Council Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006 of 25 September 2006 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: 2006-09-25
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: China, Malaysia, Thailand, anti-dumping duty, originating product, packaging product, plastics

L 270/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.9.2006

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1425/2006

of 25 September 2006

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,

2. PARTIES CONCERNED BY THE PROCEEDING

Having regard to the Treaty
Community,

establishing the European

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

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

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

A. PROCEDURE

1.

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 Union (2), 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
injury resulting therefrom, which was
of material
a
considered sufficient
proceeding.

to justify the

initiation of

(1) 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).

(2) OJ C 159, 30.6.2005, p. 19.

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

association,

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

exporting

of

known

Given the large number of known exporting producers in
the PRC, Malaysia and Thailand, as well as the large
number
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).

Community

producers

if

treatment

they so wished,

In order to allow exporting producers in the PRC to
submit a claim for market economy treatment (MET)
the
(IT),
individual
or
Commission sent
exporting
claim forms
producers known to be concerned and to the authorities
of the PRC. Some 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.

to the

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 question-
naires 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.

29.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 270/5

(8)

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

dumping,

resulting

of

— Hond Tat Industries S/B, Klang

— Plastic V S/B, Klang

— Poly Carrier Industries S/B, Klang

— Sido Bangun S/B, Negri Sembilan

Community producers

— SP Metal, Paris, France and its related companies SP
Metal Biel, Zaragoza, Spain and Jet Sac SA, Auchel,
France

Thailand

— Groupe Barbier SA, Ste Sigolene, France

— King Pac Industrial Company Ltd, Chonburi

— 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

PRC

— Cedo Shanghai Ltd, Shanghai

— Chun Yip Plastics (Shenzhen) Ltd, Shenzhen

— 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

— Europackaging plc, Birmingham, United Kingdom

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

— Huizhou Jun Yang Plastics Co., Ltd, Huizhou

— Kordis Limited and Kordis BV, Stratford-upon-Avon,

— 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

United Kingdom

3.

INVESTIGATION PERIOD

(9)

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

in view of

stated above,

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.

L 270/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.9.2006

(11)

if so,

In order to enable the Commission to decide whether
sampling would be necessary and,
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 infor-
mation on their export and domestic sales, and the
names and activities of all
related companies
involved in the production and/or selling of the said
product. The authorities
in the PRC, Malaysia and
Thailand were also consulted.

their

(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
sales to the Community as well as size of
export
It
exporting producer with regard to domestic sales.
was considered that, for the reasons set out below, the
sample should include a sufficient number of companies
selling on the domestic market. Therefore, a number of
major
representative
domestic sales were included in the sample.

companies

exporting

having

(12)

Some 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.

(18) On this basis, the Commission originally selected samples
of 10 Chinese
six Malaysian
exporting producers,
exporting producers and six Thai exporting producers.
The selected companies represented around 52 %, 62 %
and 71 % of
to the
Community from the PRC, Malaysia and Thailand respec-
tively.

the said product

the exports of

(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.

(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.

(14)

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

(15)

remaining

companies were

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

either

(16)

Exporting producers which did not make themselves
known within the aforesaid period were considered as
not cooperating with the investigation.

(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 Regu-
lation,
the above
factors, given the amount of information and the time
available for the sample selection. Moreover, the basic
Regulation allows
investigation to the
representative volume of exports which can
largest
reasonably be investigated within the time available.

to aim for a sample reflecting all

limiting the

(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
to the
Community, without having regard to the volume of
domestic sales. Article 6.10 ADA provides, inter alia, that

volume of

export

largest

sales

29.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 270/7

calculated.

the volume of

it
that companies with domestic sales of

a sample of exporters can be chosen based on ‘the largest
percentage of
the exports from the
country in question which can reasonably be inves-
tigated’. 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
is
margin could be
essential
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 Regu-
lation. 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 inves-
tigated 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.

In this

respect,

the said product

(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
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,
company was
removed from the Chinese sample. However given that
the company had already been inspected, it will in effect
receive individual examination.

that

the

(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)

(27)

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 co-
operating 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.

the

but

cooperating with

It should be noted that one company in China not
investigation,
sampled,
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
the
company was amended to the new name in the Annex
to this Regulation.

such the name of

2. SAMPLING OF COMMUNITY PRODUCERS

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.
requested
For
Community
information
concerning production and sales of the like product.

Commission
provide

producers

purpose,

this

the

to

L 270/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.9.2006

(28)

(29)

the

largest

volume

reasonably

representative

investigated within the

Thirty-four 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
of
represented
production in the Community (around 18 %), which
could be
time
available. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic
Regulation, the association of Community producers was
sampled
consulted
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.

objection. All

raised no

and

3. SAMPLING OF IMPORTERS

importers

the large number of

In view of
in the
Community, sampling was envisaged in the notice of
initiation in accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic
Regulation.
the Commission
requested importers to provide information concerning
imports and sales of the product concerned.

purposes,

these

For

(30) On the

of

the

basis

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 origi-
nating 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
the
essential facts and considerations on the basis of which
definitive measures are imposed.

to the disclosure of

subsequent

(32)

submitted by the
The oral and written comments
interested parties were considered and, where appro-
priate, 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)

(35)

(36)

concerned is plastic

The product
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.
falls within CN codes
The
ex 3923 21 00, ex 3923 29 10 and ex 3923 29 90.

concerned

product

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.

In particular, one

In the course of the investigation, it was argued by the
PRC authorities and by several importers and exporters
the investigation scope was too wide because it
that
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 char-
acteristics, pricing, sales channels, end-uses and consumer
exporter and several
perception.
importers requested that zipper bags (polythene bags
with a zipper
should be excluded
from the investigation scope due to alleged differences
in 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.

sealing function)

29.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 270/9

allegedly

(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 investigation, since bags with these
the scope of
the
be
features
Community industry. However
this patented feature,
while intended to bring a functional advantage over
represent a sufficient
other carrier bags, does not
the bags in
difference in physical characteristics for
Indeed,
question to be considered a separate product.
they remain basically interchangeable with other carrier
bags, with or without similar patented systems.

produced

cannot

by

the

(38) While it is recognised that there are different types of
plastic bags, which are designed for different applications
investigation
including those mentioned above,
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 investi-
in all aspects,
gations cover products that are identical
sales
e.g.
in terms of production process, pricing,
it has
channels, uses or consumer perception. Rather,
been the Commission’s consistent practice to require
types to be considered as a single
that
product
they share the same basic
physical, technical and/or chemical characteristics.

is enough that

for product

it

(41)

(42)

(43)

D. DUMPING

1. GENERAL METHODOLOGY

as well

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

countries

therefore

only

the

for

as

1.1. Normal value

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 corre-
sponding export sales to the Community.

representative

sold domestically by the

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

type of

(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
for the
Thailand are regarded as one single product
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
those
concerned,
from the
produced
the
in the Community
Community industry, have the same physical, chemical
and technical characteristics and uses.
is therefore
concluded that all are like products within the meaning
of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

countries
sold
and

as well

by

as

It

(44) Domestic

sufficiently

that product

sales of a particular product

type were
representative when the
considered as
type sold on the domestic
volume of
to independent customers during the investi-
market
gation 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 domes-
tically in representative quantities by each company in
each exporting country could be considered as being
to
made in the ordinary course of
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:

trade pursuant

L 270/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.9.2006

(46) Where the sales volume of a product type, sold at a net
to or above the calculated cost of
sales price equal
the total
production, represented more than 80 % of
sales volume of
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.

that

(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
the Commission used
regard,
be
constructed normal value,
in accordance with Article
2(3) of the basic Regulation.

In this

applied.

(50) Normal value was constructed by adding to each
exporter’s manufacturing costs of
the exported types,
for
adjusted where necessary, a reasonable amount
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 Regu-
lation. 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.

the

(53) Where the export sale was made via related importers
export price was
based in the Community,
constructed, pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regu-
lation, 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 inves-
tigated exporting producers, allowances for differences in
costs, ocean freight and insurance
transport
costs,
loading and ancillary costs, packing costs,
handling,
credit
and commissions were granted where
applicable and justified.

costs

1.4. Dumping margins

(56)

Pursuant to Articles 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regu-
lation 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)

cooperating

dumping margin

The
exporting
for
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
companies in the sample pursuant
to Article 9(6) of
the basic Regulation.

the dumping margins of

29.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 270/11

(58)

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

is

(59)

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 of
the
weighted average of the dumping margins of the coop-
erating producers in the respective groups.

(60)

In order to determine the dumping margin for non-
cooperating exporting producers, the level of non-coop-
eration 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.

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 represen-
tative 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.

(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
countries
concerned at the level of the highest duty imposed on
a cooperating exporter.

producers

these

each

of

in

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

value

three

the

for

(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
the
dumping margin should be set at
highest margins
types
imposed on a cooperating exporter not granted MET or

established for

representative

the level of

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.

L 270/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.9.2006

2.3. Comparison

(68)

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

appropriate,

(69)

the

sales

through

Indonesia,

channelled

For
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
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.

costs of

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.
the proceeding should be
In these
terminated as regards imports of the product concerned
originating in Malaysia and no duties should be imposed.

circumstances,

(73)

The Community industry argued that Article 9(3) of the
basic Regulation does not provide for the determination
of a countrywide de minimis dumping margin.

(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
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.

to raw material

(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 country-
wide margin.

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

— All other companies

0 %

0 %

4,0 %

0 %

0 %

9,1 %

7,3 %

9,1 %

(76)

(72)

The Commission examined whether the country-wide
level of dumping for Malaysia could be shown to be

(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
to cooperating exporting
dumping duty applicable
producers outside the sample. However,
this article
merely establishes a maximum duty applicable to those
exporting producers, when duties are to be applied.
the Malaysian exporting producers found
Given that
dumping represent only a minor share of
the total
it was considered appropriate,
exports from Malaysia,
the
to base
as mentioned in recital 72 above,
country-wide calculation on the extrapolation of
the
results of the whole sample.

3. THAILAND

3.1. Normal value

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
representative
the companies without
domestic sales, normal value also had to be constructed
in accordance with the methodology set out above.

29.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 270/13

(77)

sales was used. For

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

the

(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.

(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,
the basic
Regulation.

in accordance with Article 2(6)(c) of

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 product
the prices actually paid or payable for
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.

— King Pac Industrial Co Ltd, Chonburi and Dpac

14,3 %

Industrial Co., Ltd, Bangkok

— Multibax Public Co., Ltd, Chonburi

5,1 %

— Naraipak Co.,

Ltd

and Narai

Packaging

10,4 %

(Thailand) Ltd, Bangkok

— Sahachit Watana Plastic

Industry Co., Ltd,

6,8 %

Bangkok

— Thai Plastic Bags Industries Co., Ltd, Nakhon-

5,8 %

pathom

— Cooperating exporting producers not

in the

7,9 %

sample

— All other companies

14,3 %

4. PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

4.1. Market economy treatment

(MET) and indi-

vidual treatment

(83)

In anti-dumping investigations concerning imports origi-
nating 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 criteria laid down in Article
2(7)(c). Briefly, and for ease of reference only,
these
criteria are summarised below:

1. business decisions and costs are made in response to
market conditions and without significant State inter-
ference;

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

3. 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.

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:

(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

L 270/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.9.2006

given deadlines. Three companies claimed IT only and
returned the MET claim form partially completed as
requested.
the
the 10 companies
Commission sought all
information deemed necessary
and verified information submitted in the MET claims
at the premises of the companies in question.

investigated,

For

(85)

It has been concluded that of the 10 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
rela-
tionship with each other in their respective replies to
the market economy claim form and anti-dumping ques-
tionnaire response and one of them submitted falsified
evidence in order to partly hide the existing relationship.

(88)

it

is

context,

should be noted that

In this
the
Commission’s consistent practice to examine whether a
group of
fulfils the
related companies, as a whole,
conditions for MET. This is necessary to avoid the chan-
nelling 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
should
companies
measures
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.

dumping margin,
all
Furthermore,

one
imposed.

receive
be

(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 rela-
tionship. 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 estab-
lished 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. 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
the Chinese producing company
business

licence of

29.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 270/15

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 domes-
tically,
licence.
i.e. obtain an unrestricted business
it did not substantiate this allegation and
However,
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,
the
it
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.

concluded

that

is

(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) of the basic Regulation
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
in accordance with international
accrual principle
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 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 depre-
ciation. 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.

the company was subject

to an
exported. As such,
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
in the domestic market in the
its decision not to sell
period up to and including the
IP by providing
this decision was taken exclusively in
evidence that
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
the company’s business
State interference. Given that
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
cooperating exporters, i.e. more than 100. Against this
background,
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.

the Commission had to ensure that

(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

the basic Regulation)

(100) The Commission considers that the existing provision on
sampling (Article 17 of
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.

L 270/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.9.2006

(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 repre-
sentative sample. There is no reason why this method
cannot equally be applied where the high number of
companies
a high number of
includes
companies requesting MET.

involved

(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
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.

it is still

company, and that having been until recently one of the
major State-owned trading groups,
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
The
private
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
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.

been presented

that would

from State

investors,

challenge

control.

free

requests
that

(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 indi-
to the best extent possible. The
vidualised analysis
so
number of
for MET in this case was
substantial
the
requests – as sometimes done in other cases – was
administratively impossible. Therefore, it was considered
reasonable
all non-sampled
equally
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.

examination of

an individual

apply

to

to

(104) The Community industry contested the granting of MET

to five of the companies detailed above.

(105) The Community industry argued that one of

the
companies granted MET is widely regarded as a State

(106) Concerning

another

granted MET,

the
company
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

that

third

granted MET,

to make a profit means

the
company
Community industry considered that the fact that the
company has yet
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
economy conditions. The Community
with market
industry also argued that the fact that the company’s
business licence 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
the
2005 business
percentage of export
significantly
above the threshold stipulated in the old business
the restriction in the
licence, which indicates
that
business
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

and secondly because

sales was always

already obsolete.

licence was

licence,

Finally,

29.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 270/17

Commission however considers that the fact that the
auditor made this remark, and that the company took
measures
its
to rectify the situation, confirms
accounts are independently audited and reliable.

that

arguments
industry have already been addressed above.

raised by exporters and the Community

(108) Concerning

a

granted MET,

fourth company

the
Community industry claimed that there was state inter-
ference in the labour policy of the company as the local
contract used.
administration approved the
However this approval was for the structure of
the
template contract, and not its specific terms. As such,
this was not considered state interference.

labour

(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
recitals 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-the-spot verification visits at
the premises of one of the companies. It was therefore
confirmed that they should be treated as non-cooperating
producers
denied MET
proceeding
accordingly.

and

this

in

(111) The Advisory Committee was consulted and the parties
directly concerned were informed accordingly. The main

4.2. Non-cooperation of companies with the investi-

gation

(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-
the-spot investigation, in their MET claim and their ques-
tionnaire response. These allegations were verified and it
invoices submitted
was found indeed that
during the on-the-spot verification must have been
manipulated to pretend a considerably higher export
price.

the export

(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,
the
given the nature of
submission of wrong information and the falsification
of documents, as well as the time when this was found
i.e. towards the very end of the investigation, the
out,
to be
information submitted by this company has
rejected totally as it cannot be ruled out that other infor-
mation and documents submitted are equally affected by
such behaviour.

the non-cooperation,

i.e.

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.

L 270/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.9.2006

(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.

(121)

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

this one company on the

sales of

sales

the

Information was already available relating to
country.
producers in Malaysia and Thailand through their co-
operation in this
In addition, other
investigation.
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
to
cooperate, but no questionnaire replies were received
from any of these producers.

indicated their willingness

in India

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

competition. The

cooperating

by

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.

(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.

(119)

initiation,

In the notice of
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

(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.

29.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 270/19

(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.

where appropriate,
the basic Regulation.

in accordance with Article 2(10) of

(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
i.e. on the basis of prices paid or
analogue country,
payable on the domestic market of Malaysia,
for
types which were found to be made in the
product
ordinary course of trade, in accordance with the metho-
dology 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
in the ordinary course of
average domestic sales price,
cooperating
trade,
producers in Malaysia with representative domestic sales.

to unrelated customers by

the

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 chan-
nelled 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
for
commission agent. The
duties of
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.

amount

a

(129) One Chinese exporting producer claimed an adjustment
under Article 2(10)(d) of
the basic Regulation, corre-
sponding 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

7,4 %

— Chun Yip Plastics (Shenzhen) Ltd, Shenzhen

14,8 %

— Huizhou Jun Yang Plastics Co., Ltd, Huizhou

4,8 %

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

5,1 %

Longhai

— Sunway Kordis (Shanghai) Ltd. and Shanghai

4,8 %

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

7,8 %

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

5,7 %

Zhongshan

— Sampled cooperating exporting producers not
exporting

cooperating

IT,

granted
producers not in the sample

and

8,4 %

12,8 %

28,8 %

4.5. Comparison

— Wuxi

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

(128) The normal value and export prices were compared on
an ex-works basis, as described above, with adjustments,

— All other companies

L 270/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.9.2006

(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.

E. INJURY

1. COMMUNITY PRODUCTION

(132) The

product

concerned

the
Community by hundreds of producers. The industry is
very fragmented and comprises predominantly small and
medium sized companies.

is manufactured

in

(133)

estimated

Community

consumption

In calculating Community production, during the IP, the
estimated
as
explained in recitals 158 and 159 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
included in the definition of
Community industry as referred to in recital 153. The
calculation resulted in a total Community production of
1 175 000 tonnes.

companies not

(134) Certain exporting producers,

the

and

below 25 %,

importers and retailers
argued that the percentage of the Community industry’s
total Community
production in relation to
production was
the
therefore
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, AMI (1), the estimated quantity of
extruded polyethylene film used for the production of the
like product would account
than the
Community production figure used in the assessment
of support.

for more

(135) AMI provides certain information concerning the poly-
following two reports

ethylene film industry in its
referred to by certain parties:

— 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
‘no legal responsibility is
reports, AMI mentions that
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 firms and
companies mentioned’. Furthermore, the permission to
reproduce information contained in the above reports
to the following specific
was obtained only subject
‘(AMI) are not
disclaimer:
responsible for any mis-
interpretation of our information on the part of any of
the
liaised with (the
Commission) or
indeed interpretation put on (AMI)
data by the European Commission’.

industry contacts who have

(137)

It should also be noted that, whereas AMI provides
certain information concerning the polyethylene film
it does
industry in the two abovementioned reports,
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 follows (2):

Product group

% of end-use
applications of
polyethylene film

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

viii) Refuse sacks

ix) Shoppers

x) Other bags/sacks

8,2 %

6,8 %

13,8 %

14,4 %

8,0 %

15,3 %

7,5 %

5,8 %

8,3 %

11,9 %

— polyethylene film extruders, 6th edition

(ISBN 1 904188 12 5), and

Total

100 %

(1) Applied Market Information Ltd, web address: www.amiplastics.com

extruders, 6th edition (ISBN 1 904188 12 5), p. 12.

(2) AMI

(web

address: www.amiplastics.com),

Polyethylene

film

29.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 270/21

in

tonnes

(138) The AMI reports (1) 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, would have been
7 699 000
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.
this
With regard to sacks
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.

and bags production,

Luxembourg),

(139) AMI expresses all production figures as percentages
representing end use applications of consumption of
polyethylene for film extrusion in Europe. The geo-
graphical coverage of
is France, Germany,
the report
Italy, United Kingdom, Benelux (Belgium, Netherlands
Finland,
Scandinavia
and
Norway and Sweden), Spain, other Western Europe
(Austria,
Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Switzerland) and
Central Europe (Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czech and
Slovak Republics) (2). The
cover
the
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Cyprus of
Member States but it does cover Switzerland, Norway
and Romania which do not fall under the scope if this
investigation.

report does not

(Denmark,

In this

(140) As the AMI figures cover a geographical region different
from that of the Community, the consumption of poly-
ethylene for extrusion in the Community had first to be
resin
established.
the
suppliers
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.

two polyethylene
submitted

in the Community

regard,

that

(141) The parties referred to in recital 134 argued that cate-
gories (vii), (viii), (ix) and (x) 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 % (3) of the
total end uses) would fall under the definition of the
product under investigation. In this regard it is recalled
that AMI itself mentions 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-the-spot verifications carried out in the
course of
the premises of seven
production plants of five Community producers in two
countries
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.

the investigation at

film on the

showed that

reel,

(144)

It was also claimed by some parties that the end use
application defined in the report as ‘other bags/sacks’,
representing 11,9 % (4) 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
in the
unclear which products are included by AMI
category ‘other
those
least all
the product description
products not
should be excluded from the estimate.
In this regard,
according to certain parties, the category other ‘sacks
and bags’ also includes film used for ‘FFS — packaging’
for food or ‘form, fill and seal — packaging’, which is a
filled and
type of packaging where a bag is formed,

sacks and bags’, at

falling under

(1) AMI

(web

address: www.amiplastics.com),

Polyethylene

film

(3) AMI

(web

address: www.amiplastics.com),

Polyethylene

film

extruders, 6th edition (ISBN 1 904188 12 5), p. 10.

extruders, 6th edition (ISBN 1 904188 12 5), p. 12.

(2) AMI

(web

address: www.amiplastics.com),

Polyethylene

film

(4) AMI

(web

address: www.amiplastics.com),

Polyethylene

film

extruders, 6th edition (ISBN 1 904188 12 5), p. 7.

extruders, 6th edition (ISBN 1 904188 12 5), p. 6.

L 270/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.9.2006

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 substan-
tiated 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 an 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.

In this regard,

(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 tonnes (1) 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-the-spot verifi-
cations 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 effi-
it is to be noted that
ciently recycled.
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 corre-
sponding 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.

and thus outside

the product definition.
thickness
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
the product
to 1 279 000 tonnes of production of
under investigation. The estimate of
the Community
production at initiation of the 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
the product under investi-
Community production of
gation prepared by the Commission which is referred
to in recital 150.

(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.

(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
estimate however
product under
contains all refuse bags and it should be recalled that
some refuse sacks can be more than 100 microns in

investigation. This

(1) AMI

(web

address: www.amiplastics.com),

Polyethylene

film

extruders, 6th edition (ISBN 1 904188 12 5), p. 10.

(151)

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

at

29.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 270/23

(152) During

the

investigation five of

complaining
Community producers failed to cooperate with the inves-
tigation. At
the same time seven other producers
supporting the proceeding, cooperated with the investi-
gation.

the

the definition of

considered part of
industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) of
basic Regulation. On this basis,
rejected.

the Community
the
the argument was

(153) Another

three cooperating companies were excluded
from the definition of
the Community industry and
their production was thus not included in the production
the Community industry as one company was
of
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
a
Community producer, was also excluded from the defi-
nition of the Community industry as it had a related
exporting producer in one of the countries concerned
the product
and it
concerned into the Community in relation to its
production in the Community.

imported significant volumes of

cooperate with

investigation

not

the

as

from the

and thereby

(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
total Community
production, whereas another company supporting the
proceeding, Cedo Ltd, had been included, even though
both
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.

companies

situation

similar

had

a

it

is

(155) Certain parties argued that two of sampled Community
producers should be excluded from the definition of the
they imported considerable
Community industry as
quantities of the product concerned originating in the
it should be firstly
PRC and Thailand. In this respect,
noted that, whereas
long-standing
indeed a
practice that
importing Community producers should
be excluded from the Community industry if they are
either shielded from dumping or benefiting from it,
they
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
these two companies
this case,
imports of
during the IP represented 1 % and 0,1 % of
their
respective total production. Given the small quantities
can be
at

two Community producers

excluded if

found that

the total

are not

stake,

the

is

it

are

therefore

(156) The 24 complaining Community producers and the
seven other producers having cooperated with the inves-
tigation
the
Community industry within the meaning of Articles
4(1) and 5(4) of
these
companies represent approximately 358 000 tonnes or
31 % of the Community production measured during the
investigation.

the basic Regulation. Overall

constitute

deemed

to

(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 cooperate fully with the investigation and
were
the
thus not
Community industry.

included in the definition of

3. COMMUNITY CONSUMPTION

(158) The apparent Community consumption was established
on the basis of data reported in the complaint lodged by
the complainant. The complainant's market intelligence
in various markets and data derived from market infor-
mation provided by two commercial agencies was taken
as basis. The information gathered concerning the market
in Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, 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

1 000 tonnes

1 582

1 618

1 653

1 670

1 674

Index

100

102

104

105

106

Source: Complaint

L 270/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.9.2006

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 imports from two or more
countries simultaneously subject to anti-dumping inves-
tigations 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
imports of each
country is not negligible and (b) a cumulative assessment
is appropriate in the light of the conditions of compe-
tition between imported products and the conditions of
competition between the imported products and the like
Community product.

the volume of

regard,

i.e. below de minimis,

(161) As the overall dumping margin for Malaysia was found
to be below 2 %,
imports from
Malaysia were excluded from the cumulative assessment.
In that
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 investi-
the products imported from the
gation showed that
their essential
PRC and Thailand were alike in all
physical
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

characteristics.

levels of undercutting. Moreover,

conditions. Imports from both countries showed similar
and both showed
trends of prices
and volumes
significant
is
the imported product was found to be
recalled that
and bags produced in the
alike
Community and as such competes with them under
the same conditions of competition.

to plastic

sacks

it

(163)

it is considered that all the
In the light of the above,
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

ethylene).

imports of

the product concerned were declared
under CN code ex 3923 21 00 (sacks and bags of
polymers of
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

in 1 000 tonnes

Index

2001

219

100

2002

239

109

2003

288

132

2004

299

137

IP

307

140

29.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 270/25

(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

Index

13,8 %

14,8 %

17,4 %

18,0 %

18,3 %

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 estab-
lished 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

1,42

100

2002

1,25

88

2003

1,09

77

2004

1,16

82

IP

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 to raise capital has been established on the basis of information from the
sampled companies. However,
the
for those indicators for which reliable information was available for the
Community industry,

in order to provide a complete picture of

the situation of

L 270/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.9.2006

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 1 000 tonnes

2001

2002

2003

2004

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

Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.

IP

358

109

465

117

77

94

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

2001

2002

2003

2004

IP

Tonnes

Index

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

(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 %.

29.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 270/27

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 %.

Number of employees

Index

Productivity: production per
employee

Index

2001

3 325

100

99

100

2002

3 353

101

103

104

2003

3 381

102

104

105

2004

3 338

100

108

109

IP

3 302

99

108

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.

labour cost per employee in

32 801

34 507

34 794

35 533

35 217

2001

2002

2003

2004

IP

100

105

106

108

107

Total
euro

Index

Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.

L 270/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.9.2006

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

Index

2001

1,50

100

2002

1,44

2003

1,41

2004

1,42

96

94

95

IP

1,47

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

6,3 %

100

2002

6,9 %

110

2003

4,0 %

63

2004

2,5 %

40

IP

1,1 %

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 EUR 16 million to less than EUR 12 million.

2001

2002

2003

2004

IP

Investments (1 000 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.

(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.

29.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 270/29

Return on investment %

Index

2001

37 %

100

2002

37 %

100

2003

20 %

54

2004

12 %

32

IP

6 %

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 1 000 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
the
enterprises.
medium sized
Community
capital was
ability
reduced to some extent during the period considered,
especially in the latter part thereof, when profitability
was extremely low.

In
to raise

consequence,

industry’s

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
the
of
Community
and
reached close to break even level.

concerned. As a consequence,
depressed

industry's prices were

the product

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.

(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 cashflow. 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.

8. CONCLUSION ON INJURY

(186) The examination of the above mentioned factors shows
that between 2001 and the IP,
the dumped imports
increased sharply in terms of volume and market share.
In fact, their volume increased by 40 % during the period

(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 shutdowns.

L 270/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.9.2006

(189)

(190)

it is concluded that the
In the light of the foregoing,
Community industry is in a difficult economic and
financial
injury,
within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regu-
lation.

situation and has

suffered material

F. CAUSATION

1.

INTRODUCTION

the Commission examined whether

In accordance with Articles 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic
Regulation,
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
these imports
increased from 13,8 % in 2001 to 18,3 % in the IP.
The
countries decreased
from these
substantially during the period considered and undercut
the Community industry’s prices in the IP between 4,1 %
to 37,9 %.

import prices

share of

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 indi-
cation was found that the prices of other Community
the cooperating
producers were lower than those of
Community industry, or
situation
that
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.

their overall

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 corre-
sponds to a market share of 13,8 %. Over the same
period, the prices of these imports decreased by 11 %
(from 1,66 EUR/kg in 2001 to 1,48 EUR/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
is therefore
the Community Industry.
concluded that imports from other third countries have
not materially contributed to the injury suffered by the
Community industry.

It

3.3. Raw material prices

(197)

(192) This undercutting is resulting, on an average basis, from
pricing that does not cover all costs in the commerciali-
zation chain.

(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 dete-
rioration of the situation of the Community industry
in particular in terms profit-
during the same period,
investment, capacity
ability, sales prices, closing stocks,
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.

in the final product

the development of prices of

It was alleged by some parties that the price of poly-
ethylene has been historically lower in Asia than its
price in the EU. However, the evolution of the poly-
ethylene 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
in
situation in the PRC, the average price differential
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 differ-
ential
increased from 0,7 % to
the raw
14,8 %. As
material should have led to a decrease in the price differ-
ential 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 differential
in the raw
material prices cannot be considered to have contributed
to the material
injury of the Community industry in a
significant way.

29.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 270/31

(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 simul-
taneous 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
the Community industry has been
concluded that
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 investi-
gation of a causal link, it has to be examined whether the
dumped imports (in terms of prices and volumes) have
injury to the Community industry or
caused material
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.
to analyse the factors
Thus,
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.

there is no requirement

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 of
these other factors could not have materially contributed
to the injury suffered by the Community industry.
Furthermore,
in raw
material prices in the Community and the countries
concerned on the Community industry's negative devel-
opments
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.

the differential

effect of

the

(204) No other factors, which could at the same time have
injured the Community
raised by
interested parties or identified during the course of the
investigation.

industry, were

(200) The above is also confirmed by the wording of Article
the basic Regulation, which refers to known
3(7) of
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
if the exports are dumped,
dumped imports.
and even if
they benefited from a favourable devel-
opment in prices of raw materials, it is difficult to see
how the favourable development of such input prices
could be another factor causing injury.

In sum,

(205) Given the above analysis which has properly distin-
guished and separated the effects of all
the known
the Community Industry
factors on the situation of
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.

(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

(206)

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

L 270/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.9.2006

G. COMMUNITY INTEREST

(207)

the

compelling reasons

examined whether, despite

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

1.

INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY

The

cooperating

imports from the countries concerned. However, only
two importers/traders, representing 3 % of total imports
replied to the ques-
from the countries concerned,
tionnaire.
importers
unrelated
submitted that, were measures imposed, the sales price
of
the
the product concerned would rise and that
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.

(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 worldwide 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
the
Community industry's survival.

guaranteeing

production

facilities,

thus

it

situation of

is likely that

the deterioration of

(209) On the other hand, should anti-dumping measures not
the
be imposed,
already poor
the Community industry
would continue. It would not be able to carry out the
necessary investments in order to compete effectively
from the third countries
with the dumped imports
force some companies to cease
concerned. This will
their employees in the near
production and lay off
future. The 3 300 direct
cooperating
Community industry would be put at stake. The total
Community production of
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.

sacks and bags

in the

jobs

(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
sales of

representing 9 % of

importers/traders

total

(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
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.

customers

countries

some

in

in

(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 EUR 220
million per annum for the retail sector alone. Based on
the
the investigation, as the total customs value of
imports concerned is around EUR 375 million,
the
maximum effect of an average duty of 10 % would be
EUR 38 million on an annual basis
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
the above mentioned level
an anti-dumping duty of
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.

across

(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 impo-
sition of anti-dumping measures would not stop the
supply of
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.

the product

29.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 270/33

industry

the Community

existing
Moreover,
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
to measures. These arguments were therefore
subject
rejected.

has

(215) An association representing retailers acquiring funding
for charity purposes alleged that any duty would dispro-
fundraising activities as they
portionately harm their
purchased bags which were distributed to their clients
for free. They also said that bags used for collection of
recycled items for charity purposes would also be hit
In this
should an anti-dumping duty be imposed.
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.

0,016 cents (assuming a hypothetical weight of 7g per
bag). This increment is negligible even if it would be
borne only by consumers.
the
duty borne by the consumers will be even lower as
the
this cost will be spread across various levels of
supply chain.

the effect of

In fact,

4. COMPETITION AND TRADE DISTORTING EFFECTS

(220) With respect

the

the

Community,

to the effects of possible measures on
competition
exporting
in
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.

3.

INTEREST OF CONSUMERS

(216) No consumer associations made themselves known
within the time-limit set in the notice of initiation.

(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 compe-
tition will most likely remain strong after the imposition
of anti-dumping measures.

(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.

the product

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

their well-established

change

policy,

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
If, however, measures are not
the dumped imports.
imposed,
the Community production
it
will continue to decline and more operators will go
the importers and the
out of business. Furthermore,
retailers will not be substantially affected since fairly
priced sacks and bags will still be available in the
market, including imports from other third countries.

is likely that

(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

(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 origi-
nating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand.

L 270/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.9.2006

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.

the samples are,

for each country,

(228) The duty rates for cooperating exporters not selected to
the
be part of
the dumping margins found for
weighted average of
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
including
entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot
benefit
to the
from these rates and shall be subject
duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’.

this Regulation,

(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
type in the sector under normal
industry of
conditions of
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.

competition,

in the

this

i.e.

(226) The

the

duty

company

individual

findings of

the present

anti-dumping

rates
specified in this Regulation were established on the
basis of
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 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.

(e.g.

(229) Any claim requesting the application of these individual
following a
company anti-dumping duty rates
change in the name of
the entity or following the
setting up of 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
that change in the production and sales
change or
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,
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
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.

included in the samples,

sampling was

as

it

(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 Regu-
lation. 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:

29.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 270/35

Country

Exporting producer

Dumping
margin

Injury
margin

AD duty
rate

The PRC

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

7,4 %

39,0 %

7,4 %

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

5,1 %

74,6 %

5,1 %

Sunway Kordis Shanghai
Polysell, Shanghai

and Shanghai Sunway

4,8 %

37,4 %

4,8 %

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

7,8 %

61,3 %

7,8 %

Jiayihe Packaging Co., Ltd and Wuxi Bestpac

Wuxi
Packaging Co., Ltd, Wuxi

12,8 %

57,8 %

12,8 %

Zhong Shan Qi Yu Plastic Products Co Ltd.,
Zhongshan

5,7 %

34,3 %

5,7 %

Huizhou Jun Yang Plastics Co, Huizhou

4,8 %

30,8 %

4,8 %

Cooperating 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 Public Co., Ltd, Chonburi

5,1 %

10,6 %

5,1 %

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

10,4 %

29,7 %

10,4 %

Sahachit Watana Plastic Industry Co., Ltd, Bangkok

6,8 %

23,9 %

6,8 %

Thai Plastic Bags Industries Co., Ltd, Nakhonpathom

5,8 %

53,5 %

5,8 %

Cooperating exporting producers not in the sample

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).

The rate of the definitive duty applicable to the net, free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, for

2.
products manufactured by the companies listed below shall be as follows:

L 270/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.9.2006

Country

Company

AD duty rate
(%)

TARIC Addi-
tional code

The People’s
Republic of China

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

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

5,1

4,8

7,8

A757

A758

A760

A761

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

12,8

A763

Zhong Shan Qi Yu Plastic Products Co Ltd, Zhongshan

Huizhou Jun Yang Plastics Co,. Ltd, Huizhou

Companies listed in Annex I

All other companies

Thailand

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, Nakonpathom

Companies listed in Annex II

All other companies

5,7

4,8

8,4

28,8

14,3

5,1

10,4

6,8

5,8

7,9

14,3

A764

A765

A766

A999

A767

A768

A769

A770

A771

A772

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),

— 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.

29.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 270/37

Article 3

The proceeding concerning imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in Malaysia is hereby
terminated.

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

Article 4

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

Done at Brussels, 25 September 2006.

For the Council
The President

M. PEKKARINEN

L 270/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.9.2006

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 UNITE PLASTIC 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

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

DONGGUAN CHERRY PLASTIC INDUSTRIAL, LTD

DONGGUAN FIRSTWAY PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD

DONGGUAN MARUMAN PLASTIC PACKAGING COMPANY LIMITED

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

JIANGMEN CITY XIN HUI HENGLONG PLASTIC LTD.

JIANGMEN TOPTYPE PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., 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

Beijing

Zhuliu

Changle

Changle

Changle

Changle

Wujin

Shenzhen

Hong Kong

Shenzhen

Hong Kong

Dalian

Dongguan

Dongguan

Dongguan

Dongguan

Dongguan

Dongguan

Dongguan

Shunde

Hong Kong

Jiangmen

Hong Kong

Shenzhen

Jiangmen

Jiangmen

Jiangmen

Jiangyin

Jinan

Jinan

Jinan

Jinan

Qingzhou

Liuguanzhuang

29.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 270/39

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

RIZHAO XINAO PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD

DONGGUAN SEA LAKE PLASTIC PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.

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.

SHAOXING YUCI PLASTICS AND BAKELITE PRODUCTS CO., LTD.

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.

Liuguanzhuang

Hong Kong

Laizhou

Laizhou

Shenzhen

Linqu

Longkou

Jiangmen

Dongying

Ningbo

Ningbo

Hong Kong

Qingdao

Zhongshan

Liuguanzhuang

Dongguan

Shanghai

Shanghai

Zhangyan

Shanghai

Shanghai

Shantou

Shangyu

Zhongshan

Hong Kong

Zhongshan

Tianjin

Hong Kong

Hong Kong

Changle

Changle

Changle

Changle

Changle

Weifang

Weifang

Weifang

Weifang

L 270/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.9.2006

WEIHAI WEIQUAN PLASTIC AND RUBBER PRODUCTS CO. LTD.

WINNER BAGS PRODUCT COMPANY (SHENZHEN) LIMITED

WUI HING PLASTIC BAGS PRINTING (SHENZHEN) COMPANY LIMITED

XIAMEN EGRET PLASTICS CO., LTD.

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.

Weihai

Shenzhen

Shenzhen

Gaoqi

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 HUANGPU TOWN LIHENG METAL & PLASTIC FACTORY

ZHUHAI CHINTEC PACKING TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISE CO. LTD

ZIBO WEIJIA PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD.

Zhongshan

Zhongshan

Zhuhai

Zibo

29.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 270/41

ANNEX II

THAI COOPERATING EXPORTING PRODUCERS NOT SAMPLED

TARIC Additional Code A772

APPLE FILM CO., LTD

Samutprakarn Province

C P PACKAGING INDUSTRY CO., LTD.

K. INTERNATIONAL PACKAGING CO., LTD.

POLY WORLD CO., LTD.

SIAM FLEXIBLE INDUSTRIES CO., LTD

THAI GRIPTECH CO. LTD. et SUPER GRIP CO., LTD.

Bangkok

Samutsakorn

Bangkok

Samutsakorn

Bangkok

THANTAWAN INDUSTRY PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED

Nakornphathom

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

Bangkok

UNIVERSAL POLYBAG COMPANY LTD.

ZIPLAS INTERNATIONAL CO LTD

Chonburi

Bangkok