer  of  assets  from  the  former  state-owned  company  to  the 
current  company  has  potential  carry-over  effects.  The  Commission  verified  the 
ownership and control structures of this company and concluded that since 2002 it has 
been  managed  by  private  investors,  free  from  State  control.  The  Commission  also 
examined the transfer of assets from the state-owned company and is satisfied that it 
took  place  under  market  economy  conditions.  No  evidence  has  been  presented  that 
would challenge those conclusions. The Community industry also argued that because 
the  company  has  benefited  from  an  export  subsidy  it  should  not  be  granted  MET. 
However, the amount and nature of this subsidy do not justify that MET be refused. 

(106)  Concerning  another  company  granted  MET,  the  Community  industry  claimed  that 
since  its  exports  are  largely  manufactured  through  tolling  arrangements  with  the 
company referred to above it should also be denied MET. However, given that it has 
been  found  that  the  first  mentioned  company  fulfils  the  MET  criteria,  there  are  no 
grounds to consider that this company does not fulfil the criteria because of the tolling 
arrangement between the two companies.  

(107)  Concerning  a  third  company  granted  MET,  the  Community  industry  considered  that 
the fact that the company has yet to make a profit means that it cannot be operating 
under  market  economy  conditions.  However  the  Commission  considered  that  this  is 
not  abnormal  during  the  start-up  phase  and  is  compatible  with  market  economy 
conditions.  The  Community  industry  also  argued  that  the  fact  that  the  company’s 
business  license  contained  during  the  IP  a  minimum  export  requirement  is 
incompatible  with  the  first  MET  criterion.  The  Commission  however  considers  that 
this  did  not  amount  to  an  effective  restriction  during  the  IP.  Firstly  because  the 
restriction  was  removed  in  the  2005  business  licence,  and  secondly  because  the 
percentage of export sales was always significantly above the threshold stipulated in 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
the old business licence, which indicates that the restriction in the business licence was 
already  obsolete.  Finally,  the  Community  industry  argued  that  an  auditor’s  remark 
concerning  the  valuation  of  raw  materials  by  this  third  company  means  that  its 
accounts  are  not  reliable.  The  Commission  however  considers  that  the  fact  that  the 
auditor made this remark, and that the company took measures to rectify the situation, 
confirms that its accounts are independently audited and reliable. 

(108)  Concerning  a  fourth  company  granted  MET  the  Community  industry  claimed  that 
there  was  state  interference  in  the  labour  policy  of  the  company  as  the  local 
administration approved the labour contract used. However this approval was for the 
structure  of  the  template  contract,  and  not  its  specific  terms.  As  such,  this  was  not 
considered state interference. 

(109)  Finally  the  Community  industry  disputed  the  granting  of  MET  to  a  fifth  company 
whose Articles of Association contained, during the IP, a provision that all production 
should  be  exported.  However,  this  company  sold  the  product  concerned  on  the 
Chinese domestic market both before and during the IP. In 2005 the company removed 
any restrictions from its Articles of Association and in these circumstances there is no 
reason for MET not to be granted. 

(110)  The  two  Chinese  exporting  producers  mentioned  in  recital  (87)  to  (90)  which  were 
declared non-cooperating, objected to the Commission's services conclusions that they 
should  be  treated  as  non-cooperating  and  should  be  denied  MET.  However,  the 
companies did not provide a convincing explanation or element that would refute the 
evidence which is at the disposal of the Commission and was collected during the on 
spot  verification  visits  at  the  premises  of  one  of  the  companies.  It  was  therefore 
confirmed that they should be treated as non-cooperating producers in this proceeding 
and denied MET accordingly. 

(111)  The  Advisory  Committee  was  consulted  and  the  parties  directly  concerned  were 
informed  accordingly.  The  main  arguments  raised  by  exporters  and  the  Community 
industry have already been addressed above. 

4.2. 

Non-cooperation of companies with the investigation 

(112)  Various  allegations  were  received  by  the  Commission  concerning  the  company 
described in the latter part of recital (86) which placed in question the validity of the 
information  received  by  the  Commission  during  the  on-spot  investigation,  in  their 
MET  claim  and  their  questionnaire  response.  These  allegations  were  verified  and  it 
was  found  indeed  that  the  export  invoices  submitted  during  the  on  spot  verification 
must have been manipulated to pretend a considerably higher export price. 

(113)  The evidence was presented to the company,  which contested  the view that  this  was 
sufficient to consider the company not cooperating with the investigation under Article 
18 of the basic Regulation. However it was unable to explain the difference between 
these  documents,  and  as  such  it  was  confirmed  that  it  should  be  treated  as  non-
cooperating in this proceeding. Indeed, given the nature of the non-cooperation, i.e. the 
submission  of  wrong  information  and  the  falsification  of  documents,  as  well  as  the 
time  when  this  was  found  out,  i.e.  towards  the  very  end  of  the  investigation,  the 
information submitted by this company has to be rejected totally as it cannot be ruled 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
out  that  other  information  and  documents  submitted  are  equally  affected  by  such 
behaviour. 

4.3. 

Normal value 

4.3.1.  Determination of normal value for exporting producers granted MET 

(114)  Three  companies  of  the  seven  granted  MET  had  globally  representative  domestic 
sales. However, given the lack of matching domestic and exported types, normal value 
had to be constructed for these companies in accordance with the methodology set out 
above.  For  the  remaining  four  companies  without  representative  domestic  sales, 
normal value also had to be constructed in accordance with the methodology set  out 
above. 

(115)  For  the  three  companies  with  representative  domestic  sales,  their  profit  made  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  trade  was  used,  as  well  as  domestic  SG&A  based  on  their  own 
domestic sales.  

(116)  For  the  four  remaining  companies  granted  MET  who  did  not  have  representative 
domestic  sales,  an  amount  for  SG&A  expenses  was  determined  on  the  basis  of  the 
average SG&A of the three companies with representative domestic sales. 

(117)  As only one Chinese exporting producer granted MET had overall profitable domestic 
sales  of  the  like  product  a  reasonable  profit  margin,  based  on  the  profit  of  this  one 
company on the sales in the domestic market of the same general category of products 
was used to construct normal value for the four companies with no domestic sales, in 
accordance with Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation.  

4.3.2.  Determination of normal value for exporting producers not granted MET 

(a) 

Analogue country 

(118)  According to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, in economies in transition normal 
value for exporting producers not granted MET has to be established on the basis of 
the price or constructed value in an analogue country. 

(119)  In the notice of initiation, the United States was proposed as an appropriate analogue 
country  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  normal  value  for  the  PRC.  The  Commission 
invited all interested parties to comment on this. 

(120)  Various  interested  parties  submitted  comments  proposing  Malaysia,  Thailand, 
Indonesia or India as the analogue country. Information was already available relating 
to producers in Malaysia and Thailand through their cooperation in this investigation. 
In  addition,  other  known  companies  were  contacted  in  the  United  States,  Indonesia 
and  India  with  a  view  to  determining  whether  those  countries  could  be  used  as 
analogue  countries.  Only  one  company  in  the  United  States  and  two  companies  in 
India  indicated  their  willingness  to  cooperate,  but  no  questionnaire  replies  were 
received from any of these producers.  

(121)  In the absence of cooperation from companies in the other possible analogue countries, 
the  suitability  of  Malaysia  was  examined.  It  was  found  that  Malaysia  has  a 
representative domestic market, where a wide range of types of the product concerned 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
are  produced  and  sold  and  a  large  number  of  suppliers  ensured  a  sufficient  level  of 
competition.  The  investigation  established  that  significant  domestic  sales  in  the 
ordinary course of trade were made by three cooperating sampled exporting producers 
in Malaysia. 

(122)  Following  the  disclosure  of  the  Commission  information  document  which  proposed 
Malaysia  as  analogue  country,  the  Community  industry  argued  that  the  Commission 
should  use  the  USA  as  an  analogue  country,  given  the  small  domestic  market  in 
Malaysia and the high import duties in force compared to those of the United States.  

(123)  This  argument  was  rejected  given  the  significant  domestic  sales  in  Malaysia  of  the 
product  concerned.  Furthermore,  it  was  found,  that,  while  the  import  duties  in 
Malaysia were high (30 %), imports from ASEAN countries, which were significant, 
benefited  from  a  preferential  rate  (5 %)  that  was  in  line  with  duties  in  the  USA.  It 
should  also  be  noted  that  despite  the  best  efforts  of  the  Commission  no  cooperation 
from any US producer of the product concerned was forthcoming. 

(124)  Given the lack of cooperation from companies in the USA, India and Indonesia, and 
the finding of no dumping from Malaysia, it was decided to use Malaysia as analogue 
country for the PRC. 

(b) 

Normal value 

(125)  Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for the cooperating 
exporting  producer  not  granted  MET  was  established  on  the  basis  of  verified 
information  received  from  the  producer  in  the  analogue  country,  i.e.  on  the  basis  of 
prices  paid  or  payable  on  the  domestic  market  of  Malaysia,  for  product  types  which 
were  found  to  be  made  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade,  in  accordance  with  the 
methodology  set  out  above.  Where  necessary,  those  prices  were  adjusted  so  as  to 
ensure a fair comparison with those product types exported to the Community by the 
Chinese producer concerned. 

(126)  As  a  result,  normal  value  was  established  as  the  weighted  average  domestic  sales 
price,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade,  to  unrelated  customers  by  the  cooperating 
producers in Malaysia with representative domestic sales. 

4.4. 

Export price 

(127)  The Chinese exporting producers made export sales to the Community either directly 
to independent customers or through trading companies located in Hong Kong and the 
Community.  Export  prices  were  determined  using  the  general  methodology  set  out 
above.  For  the  sales  channelled  through  related  sales  companies  in  Hong  Kong,  an 
adjustment  for  commissions  was  applied  in  accordance  with  Article  2(10)(i)  of  the 
basic Regulation where it was shown that these related sales companies performed the 
duties of a commission agent. The amount for  commission was  based  on  the  SG&A 
expenses  of  the  sales  company  and  a  profit  margin  of  3 %  was  used  based  on  the 
information gathered from unrelated traders in HK. 

4.5. 

Comparison 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
(128)  The normal value and export prices were compared on an ex-works basis, as described 
above,  with  adjustments,  where  appropriate,  in  accordance  with  Article  2(10)  of  the 
basic Regulation. 

(129)  One Chinese exporting producer claimed an adjustment under Article 2(10)(d) of the 
basic Regulation, corresponding to the market value of the difference in levels of trade 
between the export sales and some of the sales in the domestic market. However, the 
amounts  claimed  by  the  company  could  not  be  supported  through  the  corresponding 
difference in price levels in the domestic market and the adjustment was therefore not 
granted.  

4.6. 

Dumping margins 

(130)  The  dumping  margins,  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  CIF  import  price  at  the 

Community border, duty unpaid, are the following: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Cedo (Shanghai) Limited and Cedo (Shanghai) 
Household Wrappings Co., Ltd., Shanghai 

Chun Yip Plastics (Shenzhen) Ltd., Shenzhen 

Huizhou Jun Yang Plastics Co., Ltd., Huizhou 

Jinguan (Longhai) Plastics Packing Co., Ltd., Longhai 

Sunway  Kordis  (Shanghai)  Ltd.  and  Shanghai  Sunway 
Polysell Ltd, Shanghai 

Suzhou  Guoxin  Group  Co.  Ltd,  Suzhou  Guoxin  Group 
Taicang  Yihe  Import  &  Export  Co.,  Ltd,  Taicang 
Dongyuan  Plastic  Co.,  Ltd.  and  Suzhou  Guoxin  Group 
Taicang Giant Packaging Co., Ltd., Taicang 

7,4 % 

14,8 % 

4,8 % 

5,1 % 

4,8 % 

7,8 % 

Zhong Shan Qi Yu Plastic Products Co., Ltd., Zhongshan 

5,7 % 

Sampled cooperating exporting producers not granted IT, 
and cooperating exporting producers not in the sample 

–  Wuxi  Jiayihe  Packaging  Co.,  Ltd.  and  Wuxi  Bestpac 
Packaging Co., Ltd., Wuxi (not part of the sample) 

– 

All other companies 

8,4 % 

12,8 % 

28,8 % 

(131)  A dumping margin was calculated for the cooperating company in the sample that was 
not  granted  MET  or  IT,  as  shown  above,  for  the  purpose  of  calculating  an  average 
dumping  margin  for  the  entire  sample.  However,  that  company  will  not  receive  an 
individual duty rate, as described below in recital (227), since it was not granted MET 
or IT.  

1. 

Community production 

EN 

E. INJURY 

25 

   EN 

 
(132)  The product concerned is manufactured in the Community by hundreds of producers. 
The  industry  is  very  fragmented  and  comprises  predominantly  small  and  medium 
sized companies.  

(133)  In  calculating  Community  production,  during  the  IP,  the  estimated  Community 
consumption  estimated  as  explained  in  recitals  (158)  to  (159)  below  was  taken  as  a 
starting point. Imports into the Community, as registered by Eurostat, were subtracted 
from  the  consumption  figure.  The  resulting  production  figure  was  adjusted,  where 
necessary, on the basis of information submitted by national associations of producers. 
This  quantity  was  subsequently  reduced  with  the  production  quantities  of  the 
companies  not  included  in  the  definition  of  Community  industry  as  referred  to  in 
recital  (153)  below.  The  calculation  resulted  in  a  total  Community  production  of 
1 175 000 tonnes.  

(134)  Certain exporting producers, importers and retailers argued that the percentage of the 
Community  industry's  production  in  relation  to  the  total  Community  production  was 
below  25 %,  and  therefore  the  proceeding  should  be  terminated  due  to  the  lack  of 
support for the case. This submission was based on the argument that according to a 
major  commercial  market  intelligence  provider,  AMI3,  the  estimated  quantity  of 
extruded polyethylene film used for the production of the like product would account 
for more than the Community production figure used in the assessment of support.  

(135)  AMI  provides  certain  information  concerning  the  polyethylene  film  industry  in  its 

following two reports referred to by certain parties:  

–  Polyethylene film extruders, 6th edition (ISBN 1 904188 12 5), and 

–  Polyethylene film industry in Europe, 7th edition (and ISBN 1 904188 17 6) 

(136)  At the Commission’s request AMI gave permission to reproduce extracts of the reports 
referred to above. It should be noted that, in the “Publisher’s notice” to these reports, 
AMI mentions that “no legal responsibility is accepted for any errors or omissions in 
that information, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or 
any other cause, and no responsibility is accepted with regard to the standing of any 
to  reproduce 
firms  and  companies  mentioned”.  Furthermore, 
information contained in the above reports was obtained only subject to the following 
specific  disclaimer:  “[AMI]  are  not  responsible  for  any  misinterpretation  of  our 
information  on  the  part  of  any  of  the  industry  contacts  who  have  liaised  with  [the 
Commission]  or  indeed  interpretation  put  on  [AMI]  data  by  the  European 
Commission”. 

the  permission 

(137)  It should also be noted that, whereas AMI provides certain information concerning the 
polyethylene film industry in the two above-mentioned reports, it does not present any 
estimation of the market size of the product under investigation in the Community as 
such. The AMI reports estimate the end use applications of extruded polyethylene film 
as follows4:  

3 
4 

Applied Market Information Ltd., web address: www.amiplastics.com. 
AMI (web address: www.amiplastics.com), Polyethylene film extruders, 6th edition (ISBN 1 904188 12 
5), p 12. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Product group 

%  of 
applications 
polyethylene film 

end  use 
of 

(i)  Coex/laminating film  

(ii)  Other film 

(iii)  Shrink film 

(iv)  Stretch film 

(v)  Agriculture/building 

(vi)  Film on the reel 

(vii)  Heavy duty sacks 

(ix)  Refuse sacks 

(x) 

Shoppers 

(xi)  Other bags/sacks  

TOTAL 

8,2 % 

6,8 % 

13,8 % 

14,4 % 

8,0 % 

15,3 % 

7,5 % 

5,8 % 

8,3 % 

11,9 % 

100 % 

(138)   The AMI reports5 do not define the precise methods for the calculation of production 
figures  or  consumption  of  raw  materials.  It  is  estimated  in  the  reports  that  the 
consumption of polyethylene for film extrusion in Europe, as defined in recital (139) 
below, would have been 7 699 000 tonnes in 2004. When mentioning production, AMI 
refers  to  throughput  figures,  which,  as  shown  by  the  investigation,  would  usually 
represent the quantity of polyethylene processed through an extruder. With regard to 
sacks  and  bags  production,  this  throughput  figure  would  contain  quantities  of 
industrial waste (cutting waste, start-up waste and other inferior quality extruded film) 
which is effectively recycled in the process. Therefore, recycling of this waste would 
result  in  double  counting  because  certain  quantities  of  the  originally  virgin  raw 
material are put through the extrusion process more than once. 

(139)  AMI expresses all production figures as percentages representing end use applications 
of  consumption  of  polyethylene  for  film  extrusion  in  Europe.  The  geographical 
coverage of the report is France, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, Benelux (Belgium 
and Netherlands), Scandinavia (Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden), Spain, other 
Western Europe (Austria, Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Switzerland) and Central Europe 
(Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czech and Slovak Republics)6. The report does not cover 
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Cyprus of the Member States but it does cover 

5 

6 

AMI (web address: www.amiplastics.com), Polyethylene film extruders, 6th edition (ISBN 1 904188 12 
5), p 10. 
AMI (web address: www.amiplastics.com), Polyethylene film extruders, 6th edition (ISBN 1 904188 12 
5), p.7. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Switzerland,  Norway  and  Romania  which  do  not  fall  under  the  scope  if  this 
investigation.  

(140)  As the AMI figures cover a geographical region different from that of the Community, 
the  consumption  of  polyethylene  for  extrusion  in  the  Community  had  first  to  be 
established.  In  this  regard,  two  polyethylene  resin  suppliers  in  the  Community 
submitted  that  the  consumption  of  polyethylene  resin  for  film  extrusion  ranged 
between  6 100 000  and  6 500 000  tonnes  in  the  Community  during  2004.  The 
quantities  referred  to  below  have,  therefore,  been  calculated  by  using  this  range  of 
consumption.  

(141)  The parties referred to in recital (134) argued that categories (vi), (ix), (x) and (xi) of 
the  categories  listed  above  in  recital  (137)  should  be  included  in  the  product  under 
investigation in part or in full.  

(142)  It  seems  clear  that  the  category  “shoppers”  would  fall  in  the  product  under 
investigation  based  on  their  physical  characteristics  representing  8,3 %  (i.e.  from 
506 300 to 539 500 tonnes) of the end uses. However, it is also likely that part of the 
refuse sacks, representing in total 5,8 % (i.e. from 353 800 to 377 000 tonnes) of the 
end uses, does not fall under this definition because refuse sacks are likely to include 
sacks of more than 100 microns in thickness and thus part of this category should be 
excluded from the definition. 

(143)  Certain  parties  alleged  that  up  to  65 %  of  the  category  called  “film  on  the  reel” 
representing  15,3 %7  of  the  total  end  uses)  would  fall  under  the  definition  of  the 
product  under  investigation.  In  this  regard  it  is  recalled  that  AMI  itself  mention  this 
category as containing uses “such as laundry film, hygiene film, tissue overwrap and 
general  surface  protection  films”.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  mentioned  end-use 
applications are defined as “film” and thus do not fall under the category of bags and 
sacks. Moreover, the on-spot verifications carried out in the course of the investigation 
at  the  premises  of  seven  production  plants  of  five  Community  producers  in  two 
countries  showed  that  film  on  the  reel,  extruded  externally,  was  not  used  in  the 
production  of  the  like  product.  Furthermore,  the  verification  visits  carried  out  at  the 
premises of 21 exporting producers in the three countries concerned gave no support 
to the claim that film on the reel, extruded externally, would be used in the production 
of  the  product  concerned.  Based  on  the  above,  the  argument  that  a  large  part  of  the 
category “film on the reel” should be included in the production of the like product in 
the Community had to be rejected. 

(144)  It was also claimed by some parties that the end use application defined in the report 
as “other bags/sacks”, representing 11,9 %8 of the total end uses, should be included in 
the  Community  production  figures.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  these  parties  did  not 
substantiate this claim in terms of quantities. This category is reported as “other film” 
in  “AMI’s  guide  to  the  polyethylene  industry  in  Europe”  in  its  country  specific 
production figures and is not defined as bags or sacks on this level. Whilst it is unclear 
which products are included by AMI in the category “other sacks and bags”, at least 

7 

8 

AMI  (web  address:  www.amiplastics.com),  Polyethylene  film  extruders,  6th  edition  (ISBN  1  904188 
12 5), p 12. 
AMI  (web  address:  www.amiplastics.com),  Polyethylene  film  extruders,  6th  edition  (ISBN  1  904188 
12 5), p. 6. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
                                                 
all  those  products  not  falling  under  the  product  description  should  be  excluded  from 
the estimate. In this regard, according to certain party, the category other “sacks and 
bags” also includes film used for “FFS – packaging” for food or “form, fill and seal - 
packaging”, which is a type of packaging where a bag is formed, filled and sealed in 
an integrated process. FFS equipment is typically fully automatic. This product is not 
sold as bags or sacks nor do imports of this product fall within CN codes 3923 21 00, 
3923  29  10  and  3923  29  90.  Given  that  the  estimates  of  the  interested  parties, 
concerning the share of the product under investigation in this group, varied between 
15 %  and  100 %  and  were  not  substantiated it  was  not  possible  to  make  an  accurate 
estimation  as  to  which  proportion  of  this  group  should  be  included  in  the  product 
under  investigation.  Therefore,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  there  was  absence  of  any 
substantiated information in this regard, it was considered reasonable to include 50 % 
of this product category for the purposes of this calculation. The resulting production 
in this group would thus be in the range from 363 000 to 387 000 tonnes.  

(145)  Certain parties claimed that up to 1 million tonnes of recycled material would be used 
for  the  production  of  the  like  product.  According  to  AMI  approximately  1  million 
tonnes9  of  reclaimed  material  would  indeed  be  used  in  polyethylene  extrusion.  AMI 
does not specify into which particular product categories this usage can be allocated. 
Moreover, the on-spot verifications showed that there is a very limited supply of post- 
consumer  recycled  material  on  the  market,  whilst  industrial  waste  created  in  the 
production process is efficiently recycled. In this regard, it is to be noted that industrial 
waste is already included in the production figures when used as virgin material and 
thus any inclusion of this quantity in the production would result in double counting. 
The  investigation  showed  that  post-consumer  recycled  material  is  mainly  used  for 
production of refuse sacks. Certain parties argued that up to 25 % of the raw material 
of this category of the like product would be post-consumer recycled material. Based 
on the information received from interested parties this could amount to 20 % of the 
production  of  these  bags.  As  this  quantity  is  not  already  included  in  AMI’s  end-use 
estimate  of  this  product  this  quantity  should  be  added  on  top  of  this  production 
estimate. Therefore, a corresponding adjustment of 20 % was made in the quantity of 
refuse sacks resulting in additional production of the product concerned in the range 
from 88 000 to 94 000 tonnes. 

(146)  The  resulting  total  production  quantity,  based  on  the  considerations  presented  in 
recitals (135) to (145), is in the range from 1 311 000 to 1 398 000 tonnes of product 
under  investigation.  This  estimate  however  contains  all  refuse  bags  and  it  should  be 
recalled  that  some  refuse  sacks  can  be  more  than  100  microns  of  thickness  and  thus 
outside the product definition. Therefore this range represents rather an overestimate 
of the production.  

(147)  To  arrive  at  the  Community  production, the  production  of  companies  excluded  from 
the  Community  industry  representing  119  000  tonnes  of  production  should  be 
subtracted  from  the  above  figures.  This  results  in  a  Community  production  in  the 
range  from  1  193  000  to  1  279  000  tonnes  of  production  of  the  product  under 
investigation.  The  estimate  of  the  Community  production  at  initiation  of  the 

9 

AMI  (web  address:  www.amiplastics.com),  Polyethylene  film  extruders,  6th  edition  (ISBN  1  904188 
12 5), p. 10. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
                                                 
proceeding of 1 240 000 tonnes falls within the range of this calculation and the 25 % 
threshold concerning the support to the case is fulfilled to the upper limit of the range.  

(148)  The  above  analysis  clearly  shows  that  the  information  referred  to  by  certain  parties 
mentioned  above  in  recital  (134)  is  not  such  as  to  undermine  the  estimate  of  the 
Community  production  of 
the 
Commission which is referred to in recital (150) below. 

investigation  prepared  by 

the  product  under 

(149)  On  the  basis  of  the  above,  the  arguments  concerning  the  lack  of  support  of  the  case 

made by these parties had to be rejected.  

2. 

Definition of the Community industry 

(150)  At  initiation  stage,  the  accumulated  production  of  the  29  complaining  Community 
producers represented 331 500 tonnes, i.e. 26,7 % in relation to the total Community 
production of 1 240 000 tonnes measured at the stage of initiation. The accumulated 
production  of  Community  producers  opposing  the  proceeding  amounted  to  less  than 
half of the aforementioned amount of support.  

(151)  In addition, it is noted that another 21 companies with a total production of 302 000 
tonnes  supported  the  complaint  at  initiation  stage.  Thus,  in  total  the  complaint  was 
supported  by  Community  producers  representing  more  than  50 %  in  relation  to  the 
total Community production of 1 240 000 tonnes. 

(152)  During  the  investigation  five  of  the  complaining  Community  producers  failed  to  co-
operate with the investigation. At the same time seven other producers supporting the 
proceeding, co-operated with the investigation. 

(153)  Another  three  co-operating  companies  were  excluded  from  the  definition  of  the 
Community industry and their production was thus not included in the production of 
the Community industry as one company was importing significant quantities from its 
related exporter in China and two other  companies imported significant quantities in 
relation to their production in the Community from the countries concerned. A fourth 
company,  which  opposed  the  proceeding  and  which  did  not  cooperate  with  the 
investigation as a Community producer, was also excluded from the definition of the 
Community  industry  as  it  had  a  related  exporting  producer  in  one  of  the  countries 
concerned  and  it  imported  significant  volumes  of  the  product  concerned  into  the 
Community in relation to its production in the Community.  

(154)  Certain  parties  claimed 

that 

the  company  opposing 

the  proceeding,  British 
Polyethylene  Industries  plc  (‘BPI’),  had  been  excluded  from  the  definition  of  the 
Community  industry  and  thereby  from  the  total  Community  production,  whereas 
another  company  supporting  the  proceeding,  Cedo  Ltd.,  had  been  included,  even 
though  both  companies  had  a  similar  situation  having  production  both  in  the 
Community  and  in  the  countries  concerned.  To  this  end  it  has  to  be  noted  that  both 
companies were treated on an equal basis and both companies were excluded based on 
the reasons set out in recital (153) above. 

(155)  Certain parties argued that two of sampled Community producers should be excluded 
from  the  definition  of  the  Community  industry  as  they  imported  considerable 
quantities  of  the  product  concerned  originating  in  the  PRC  and  Thailand.  In  this 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
respect, it should be firstly noted that, whereas it is indeed a long standing practice that 
importing Community producers should be excluded from the Community industry if 
they are either shielded from dumping or benefiting from it, they are not excluded if it 
is  found  that  the  Community  producers  were  forced  to  have  a  temporary  and  very 
limited recourse to imports, because of the depressed price situation in the Community 
market. In this case, the total imports of these two companies during the IP represented 
1% and 0,1% of their respective total production. Given the small quantities at stake, 
the  two  Community  producers  can  be  considered  part  of  the  definition  of  the 
Community  industry  within  the  meaning  of  Article  4(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  On 
this basis, the argument was rejected. 

(156)  The  24  complaining  Community  producers  and  the  seven  other  producers  having 
cooperated  with  the  investigation  are  therefore  deemed  to  constitute  the  Community 
industry within the meaning of Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of the basic Regulation. Overall 
these companies represent approximately 358 000 tonnes or 31 % of the Community 
production measured during the investigation. 

(157)  It  is  noted  that  another  nine  companies,  representing  57  000  tonnes  of  production 
expressed their support to the investigation, however, these companies did not manage 
to co-operate fully with the investigation and were thus not included in the definition 
of the Community industry.  

3. 

Community consumption 

(158)  The apparent Community consumption was established on the basis of data reported in 
the  complaint  lodged  by  the  complainant.  The  complainants’  market  intelligence  in 
various  markets  and  data  derived  from  market  information  provided  by  two 
commercial  agencies  was  taken  as  basis.  The  information  gathered  concerning  the 
market  in  Belgium,  France,  Italy,  Luxemburg,  the  Netherlands  and  Spain  was  then 
used to extrapolate the community consumption in the remaining Member States.  

(159)  Based  on  the  above  analysis,  the  Community  consumption  increased  throughout  the 
period  considered  by  6 %  from  the  beginning  of  the  period  considered,  i.e.  from 
1 582 000  tonnes  in  the  year  2001  to  1 674 000  tonnes  in  the  IP.  Detailed  data, 
expressed in tonnes is as follows: 

Consumption 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

IP 

1000 tonnes 

1 582 

1 618 

1 653 

1 670 

1 674 

Index 

100 

102 

104 

105 

106 

Source: Complaint 

4. 

Imports from the countries concerned 

4.1. 

Cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports concerned 

(160)  The  Commission  examined  whether  imports  of  certain  plastic  sacks  and  bags 
originating in the countries concerned should be assessed cumulatively in accordance 
with  Article  3(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  This  Article  provides  that  the  effects  of 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
imports  from  two  or  more  countries  simultaneously  subject  to  anti-dumping 
investigations  are  to  be  assessed  cumulatively  only  if  it  is  determined  that  (a)  the 
margin  of  dumping  established  in  relation  to  the  imports  from  each  country  is  more 
than de minimis as defined in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation and that the volume 
of  imports  of  each  country  is  not  negligible  and  (b)  a  cumulative  assessment  is 
appropriate  in  the  light  of  the  conditions  of  competition  between  imported  products 
and  the  conditions  of  competition  between  the  imported  products  and  the  like 
Community product. 

(161)  As the overall dumping margin for Malaysia was found to be below 2 %, i.e. below de 
minimis,  imports  from  Malaysia  were  excluded  from  the  cumulative  assessment.  In 
that regard, the dumping margins established in relation to the imports originating in 
the PRC and in Thailand were found to be above the de minimis level of 2 % set forth 
in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation. Furthermore, since during the IP imports from 
the  PRC  represented  a  market  share  of  14,4 %  and  imports  from  Thailand  a  market 
share of 4 %, the volumes of imports from the PRC and Thailand were not negligible. 

(162)  As  regards  the  conditions  of  competition,  the  investigation  showed  that  the  products 
imported  from  the  PRC  and  Thailand  were  alike  in  all  their  essential  physical 
characteristics.  Furthermore,  on  that  basis,  plastic  sacks  and  bags  imported  from  the 
PRC and Thailand were interchangeable and were marketed in the Community during 
the  period  considered  through  comparable  sales  channels  and  under  similar 
commercial  conditions.  Imports  from  both  countries  showed  similar  trends  of  prices 
and  volumes  and  both  showed  significant  levels  of  undercutting.  Moreover,  it  is 
recalled  that  the  imported  product  was  found  to  be  alike  to  plastic  sacks  and  bags 
produced  in  the  Community  and  as  such  competes  with  them  under  the  same 
conditions of competition.  

(163)  In the light of the above, it is considered that all the criteria set out in Article 3(4) of 
the  basic  Regulation  were  met  and  that  imports  from  the  PRC  and  Thailand  should 
therefore be examined cumulatively. 

5. 

Volume of the imports concerned and market share 

(164)  The volume of dumped imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC and 
Thailand  as  reported  by  Eurostat  increased  from  approximately  219  000  tonnes  in 
2001 to 307 000 tonnes in the IP representing an increase of 40 %. The sharp increase 
in  imports  over  the  period  concerned  has  absorbed  96 %  of  the  increase  in 
consumption that occurred in the Community market over the same period. 

(165)  All  imports  of  the  product  concerned  were  declared  under  CN  code  ex  3923  21  00 
(sacks  and  bags  of  polymers  of  ethylene).  Imports  under  CN  codes  ex  3923  29  10 
(sacks  and  bags  of  polyvinyl  chloride)  and  ex  3923  29  90  (sacks  and  bags  of  other 
plastics) were not included in the calculation, as according to the available information 
there was no production of sacks and bags where polyethylene does not predominate 
by weight, and, consequently, there are currently no imports of the product concerned 
under these CN codes. 

Cumulated imports  

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

IP 

in 1000 tonnes 

219 

239 

288 

299 

307 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
Index 

100 

109 

132 

137 

140 

(166)  During  the  period  considered,  the  dumped  imports  originating  in  the  PRC  and 
Thailand increased their share of the Community market by 33 % from 13,8 % in 2001 
to 18,3 % in the IP. 

Market share  

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

IP 

Cumulated  

13,8 %

14,8 %

17,4 %

18,0 %  18,3 %

Index 

100

107

126

130 

133

6. 

Prices of the imports concerned and price undercutting 

(167)  Price  information  given  below  was  derived  from  Eurostat  data  based  on  the  import 
volumes established using the methodology described above. This information showed 
that between 2001 and the IP, the average CIF prices of imports originating in the PRC 
and Thailand decreased by 14 %. Prices hit rock bottom in 2003 and increased slightly 
until  the  IP.  However,  they  did  not  reach  the  price  level  of  2001  and  2002  and 
remained on a low level. 

Prices  of  imports 
in euro/kg 

Cumulated 

Index 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

IP 

1,42

100

1,25

88

1,09

77

1,16 

82 

1,22 

86 

(168)  For  the  determination  of  the  price  undercutting  of  the  imports  concerned,  the 
Commission  based  its  analysis  on  the  information  submitted  in  the  course  of  the 
investigation  by  the  sampled  exporting  producers  and  the  sampled  Community 
producers.  This  analysis  compared  per  product  type  the  actual  CIF  prices  of  the 
exporting  producers  at  Community  frontier  level  adjusted  by  any  post-importation 
costs with the relevant weighted average sales prices to independent customers of the 
Community industry adjusted to ex-works level.  

(169)  This comparison showed that during the IP, based on product types as defined in the 
questionnaire and on a weighted average basis, the products concerned originating in 
the  countries  concerned  were  sold  in  the  Community  at  prices  which  undercut  the 
Community  industry's  prices,  when  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  latter,  between 
4,1 % to 37,9 % for the PRC and Thailand. 

7. 

Economic situation of the Community industry 

7.1. 

Preliminary remarks 

(170)  Pursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the 
dumped  imports  on  the  Community  industry  included  an  evaluation  of  all  relevant 
economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Community industry 
during the period considered. This analysis was carried out for the sampled companies 
as mentioned above. On this basis, the industry's performance as measured by factors 
such as prices, wages, investments, profits, return on investment, cash flow and ability 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
to  raise  capital  has  been  established  on  the  basis  of  information  from  the  sampled 
companies.  However,  in  order  to  provide  a  complete  picture  of  the  situation  of  the 
Community industry, for those indicators for which reliable information was available 
for  the  Community  industry  as  a  whole,  this  information  has  also  been  provided 
below.  Therefore,  injury  factors  such  as  market  share,  sales  volume,  employment, 
production  capacity,  inventories  and  production  have  been  established  for  the  full 
Community industry. 

7.2. 

Production capacity, production, capacity utilisation 

(171)  The Community industry's production capacity increased during the period considered 
by 66 000 tonnes or by 17 %. Over the same period production only increased by 9 %. 
Consequently,  the  capacity  utilisation  rate  of  the  Community  industry  decreased  by 
6 %. 

Production 1000 tonnes  

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

IP 

Production  

Index 

Production capacity  

Index 

Capacity utilisation % 

Index 

328

100

399

100

82

100

346

105

423

106

82

99

353

107

444

111

80

97

359 

109 

463 

116 

78 

94 

358 

109 

465 

117 

77 

94 

Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry. 

7.3. 

Inventories 

(172)  Six  non-sampled  producers  could  not  provide  consistent  information  on  their 
inventories  due  to  insufficient  information  supplied  by  their  stock-management 
systems regarding the like product. Accordingly, data from these companies had to be 
excluded  when  carrying  out  the  analysis  of  stocks  for  the  period  considered.  This 
analysis was based on the information provided by the sampled producers and 20 non-
sampled producers. 

Stocks  

Tonnes 

Index 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

IP 

24 110 

26 446 

26 757 

25 016  28 994 

100 

110 

111 

104 

120 

Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry. 

(173)  During  the  IP,  inventories  of  finished  products  represented  around  8 %  of  the 
Community  industry’s  total  production  volume.  The  level  of  closing  stocks  of  the 
Community industry first increased by 11 % in 2003 and then marked a decrease of 7 
percentage points in 2004, before rising by to 20 percentage points in the IP compared 
to 2001.  

7.4. 

Sales volume, market share and growth 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
(174)  The  sales  volume  of  the  Community  industry  increased  by  10 %  during  the  period 
considered. It reached a peak in 2004, but then declined slightly in the IP. The overall 
proportional increase was higher than the increase of the total consumption which was 
6 %. 

Sales volume  

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

IP 

tonnes  

Index 

308 068

330 103

334 818 341 701  338 940 

100

107

109

111 

110 

Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry. 

(175)  The  market  share  of  the  Community  industry  has  increased  by  4 %  over  the  period 
considered.  After  a  first  increase  of  5 %  between  2001  and  2002,  it  remained 
unchanged  until  2004  and  showed  a  slight  decrease  in  the  IP.  At  the  same  time 
Community consumption increased by 6 % over the period considered. Therefore, the 
Community industry was able to take advantage of the growth of the market between 
2001 and the IP. 

Market share  

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

IP 

% 

Index 

19,5 %

20,4 %

20,3 % 20,5 % 

20,2 % 

100

105

104

105 

104 

Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry. 

7.5. 

Employment, productivity and wages 

(176)  The  level  of  employment  of  the  Community  industry  decreased  over  the  period 
considered  by  1 %.  Over  the  same  period,  its  productivity,  measured  as  output  per 
person employed per year, increased by 10 %. 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

IP 

Number of employees 

3 325

3 353

3 381

3 338 

3 302 

Index 

Productivity:  production 
per employee  

Index 

100

99

100

101

103

104

102

104

105

100 

99 

108 

108 

109 

109 

Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry. 

(177)  Over the period considered the total annual cost of labour per employee increased by 
7 %. After an increase of 8 % between 2001 and 2004, the average wage decreased by 
1 % between 2004 and the IP. 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

IP 

labour  cost  per 

Total 
employee in euro  

32 801  

34 507 

34 794 

35 533 

35 217 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
Index 

100

105

106

108 

107 

Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry. 

7.6. 

Sales prices 

(178)  The  sampled  Community  industry  producers'  average  net  sales  price  decreased  from 
1,50 euro per kg in 2001 to 1,47 euro per kg in the IP. Prices first decreased by 4 % in 
2002  and  by  a  further  2 %  in  2003.  Between  2003  and  2004  they  showed  a  slight 
increase  of  0,7 %  and  increased  further  by  3,5 %  in  the  IP.  This  rather  stable  price 
development  should  be  seen  in  the  light  of  the  development  of  raw  material  prices 
which increased considerably, i.e. by 23 %. 

Sales prices to unrelated 
customers in the 
Community in euro/kg 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

IP 

1,50

1,44

1,41

1,42 

1,47 

Index 

100

96

94

95 

98 

Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry. 

7.7. 

Profitability 

(179)  During  the  period  considered  the  profitability  of  the  sampled  Community  industry 
producers'  sales  in  the  Community  to  unrelated  customers  fell  by  82 %.  In  the  years 
2001  to  2002  the  sampled  Community  industry  still  reached  a  sustainable  level  of 
profitability.  However,  between  2002  and  the  IP  profitability  showed  a  continuous 
strong  decrease,  reaching  only  1,1 %  in  the  IP,  while  several  of  the  sampled 
companies recorded losses. 

Profitability 

Index 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

IP 

6,3 %

6,9 %

4,0 %

2,5 % 

1,1 % 

100

110

63

40 

17 

Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry. 

7.8. 

Investments and return on investments 

(180)  The  Community  industry's  annual  investment  in  the  production  of  the  like  product 
declined by 30 % during the period considered from approximately 16 million euro to 
less than 12 million euro.  

2001

2002

2003

2004 

IP 

Investments (1000 euro) 

16 474

20 956

11 363

16 830 

11 507 

Index 

100

127

69

102 

70 

Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
(181)  The  sampled  Community  industry  producers'  return  on  investment,  which  expresses 
their pre-tax result as a percentage of the average opening and closing net book value 
of assets employed in the production of the like product, decreased dramatically as a 
result  of  decreasing  profitability.  Whereas  the  return  on  investment  remained  stable 
between 2001 and 2002, it thereafter declined sharply to 6 % in the IP representing an 
overall decrease of 84 % between 2001 and the IP. 

2001

2002

2003

2004 

IP 

Return on Investment % 

37 %

37 %

20 %

12 % 

6 % 

Index 

100

100

54

32 

16 

Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry. 

7.9. 

Cash flow 

(182)  The  sampled  Community  industry  producers  recorded  a  net  cash  inflow  from 
operating  activities  during  the  period  considered.  However,  when  expressed  as  a 
percentage  of  turnover,  the  net  cash  inflow  showed  a  marked  decline  in  percentage 
terms, especially during the IP, in line with the decrease in profitability. 

2001

2002

2003

2004 

IP 

Cash flow (in 1000 euro) 

14 965

23 307

17 652

17 598 

4 706 

Index 

100

156

118

118 

31 

Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry. 

7.10. 

Ability to raise capital 

(183)  Much of the Community industry is made up of small or medium sized enterprises. In 
consequence,  the  Community  industry’s  ability  to  raise  capital  was  reduced  to  some 
extent  during  the  period  considered,  especially  in  the  latter  part  thereof,  when 
profitability was extremely low. 

7.11. 

Recovery from past dumping or subsidisation 

(184)  The  Community  industry  was  not  in  a  situation  where  it  had  to  recover  from  past 

effects of injurious dumping or subsidisation. 

7.12.  Magnitude of dumping margin 

(185)  As  concerns  the  impact  on  the  Community  industry  of  the  magnitude  of  the  actual 
margin of dumping, given the volume and the prices of the imports from the PRC and 
Thailand, this impact is substantial. 

8. 

Conclusion on injury 

(186)  The examination of the abovementioned factors shows that between 2001 and the IP, 
the  dumped  imports  increased  sharply  in  terms  of  volume  and  market  share.  In  fact, 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
 
 
their  volume  increased  by  40 %  during  the  period  considered  and  they  achieved  a 
market  share  of  18,3 %  in  the  IP.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  in  the  IP  they  accounted  for 
approximately  57 %  of  total  imports  of  the  product  concerned  into  the  Community. 
Moreover,  in  the  IP,  the  sales  prices  of  the  Community  industry  were  substantially 
undercut (from 4,1 % to 37,9 %) by those of the imports of the product concerned. As 
a consequence, the Community industry’s prices were depressed and reached close to 
break even level. 

(187)  A  deterioration  of  the  Community  industry  situation  was  found  during  the  period 
considered.  The  Community  industry  suffered  a  dramatic  decline  of  5,2  percentage 
points  in  profitability  to  reach  close  to  break  even  level  in  the  IP.  Its  return  on 
investment  decreased  at  the  same  time  by  31  percentage  points  and  there  was  a 
significant  decrease  of  69 %  in  its  cash-flow.  Moreover  its  capacity  utilisation 
decreased  by  5 %,  its  sales  prices  decreased  by  2 %,  employment  decreased  by  1 %, 
closing stocks increased by 20 %, its investment decreased by 30 % and its ability to 
raise capital gradually deteriorated. 

(188)  Production capacity of the Community industry increased to a certain extent during the 
period  concerned.  However,  this  has  to  be  considered  in  the  context  of  the  total 
Community production which was hit by the closure of a number of companies having 
a  production  capacity  of  more  than  140  000  tonnes.  The  Community  industry 
increased  its  capacity  by  acquiring  production  assets  from  the  companies  subject  to 
these shut-downs.  

(189)  In  the  light  of  the  foregoing,  it  is  concluded  that  the  Community  industry  is  in  a 
difficult economic and financial situation and has suffered material injury, within the 
meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation. 

1. 

Introduction 

F. CAUSATION 

(190)  In  accordance  with  Articles  3(6)  and  3(7)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  Commission 
examined  whether  the  dumped  imports  originating  in  Thailand  and  the  PRC  have 
caused  injury  to  the  Community  industry  to  a  degree  that  may  be  considered  as 
material. Known factors other than the dumped imports, which could at the same time 
have injured the Community industry, were also examined to ensure that the possible 
injury caused by these other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports. 

2. 

Effect of the dumped imports 

(191)  Between  2001  and  the  IP,  dumped  imports  originating  in  the  PRC  and  Thailand 
increased  by  40 %  in  volume.  At  the  same  time  the  market  share  of  these  imports 
increased  from  13,8 %  in  2001  to  18,3 %  in  the  IP.  The  import  prices  from  these 
countries  decreased  substantially  during  the  period  considered  and  undercut  the 
Community industry's prices in the IP between 4,1 % to 37,9 %. 

(192)  This undercutting is resulting, on an average basis, from pricing that does not cover all 

costs in the commercialization chain. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
(193)  The substantial increase in volume of the imports at very low and dumped prices and 
their gain in market share over the period considered coincided with the deterioration 
of  the  situation  of  the  Community  industry  during  the  same  period,  in  particular  in 
terms  profitability,  sales  prices,  closing  stocks,  investment,  capacity  utilisation,  cash 
flow, ability to raise capital and return on investment. 

(194)  It is therefore concluded that the pressure exerted by the imports concerned, played a 

determining role in the injurious situation of the Community industry. 

3. 

Effect of other factors 

3.1. 

Performance of other Community producers 

(195)  As  regards  the  sales  volumes  of  the  other  Community  producers,  they  decreased  by 
7,1 % in terms of volume between 2001 and the IP and decreased by 7,8 % in terms of 
market share during the same period. No indication was found that the prices of other 
Community producers were lower than those of the cooperating Community industry, 
or  that  their  overall  situation  would  be  different.  Therefore,  it  is  concluded  that  the 
products produced and sold by the other Community producers  did not contribute to 
the injury suffered by the Community industry. 

3.2. 

Imports from other third countries 

(196)  According to information derived from Eurostat, the volume of imports originating in 
other third countries (e.g. Malaysia, Turkey, India and Indonesia) increased by 22 % 
over the period considered and reached a level of approximately 231 000 tonnes in the 
IP. This corresponds to a market share of 13,8 %. Over the same period, the prices of 
these imports decreased by 11 % (from 1,66 euro/kg in 2001 to 1,48 euro/kg in the IP). 
However, it is to be noted that the average price of these imports was above that of the 
imports  originating  in  the  PRC  and  Thailand  during  the  IP  and  even  slightly  higher 
than that of the Community Industry. It is therefore concluded that imports from other 
third  countries  have  not  materially  contributed  to  the  injury  suffered  by  the 
Community industry. 

3.3. 

Raw material prices 

(197)  It  was  alleged  by  some  parties  that  the  price  of  polyethylene  has  been  historically 
lower  in  Asia  than  its  price  in  the  EU.  However,  the  evolution  of  the  polyethylene 
prices reveals that the raw material prices in Asia fluctuated both below and above the 
corresponding  European  prices  during  the  period  considered.  Based  on  the  figures 
presented  by  these  parties  concerning  the  situation  in  the  PRC,  the  average  price 
differential in raw materials in the PRC compared to the EU decreased from 20,3 % to 
12,3 % between 2001 and 2004 whilst at the same time the average price differential 
in the final product increased from 0,7 % to 14,8 %. As the development of prices of 
the  raw  material  should  have  led  to  a  decrease  in  the  price  differential  of  the  final 
product rather than an increase in this price differential, the investigation showed that 
there was no logical correlation between the development of the raw material price and 
the  price  of  the  final  product  exported  to  the  Community.  On  the  contrary,  the 
Community  industry  was  in  relatively  good  shape  in  2001  although  the  price 
differential  was  at  its  highest,  and  showed  an  injurious  situation  in  2004  and  the  IP 
when the price differential was much smaller. Therefore, it must be concluded that the 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
differential in the raw material prices cannot be considered to have contributed to the 
material injury of the Community industry in a significant way. 

(198)  Some parties further alleged that the injury suffered by the Community industry was 
not  caused  by  the  dumped  imports  but  by  the  increase  in  the  polyethylene  prices 
during the period considered in the Community. To this end it has to be noted that the 
polyethylene  prices  have  on  an  average  basis  indeed  increased  during  the  period 
considered.  However,  the  Community  industry  could  not  increase  their  respective 
sales  prices  accordingly.  This  inflexibility  in  prices  has  been  caused  by  the 
simultaneous surge of dumped imports originating in the PRC and Thailand, at prices 
significantly undercutting those of the Community industry and, on an average basis, 
not  even  covering  the  cost  of  production  in  the  PRC  and  Thailand.  Under  these 
circumstances it has to be concluded that the Community industry has been exposed to 
heavy price pressure by these dumped imports and consequently has had no possibility 
to  compensate  for  the  increase  in  the  raw  material  prices  by  increasing  their  sales 
prices respectively.  

(199)  Finally, it is recalled that in the context of the investigation of a causal link, it has to be 
examined whether the dumped imports (in terms of prices and volumes) have caused 
material injury to the Community industry or whether such material injury was due to 
other factors. In this respect, with regard to prices, Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation 
refers to a demonstration that the price level of the dumped imports causes injury. It 
therefore  merely  refers  to  a  difference  between  price  levels  of  dumped  imports  and 
those of the Community industry. Thus, there is no requirement to analyse the factors 
affecting the level of the import prices, such as for example the level of labour costs, 
the level of prices of raw materials or the level of the SG&A costs.  

(200)  The  above  is  also  confirmed  by  the  wording  of  Article  3(7)  of  the  basic  Regulation, 
which refers to known factors other than dumped imports. Indeed, the list of the other 
known factors in this Article does not make reference to any factor affecting the price 
level  of  the  dumped  imports.  In  sum,  if  the  exports  are  dumped,  and  even  if  they 
benefited  from  a  favourable  development  in  prices  of  raw  materials,  it  is  difficult  to 
see  how  the  favourable  development  of  such  input  prices  could  be  another  factor 
causing injury. 

(201)  Thus,  the  analysis  of  the  factors  affecting  the  level  of  the  prices  of  the  dumped 
imports,  be  it  differences  in  prices  in  raw  materials  or  something  else,  cannot  be 
conclusive  and  such  analysis  would  go  beyond  the  requirements  of  the  basic 
Regulation.  Equally  on  this  basis,  the  arguments  concerning  the  raw  material  prices 
are rejected. 

4. 

Conclusion on causation 

(202)  The injurious situation of the Community industry coincided with a sharp increase in 
imports  from  the  PRC  and  Thailand  and  a  substantial  price  undercutting  by  these 
imports. 

(203)  As  to  the  imports  from  other  third  countries,  in  view  of  their  lower  market  share 
during the IP than that of the imports concerned, and especially in view of the higher 
average  price  than  that  of  the  imports  concerned  during  the  IP  and,  even  more 
important, higher than that of the Community industry, it is concluded that the effect 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
of these  other factors could not have  materially contributed to the injury suffered by 
the  Community  industry.  Furthermore,  the  effect  of  the  differential  in  raw  material 
prices  in  the  Community  and  the  countries  concerned  on  the  Community  industry's 
negative  developments  in  terms  of  profitability,  performance  and  decrease  in  market 
share was negligible and in fact should have contributed positively to the situation of 
the Community industry. 

(204)  No other factors, which could at the same time have injured the Community industry, 

were raised by interested parties or identified during the course of the investigation. 

(205)  Given the above analysis which has properly distinguished and separated the effects of 
all  the  known  factors  on  the  situation  of  the  Community  Industry  from  the  injurious 
effects of the dumped imports, the investigation confirmed that these other factors as 
such do not reverse the fact that the injury assessed must be attributed to the dumped 
imports.  

(206)  It is therefore concluded that the dumped imports originating in the PRC and Thailand 
have caused material injury to the Community industry within the meaning of Article 
3(6) of the basic Regulation. 

G. COMMUNITY INTEREST 

(207)  In  accordance  with  Article  21  of  the  basic  Regulation,  it  was  examined  whether, 
despite  the  conclusion  on  injurious  dumping,  compelling  reasons  existed  for 
concluding that it is not in the Community interest to adopt measures in this particular 
case. The impact of possible measures on all parties involved in this proceeding and 
also the consequences of not taking measures were considered.  

1. 

Interests of the Community industry 

(208)  The imposition of measures is expected to prevent further distortions and restore fair 
competition  on  the  market.  The  Community  industry  is  a  competitive  and  viable 
industry which is evidenced by its situation in 2001 where it was in a relatively good 
shape despite sharp world-wide competition. Thus, the imposition of measures should 
allow  it  to  increase  market  share  and  its  sales  prices,  and  thereby  reach  reasonable 
profit  levels  necessary  to  improve  the  industry’s  financial  situation.  This  will  also 
allow them to continue investments in their production facilities, thus guaranteeing the 
Community industry’s survival. 

(209)  On the other hand, should anti-dumping measures not be imposed, it is likely that the 
deterioration of the already poor situation of the Community industry would continue. 
It  would  not  be  able  to  carry  out  the  necessary  investments  in  order  to  compete 
effectively  with  the  dumped  imports  from  the  third  countries  concerned.  This  will 
force  some  companies  to  cease  production  and  lay  off  their  employees  in  the  near 
future. The 3 300 direct jobs in the co-operating Community industry would be put at 
stake.  The  total  Community  production  of  sacks  and  bags  involves  approximately 
12 000 jobs which are mainly in small and medium sized companies. With the closure 
of  the  Community  production  the  Community  would  become  more  dependent  on 
suppliers outside the Community. 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
(210)  Accordingly,  it  is  concluded  that  the  imposition  of  anti-dumping  measures  would 
allow  the  Community  industry  to  recover  from  the  effects  of  injurious  dumping 
suffered and that it therefore is in the interest of the Community industry. 

2. 

Interest of unrelated importers/traders and retailers 

(211)  The  Commission  sent  questionnaires  to  four  sampled  importers/traders  representing 
9 %  of  total  sales  of  imports  from  the  countries  concerned.  However,  only  two 
importers/traders,  representing  3 %  of  total  imports  from  the  countries  concerned, 
replied to the questionnaire. The cooperating unrelated importers submitted that, were 
measures  imposed,  the  sales  price  of  the  product  concerned  would  rise  and  that  the 
consumers would have to pay more for the product concerned and that the effect of the 
duty would thus be transferred to the consumers. Therefore, there would be a limited 
negative impact on the unrelated importers in this regard. 

(212)  The  product  concerned  is,  to  a  large  extent,  distributed  by  retail  businesses.  Certain 
types of the product, such as grocery bags and carrier bags are distributed for free to 
individual customers in some countries in the Community whereas certain other types, 
such as freezer bags, nappy bags and bin liners, are sold to the customers. It is to be 
noted that at present consumers are not charged for single trip carrier bags in certain 
Member States such as in the United Kingdom.  

(213)  The  investigation  showed  that  the  claims  concerning  the  financial  impact  of  an  anti-
dumping  duty  on  different  operators,  especially  the  retail  sector,  were  considerably 
exaggerated.  Some  retailers  put  forward  that  a  duty  of  10 %  would  generate  a 
supplemental cost of 220 million euro per annum for the retail sector alone. Based on 
the  investigation,  as  the  total  customs  value  of  the  imports  concerned  is  around  375 
million  euro,  the  maximum  effect  of  an  average  duty  of  10 %  would  be  38  million 
euros  on  an  annual  basis  across  the  Community.  Moreover,  based  on  the  two 
questionnaire responses received from retailers, the average purchases of the product 
concerned amounted to less than 0,1 % of the turnover of these retailers. Therefore, the 
impact of an anti-dumping duty of the above mentioned level would contribute only to 
a marginal increase in their cost. In addition, some of this supplemental cost would be 
spread across various levels of the supply chain. The argument of these retailers was 
therefore rejected.  

(214)  The same retailers alleged also that there is not only no supply of certain types of the 
product concerned by the EC industry, but that the EC industry would also not have 
the capacity to satisfy Community demand as a whole. In this regard it should firstly 
be  noted  with  regard  to  the  supply  of  sacks  and  bags  that  the  imposition  of  anti-
dumping  measures  would  not  stop  the  supply  of  the  product  from  the  countries 
concerned but would only restore a level playing field in the market. The imports of 
sacks and bags will continue to satisfy some of the supply in the Community market. 
Moreover,  the  Community  industry  has  existing  production  capacity  to  satisfy  any 
increase in demand. In any event, further supply of all types of plastic sacks and bags 
remains  also  possible  from  third  countries  not  subject  to  measures.  These  arguments 
were therefore rejected. 

(215)  An  association  representing  retailers  acquiring  funding  for  charity  purposes  alleged 
that  any  duty  would  disproportionately  harm  their  fundraising  activities  as  they 
purchased  bags  which  were  distributed  to  their  clients  for  free.  They  also  said  that 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
bags  used  for  collection  of  recycled  items  for  charity  purposes  would  also  be  hit 
should an anti-dumping duty be imposed. In this regard it is to be noted that this type 
of  fundraising,  even  if  for  charity  purposes,  is  made  on  a  commercial  basis.  It  is 
therefore  subject  to  the  same  risks  as  any  other  commercial  activity  and  should  be 
assessed on the same basis. The effect of a duty concerning these retailers would not 
be significantly different from that of any other retailers. Therefore this argument was 
rejected. 

3. 

Interest of consumers 

(216)  No  consumer  associations  made  themselves  known  within  the  time  limit  set  in  the 

notice of initiation.  

(217)  Some importers argued that the imposition of anti-dumping measures would lead to a 
rise  in  the  prices  charged  to  the  final  customer  as  the  level  of  sales  prices  would  be 
adjusted in accordance with the duties.  

(218)  However, as stated above, some retailers distribute parts of the product for free to their 
clients. Unless these retailers change their well-established policy, the consumers will 
not feel the effect of the anti-dumping measure imposed in these cases.  

(219)  An average duty of 10 % would increase the price of each imported bag on an average 
basis by 0,086 cents and the price of each bag sold in the Community by 0,016 cents 
(assuming a hypothetical weight of 7g per bag). This increment is negligible even if it 
would  be  borne  only  by  consumers.  In  fact,  the  effect  of  the  duty  borne  by  the 
consumers will be even lower as this cost will be spread across various levels of the 
supply chain. 

4. 

Competition and trade distorting effects 

(220)  With respect to the effects of possible measures on competition in the Community, the 
exporting producers concerned will be able to continue to sell certain plastic bags and 
sacks,  as  they  have  a  strong  market  position.  This  taken  with  the  large  number  of 
producers  in  the  Community  and  imports  from  other  third  countries  will  ensure  that 
users and retailers will continue to have a wide choice of different suppliers of the like 
product at reasonable prices. 

(221)  Thus, there will be an important number of actors in the market, which will be able to 
satisfy  the  demand.  On  the  basis  of  the  above,  it  is  therefore  concluded  that 
competition  will  most  likely  remain  strong  after  the  imposition  of  anti-dumping 
measures. 

5. 

Conclusion on Community interest 

(222)  The imposition of measures on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in 
the  People’s  Republic  of  China  and  Thailand  would  clearly  be  in  the  interest  of  the 
Community industry. It will allow the Community industry to grow and recover from 
the injury caused by the dumped imports. If, however, measures are not imposed, it is 
likely that the Community production will continue to decline and more operators will 
go  out  of  business.  Furthermore,  the  importers  and  the  retailers  will  not  be 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
substantially  affected  since  fairly  priced  sacks  and  bags  will  still  be  available  in  the 
market, including imports from other third countries.  

(223)  In  view  of  the  above,  it  is  concluded  that  there  are  no  compelling  reasons  not  to 
impose  anti-dumping  duties  against  imports  of  certain  plastic  sacks  and  bags 
originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand. 

H. DEFINITIVE MEASURES 

(224)  In  view  of  the  conclusions  reached  with  regard  to  dumping,  resulting  injury  and 
Community  interest,  and  in  accordance  with  Article  9(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation, 
definitive  anti-dumping  measures  should  be  imposed  on  imports  originating  in  the 
People’s  Republic  of  China  and  Thailand  in  order  to  prevent  further  injury  being 
caused to the Community industry by the dumped imports. 

(225)  The measures should be imposed at a level sufficient to eliminate the injury caused by 
these  imports  without  exceeding  the  dumping  margin  found.  When  calculating  the 
amount  of  duty  necessary  to  remove  the  effects  of  the  injurious  dumping,  it  was 
considered that any measures should allow the Community industry to cover its costs 
of  production  and  to  obtain  an  overall  profit  before  tax  that  could  be  reasonably 
achieved  by  an  industry  of  this  type  in  the  sector  under  normal  conditions  of 
competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports, on the sales of the like product in 
the  Community.  The  pre-tax  profit  margin  used  for  this  calculation  was  6 %  of 
turnover of the sales of the like product representing a healthy profit level attributable 
to  the  industry  under  normal  conditions  of  competition,  which  was  attained  by  the 
industry before the surge of the dumped imports.  

(226)  The  individual  company  anti-dumping  duty  rates  specified  in  this  Regulation  were 
established  on  the  basis  of  the  findings  of  the  present  investigation.  Therefore,  they 
reflect  the  situation  found  during  that  investigation  with  respect  to  these  companies. 
These duty rates are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in 
the countries concerned and produced by the companies and thus by the specific legal 
entities mentioned.  

(227)  As to one Chinese exporting producer denied MET and IT, this company should not 
receive  an  individual  anti-dumping  duty  rate,  despite  having  been  calculated  a 
dumping margin, as explained above in recital (131). Imports of products produced by 
this  company,  a  cooperating  exporting  producer,  should  therefore  be  subject  to  the 
average duty  rate determined for cooperating exporters not selected to be part of the 
samples, as described in recital (228). 

(228)  The duty rates for cooperating exporters not selected to be part of the samples are, for 
each  country,  the  weighted  average  of  the  dumping  margins  found  for  the  sampled 
companies, as per recital (54). Imported products produced by any other company not 
specifically  mentioned  with  its  name  and  address  in  the  operative  part  or  in  the 
annexes 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’. 

(229)  Any claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty 
rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
new  production  or  sales  entities)  should  be  addressed  to  the  Commission  forthwith 
with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company's activities 
linked  to  production,  domestic  sales  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  duties.  Pursuant  to  Article  11(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  a  new 
exporter review to determine individual dumping margins could not be initiated in this 
proceeding, as sampling was applied to the exporting producers of the PRC, Malaysia 
and Thailand. However, in order to ensure equal treatment between any new exporting 
producer and the cooperating companies not included in the samples, it is considered 
that a provision should be made to impose the duty applicable to the latter companies 
to any new exporting producers which can demonstrate that they would be entitled to a 
review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation. 

(230)  Any claim requesting the addition of a new exporting producer in the PRC or Thailand 
to  the  lists  set  out  in  Annexes  I  or  II  of  the  Regulation  should  be  addressed  to  the 
Commission forthwith with all relevant information, in particular the evidence that the 
company concerned fulfils the three criteria set out in Article 2 of the Regulation. If 
appropriate,  the  Regulation  will  accordingly  be  amended  by  updating  the  lists  of 
companies in Annexes I or II benefiting from the average duty of the sample. 

(231)  In view of the findings above, the anti-dumping duty rates should be as follows:  

Country 

Exporting producer 

The PRC 

(Shanghai)  Limited  and 
(Shanghai)  Household 

Cedo 
Cedo 
Wrappings Co. Ltd., Shanghai 
Jinguan 
Packing Co., Ltd., Longhai 

(Longhai) 

Plastics 

Sunway  Kordis  Shanghai  and 
Shanghai 
Polysell, 
Sunway 
Shanghai 

Suzhou  Guoxin  Group  Co.,  Ltd, 
Suzhou  Guoxin  Group  Taicang 
Yihe  Import  &  Export  Co.,  Ltd, 
Taicang  Dongyuan  Plastic  Co., 
Ltd  and  Suzhou  Guoxin  Group 
Taicang Giant Packaging Co., Ltd, 
Taicang  
Wuxi  Jiayihe  Packaging  Co.,  Ltd. 
and  Wuxi  Bestpac  Packaging  Co., 
Ltd., Wuxi 

Zhong  Shan  Qi  Yu  Plastic 
Products Co Ltd., Zhongshan 

Huizhou  Jun  Yang  Plastics  Co, 
Huizhou 

Dumping 
margin 

Injury 
margin 

AD duty 
rate 

7,4 % 

39,0 % 

7,4 % 

5,1 % 

74,6 % 

5,1 % 

4,8 % 

37,4 % 

4,8 % 

7,8 % 

61,3 % 

7,8 % 

12,8 % 

57,8 % 

12,8 % 

5,7 % 

34,3 % 

5,7 % 

4,8 % 

30,8 % 

4,8 % 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Co-operating  exporting  producers 
not in the sample  

8,4 % 

49,3 % 

8,4 % 

All other companies 

28,8 % 

34,3 % 

28,8 % 

Thailand 

King  Pac 
Industrial  Co  Ltd., 
Chonburi and Dpac Industrial Co., 
Ltd., Bangkok  

14,3 % 

37,4 % 

14,3 % 

Multibax 
Chonburi 

Public  Co.,  Ltd., 

5,1 % 

10,6 % 

5,1 % 

Naraipak  Co.,  Ltd.  and  Narai 
Packaging 
Ltd., 
Bangkok 

(Thailand) 

Sahachit  Watana  Plastic  Industry 
Co., Ltd., Bangkok 

Thai  Plastic  Bags  Industries  Co., 
Ltd., Nakhonpathom 

Co-operating  exporting  producers 
not in the sample 

10,4 % 

29,7 % 

10,4 % 

6,8 % 

23,9 % 

6,8 % 

5,8 % 

53,5 % 

5,8 % 

7,9 % 

27,6 % 

7,9 % 

All other companies  

14,3 % 

37,4 % 

14,3 % 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1.  Definitive  anti-dumping  duties  are  hereby  imposed  on  imports  of  plastic  sacks  and  bags, 
containing  at  least  20 %  by  weight  of  polyethylene  and  of  a  thickness  not  exceeding  100 
micrometers; originating in the People's Republic of China and Thailand; and falling within 
CN codes ex 3923 21 00, ex 3923 29 10 and ex 3923 29 90 (TARIC codes 3923 21 00 20, 
3923 29 10 20 and 3923 29 90 20). 

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

Country 

Company 

AD duty 
rate (%) 

TARIC 
Additional 
code 

The People’s 
Republic of 
China 

(Shanghai)  Limited 

and  Cedo 
Cedo 
(Shanghai)  Household  Wrappings  Co.  Ltd., 
Shanghai 
Jinguan  (Longhai)  Plastics  Packing  Co., 
Ltd., Longhai 

7,4 

5,1 

A757 

A758 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
 
 
Sunway  Kordis 
Shanghai Sunway Polysell Ltd., Shanghai 

(Shanghai)  Ltd. 

and 

Suzhou  Guoxin  Group  Co.,  Ltd.,  Suzhou 
Guoxin  Group  Taicang  Yihe  Import  & 
Export  Co.,  Ltd.,  Taicang  Dongyuan  Plastic 
Co., Ltd. and Suzhou Guoxin Group Taicang 
Giant Packaging Co., Ltd., Taicang 
Wuxi Jiayihe Packaging Co., Ltd. and Wuxi 
Bestpac Packaging Co., Ltd., Wuxi 

Zhong Shan Qi Yu Plastic Products Co Ltd., 
Zhongshan 

4,8 

7,8 

12,8 

5,7 

A760 

A761 

A763 

A764 

Huizhou  Jun  Yang  Plastics  Co,.  Ltd., 
Huizhou 

4,8 

A765 

Companies listed in ANNEX I 

All other companies 

Thailand 

King Pac Industrial Co., Ltd., Chonburi and 
Dpac Industrial Co., Ltd., Bangkok  

8,4 

28,8 

14,3 

A766 

A999 

A767 

Multibax Public Co., Ltd., Chonburi 

5,1 

A768 

Naraipak  Co  Ltd.  and  Narai  Packaging 
(Thailand) Ltd., Bangkok 

10,4 

A769 

Sahachit  Watana  Plastic  Industry  Co.,  Ltd., 
Bangkok 

Thai  Plastic  Bags  Industries  Co.,  Ltd., 
Nakonpathom 

Companies listed in ANNEX II 

6,8 

5,8 

7,9 

A770 

A771 

A772 

All other companies  

14,3 

A999 

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

Article 2 

Where any new exporting producer in the PRC or Thailand provides sufficient evidence to the 
Commission that 

–  it  did  not  export  to  the  Community  the  products  described  in  Article  1(1)  during  the 

investigation period (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005); and 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
–  it  is  not  related  to  any  of  the  exporters  or  producers  in  the  PRC  or  Thailand  which  are 

subject to the anti-dumping measures imposed by this Regulation; and 

–  it  has  actually  exported  to  the  Community  the  products  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, 

then the Council, acting by simple majority on a proposal submitted by the Commission after 
consulting  the  Advisory  Committee,  may  amend  Article  1(3)  by  adding  that  new  exporting 
producer to the lists in Annexes I or II. 

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

Article 3 

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

Done at Brussels, […] 

For the Council 
[…] 
The President

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX I: Chinese cooperating exporting producers not sampled 

TARIC Additional Code A766 

BEIJING LIANBIN PLASTIC & PRINTING CO LTD 

CHANGLE BEIHAI PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD. 

CHANGLE DONGFANG RUBBER PRODUCTS CO., LTD. 

CHANGLE HUALONG PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO LTD 

CHANGLE SANDELI PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO LTD 

CHANGLE SHENGDA RUBBER PRODUCTS CO., LTD. 

CHANGZHOU HUAGUANG PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD. 

CHEONG FAT PLASTIC BAGS (CHINA) PRINTING FACTORY 

CHUN HING PLASTIC PACKAGING MANUFACTORY LTD 

CHUN YIP (SHENZHEN) PLASTICS LIMITED 

CROWN POLYETHYLENE PRODUCTS (INT'L) LTD. 

DALIAN JINSHIDA PACKING PRODUCTS CO., LTD 

Beijing 

Zhuliu 

Changle 

Changle 

Changle 

Changle 

Wujin 

Shenzhen 

Hong Kong 

Shenzhen 

Hong Kong 

Dalian 

DONG GUAN HARBONA PLASTIC & METALS FACTORY CO., LTD. 

Dongguan 

DONGGUAN CHERRY PLASTIC INDUSTRIAL, LTD 

DONGGUAN FIRSTWAY PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD 

Dongguan 

Dongguan 

DONGGUAN MARUMAN PLASTIC PACKAGING COMPANY LIMITED 

Dongguan 

DONGGUAN NAN SING PLASTICS LIMITED 

DONGGUAN NOZAWA PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO. LTD 

DONGGUAN RUI LONG PLASTICS FACTORY 

FOSHAN SHUNDE KANGFU PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD. 

FU YUEN ENTERPRISES CO. 

GOLD MINE PLASTIC INDUSTRIAL LIMITED 

GOOD-IN HOLDINGS LTD. 

HANG LUNG PLASTIC FACTORY (SHENZHEN) LTD 

Dongguan 

Dongguan 

Dongguan 

Shunde 

Hong Kong 

Jiangmen 

Hong Kong 

Shenzhen 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
JIANGMEN CITY XIN HUI HENGLONG PLASTIC LTD. 

JIANGMEN TOPTYPE PLASTIC PRODUCTS LTD. 

JIANGMEN XINHUI FENGZE PLASTIC COMPANY LTD. 

JIANGYIN BRAND POLYTHENE PACKAGING CO., LTD. 

JINAN BAIHE PLASTIC PRODUCTS COMPANY LIMITED 

JINAN CHANGWEI PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD. 

JINAN CHENGLIN PLASTIC PRODUCTS COMPANY LTD. 

JINAN MINFENG PLASTIC CO., LTD. 

JINYANG PACKING PRODUCTS (WEIFANG) CO. LTD 

JUXIAN HUACHANG PLASTIC CO., LTD 

JUXIAN HUAYANG PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD 

KIN WAI POLY BAG PRINTING LTD. 

LAIZHOU JINYUAN PLASTICS INDUSTRY & TRADE CO., LTD. 

LAIZHOU YUANXINYIE PLASTIC MACHINERY CO., LTD. 

LICK SAN PLASTIC BAGS (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. 

LINQU SHUNXING PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO. LTD 

LONGKOU CITY LONGDAN PLASTIC CORPORATION LTD. 

NEW CARING PLASTIC MANUFACTORY LTD. 

NEW WAY POLYPAK DONGYING CO., LTD. 

NINGBO HUASEN PLASTHETICS CO., LTD. 

NINGBO MARUMAN PACKAGING PRODUCT CO. LTD. 

POLY POLYETHYLENE BAGS AND PRINTING CO. 

QINGDAO NEW LEFU PACKAGING CO., LTD. 

RALLY PLASTICS CO., LTD. ZHONGSHAN 

Jiangmen 

Jiangmen 

Jiangmen 

Jiangyin 

Jinan 

Jinan 

Jinan 

Jinan 

Qingzhou 

Liuguanzhuang

Liuguanzhuang

Hong Kong 

Laizhou 

Laizhou 

Shenzhen 

Linqu 

Longkou 

Jiangmen 

Dongying 

Ningbo 

Ningbo 

Hong Kong 

Qingdao  

Zhongshan 

RIZHAO XINAO PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD 

Liuguanzhuang

DONGGUAN  SEA  LAKE  PLASTIC  PRODUCTS  MANUFACTURING  CO., 
LTD. 

Dongguan 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
SHANGHAI HANHUA PLASTIC PACKAGE PRODUCT CO., LTD. 

SHANGHAI HUAYUE PACKAGING PRODUCTS CO., LTD. 

SHANGHAI LIQIANG PLASTICS INDUSTRY CO., LTD. 

SHANGHAI MINGYE PLASTICS GOODS COMPANY LIMITED 

SHANGHAI  QUTIAN  TECHNOLOGY  INDUSTRY  DEVELOPMENT  CO. 
LTD. 

SHANTOU ULTRA DRAGON PLASTICS LTD. 

Shanghai 

Shanghai 

Zhangyan 

Shanghai 

Shanghai 

Shantou 

SHAOXING YUCI PLASTICS AND BAKELITE PRODUCTS CO., LTD. 

Shangyu 

SHENG YOUNG INDUSTRIAL (ZHONGSHAN) CO., LTD. 

SUPREME DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED 

TAISHING PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD. ZHONGSHAN 

TIANJIN MINGZE PLASTIC PACKAGING CO., LTD. 

UNIVERSAL PLASTIC & METAL MANUFACTURING LIMITED 

WAI YUEN INDUSTRIAL AND DEVELOPMENT LTD 

WEIFANG DESHUN PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD. 

WEIFANG HENGSHENG RUBBER PRODUCTS CO., LTD. 

WEIFANG HONGYUAN PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD. 

WEIFANG HUASHENG PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD. 

WEIFANG KANGLE PLASTICS CO., LTD. 

WEIFANG LIFA PLASTIC PACKING CO., LTD. 

WEIFANG XINLI PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD. 

WEIFANG YUANHUA PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD. 

WEIFANG YUJIE PLASTICS PRODUCTS CO., LTD. 

Zhongshan 

Hong Kong 

Zhongshan 

Tianjin 

Hong Kong 

Hong Kong 

Changle 

Changle 

Changle 

Changle 

Changle 

Weifang 

Weifang 

Weifang 

Weifang 

WEIHAI WEIQUAN PLASTIC AND RUBBER PRODUCTS CO. LTD. 

Weihai 

WINNER BAGS PRODUCT COMPANY (SHENZHEN) LIMITED 

Shenzhen 

WUI HING PLASTIC BAGS PRINTING (SHENZHEN) COMPANY LIMITED 

Shenzhen 

XIAMEN EGRET PLASTICS CO., LTD. 

Gaoqi 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
XIAMEN RICHIN PLASTIC CO., LTD 

XIAMEN UNITED OVERSEA ENTERPRISES LTD. 

XIAMEN XINGXIA POLYMERS CO., LTD 

XIAMEN XINYATAI PLASTIC INDUSTRY CO. LTD. 

XINHUI ALIDA POLYTHENE LIMITED 

XINTAI CHUNHUI MODIFIED PLASTIC CO., LTD 

YANTAI BAGMART PACKAGING CO., LTD. 

YANTAI LONGQUAN PACKAGING MATERIAL CO. LTD. 

YAU BONG POLYBAGS PRINTING CO., LTD. 

YINKOU FUCHANG PLASTIC PRODUCTS. CO., LTD. 

YONGCHANG (CHANGLE) PLASTIC INDUSTRIES CO., LTD. 

Xiamen 

Xiamen 

Xiamen 

Xiamen 

Xinhui 

Xintai 

Yantai 

Yantai 

Hong Kong 

Yingkou 

Weifang 

ZHANGJIAGANG  YUANHEYI  PAPER  &  PLASTIC  COLOR  PRINTING  & 
PACKING CO., LTD 

Zhangjiagang 

ZHONGSHAN DONGFENG HUNG WAI PLASTIC BAG MFY 

Zhongshan 

ZHONGSHAN HUANGPU TOWN LIHENG METAL & PLASTIC FACTORY 

Zhongshan 

ZHUHAI CHINTEC PACKING TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISE CO. LTD 

Zhuhai 

ZIBO WEIJIA PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD. 

Zibo 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
ANNEX II: Thai cooperating exporting producers not sampled 

TARIC Additional Code A772 

APPLE FILM CO., LTD 

Samutprakarn Province 

C P PACKAGING INDUSTRY CO., LTD. 

Bangkok 

K. INTERNATIONAL PACKAGING CO., LTD. 

Samutsakorn 

POLY WORLD CO., LTD. 

Bangkok 

SIAM FLEXIBLE INDUSTRIES CO., LTD 

Samutsakorn 

THAI GRIPTECH CO. LTD. and SUPER GRIP CO., LTD.  Bangkok 

THANTAWAN 
LIMITED 

INDUSTRY 

PUBLIC  COMPANY 

Nakornphathom 

UNITY  THAI  PRODUCTS  CO.,  LTD.  and  UNITY  THAI 
PRODUCTS (1999) CO., LTD. 

Bangkok 

UNIVERSAL POLYBAG COMPANY LTD. 

ZIPLAS INTERNATIONAL CO LTD 

Chonburi 

Bangkok 

EN 

53 

   EN