Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain saddles originating in the People's Republic of China
Date: 2007-05-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, originating product, two-wheeled vehicle, vehicle parts

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 30.5.2007 
COM(2007) 278 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of certain saddles originating in the People's Republic of China 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1)  CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This  proposal  concerns  the  application  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of 
22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members 
of  the  European  Community,  as  last  amended  by  Council  Regulation  (EC) 
No 2117/2005  of  21  December  2005  ('the  basic  Regulation')  in  the  proceeding 
concerning imports of certain saddles originating in the People's Republic of China. 

•  General context 

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

•  Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1999/2006 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty 
on imports of certain saddles originating in the People’s Republic of China 

•  Consistency with the other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

2)  CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

•  Consultation of interested parties 

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

•  Collection and use of expertise 

There was no need for external expertise. 

•  Impact assessment 

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

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

3)  LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

On 7 April 2006, the Commission opened an anti-dumping investigation with regard to 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
imports into the Community of certain saddles originating in the People's Republic of 
China. 

By  Regulation  (EC)  No  1999/2006  of  20  December  2006,  the  Commission  imposed 
provisional anti-dumping duties on these imports.  

The attached proposal for a Council Regulation is based on the definitive findings on 
dumping,  injury,  causation  and  Community  interest  which  confirmed  the  provisional 
findings while introducing some changes to the calculation of the dumping margins. 

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation 
which should be published in the Official Journal no later than 27 June 2007. 

•  Legal basis 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22  December  1995  on  protection  against 
dumped  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European  Community,  as  last 
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 of 21 December 2005.  

•  Subsidiarity principle 

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

•  Proportionality principle 

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

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

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

•  Choice of instruments 

Proposed instruments: regulation. 

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

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

4)  BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of certain saddles originating in the People's Republic of China 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 

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

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

Whereas: 

A. 

PROVISIONAL MEASURES 

The  Commission,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1999/20062  (the  ‘provisional  Regulation’) 
imposed  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  certain  saddles,  currently 
classifiable  within  CN  codes  8714  95  00,  ex  8714  99  90  and  ex  9506  91  10, 
originating in the People's Republic of China (‘PRC’). 

It is recalled that the investigation of dumping and injury  covered the period from 1 
January 2005 to 31 December 2005 (‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’). With respect to the 
trends relevant for the injury assessment, the Commission analysed data covering the 
period  from  1  January  2002  to  the  end  of  the  investigation  period  (‘period 
considered’). 

B. 

SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE 

Following  the  imposition  of  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  certain 
saddles  originating  in  the  PRC,  some  interested  parties  submitted  comments  in 
writing. The parties, who so requested, were also granted an opportunity to be heard.  

The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for 
its definitive findings.  

OJ  L  56,  6.3.1996,  p.  1.  Regulation  as  last  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  2117/2005  (OJ  L  340, 
23.12.2005, p. 17). 
OJ L 379, 28.12.2006, p. 11. 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

1 

2 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(5) 

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 saddles originating in the PRC and the definitive collection of the 
amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  duty.  They  were  also  granted  a  period 
within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure. 

(6) 

The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were considered, and, where 
appropriate, the findings have been modified accordingly. 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

C. 

PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

One  importer  argued  against  the  inclusion  into  the  scope  of  the  investigation  of 
essential  parts  of  saddles  (bases,  cushions  and  covers)  on  the  grounds  that  the 
inclusion  of  the  latter  was  not  justified  by  any  evidence  of  dumping  from  either  the 
complaint  or  the  investigation.  This  importer  claimed  also  that  it  is  not  sufficient  to 
consider  saddles  and  saddle  parts  as  one  single  product  on  the  basis  that  both  were 
used  for  the  same  end  product  (i.e.  bicycles  and  similar).  The  same  importer  further 
alleged  that  certain  saddle  parts  were  included  in  the  product  definition  to  prevent 
circumvention in case anti-dumping duties were imposed. On this basis, it was argued 
that  importers  in  the  Community  should  be  allowed  to  request  exemptions  from  the 
anti-dumping duty within the meaning of Article 13 (4) of the basic Regulation. 

It should be noted, first of all, that the complaint mentions saddles and essential parts 
thereof. It is considered, however, that the prima facie evidence of dumping necessary 
for initiating an investigation does not need to cover all product types included in the 
scope  of  the  investigation.  As  long  as  the  parts  of  a  saddle  have  the  same  basic 
technical, physical and chemical characteristics and cannot have another end-use than 
being incorporated in the whole (i.e. into saddles) and, as such, they are not a distinct 
product, they are defined as part of the product concerned and should form part of the 
investigation.  Furthermore,  the  fact  that  essential  parts  were  not  exported  as  such  to 
the  Community  by  the  cooperating  exporting  producers  during  the  IP  does  not 
preclude that this could have happened for the exporters which have not cooperated. It 
is  recalled  that  the  latter  exporters  represent  over  75%  of  the  exports  of  the  product 
concerned to the Community.  

As outlined in recital (16) of the provisional Regulation, the investigation has shown 
that,  despite  differences  in  shapes,  materials  and  production  processes,  the  different 
types  of  the  product  concerned  all  share  the  same  basic  physical  and  technical 
characteristics  and  are  basically  used  for  the  same  purposes.  This  finding  was  not 
contested  by  the  importer  in  question  (or  by  any  other  interested  party  of  this 
proceeding) who did also not provide any evidence or information which would have 
contradicted the provisional  findings. It results that the determination  whether or not 
certain saddle parts should be considered as one single product was not made on the 
sole basis of the end-use criterion. The importer's claim that certain essential parts of 
saddles should not be considered as the product concerned was therefore rejected.  

(10)  Likewise,  it  results  from  the  above  that  circumvention  considerations  were  not 
decisive when determining the product concerned in the present investigation.  

(11) 

In the absence of any other comments concerning the product concerned and the like 
product, recitals (14) to (18) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
D. 

DUMPING 

1. 

Market economy treatment (‘MET’) and individual treatment ('IT') 

(12)  Following the provisional disclosure, one group of exporting producers whose request 
for  MET  or  IT  was  rejected  on  the  grounds  that  it  had  provided  misleading 
information  within  the  meaning  of  Article  18  of  the  basic  Regulation,  argued  that  it 
should not be treated as non cooperating and that the omission of certain information 
which  was  considered  by  the  Commission  in  its  provisional  findings  as  misleading 
should  not  lead  to  the  rejection  of  IT,  since  the  information  concerned  only  the 
domestic market, and would thus affect the calculation of the normal value. 

(13)  However,  the  company  failed  to  give  any  satisfactory  explanation  as  to  the 
information  which  had  been  omitted,  and  it  is  therefore  considered  appropriate  to 
maintain  the  provisional  findings  concerning  their  level  of  cooperation.  The 
consequent  doubts  on  the  reliability  of  the  whole  information  submitted  by  this 
exporting  producer  still  exist,  and  in  the  absence  of  full  cooperation  of  all  related 
companies within one group of exporting producers, it cannot be determined whether 
the  criteria  set  out  in  Article  9(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation  concerning  IT  are  met  in 
relation to this group.  

(14)  The  Community  industry  claimed  that  the  fact  that  some  of  the  exporting  producers 
benefited  from  tax  exemptions  aimed  at  encouraging  foreign  direct  investment  is 
incompatible with the granting of MET to these exporting producers. 

(15)  However, the actual benefits from these tax exemptions to the companies were found 
to  be  negligible,  and  it  is  therefore  considered  that  they  were  not  incompatible  with 
MET.  

(16)  The Community industry also argued that MET should have been denied to one of the 
groups  of  exporters,  due  to  the  fact  that  during  the  IP  there  were  provisions  in  the 
Articles  of  Association  of  those  exporters,  specifying  a  certain  percentage  of  export 
sales. 

(17)  However,  it  is  considered  that  these  provisions,  which  were  not  in  practice  followed 
by the exporters and have been removed after the IP, did not constitute either de jure 
or de facto restrictions on these companies' activities. 

(18) 

In  the  absence  of  any  new  arguments  regarding  the  granting  of  MET  and  IT,  the 
findings  as  set  out  in  recitals  (19)  to  (27)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  hereby 
confirmed.  

2. 

Normal value 

(a) Determination of normal value for the exporting producers in the PRC granted MET 

(19)  Following  the  provisional  disclosure,  one  exporting  producer  submitted  comments 
concerning  the  detailed  calculations  made  for  establishing  the  normal  value.  These 
comments  were  found  to  be  justified,  and  the  calculations  of  the  normal  value  were 
corrected accordingly. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
(20) 

In the absence of any other comments regarding the calculation of normal value, the 
general methodology as set out in recitals (28) to (40) of the provisional Regulation is 
hereby confirmed. 

(b) Determination of normal value for the exporting producers in the PRC not granted MET 

(i) Analogue Country  

(21)  Following the provisional disclosure, one importer reiterated a statement already made 
earlier in the procedure by another party, claiming that the only cooperating producer 
in  Brazil  enjoyed  a  dominant  position  in  the  Brazilian  market  and  was  furthermore 
related  to  the  complainant,  and  contested  the  Commission's  choice  of  Brazil  as 
analogue  country.  These  arguments  were  already  analysed  by  the  Commission  and 
refuted  in  recital  (47)  of  the  provisional  Regulation.  As  no  new  information  was 
provided in the comments received after the provisional disclosure and there was no 
indication  in  the  further  investigation  that  the  position  of  the  cooperating  Brazilian 
producer  on  the  Brazilian  market  or  its  relationship  to  the  complainant  may  have 
affected  the  reliability  of  the  data  submitted  or  the  appropriateness  of  Brazil  as 
analogue country, the conclusion made at provisional stage is confirmed. 

(22) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  regarding  the  use  of  Brazil  as  an  analogue 
country, recitals (41) to (49) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed. 

(ii) Normal value 

(23)  The verification of the data submitted by the cooperating producer in Brazil took place 
before  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  but  too  late  in  the  proceeding  for  its 
results to be reflected in those measures. In view of the results of that verification, the 
calculation  of  the  normal  value  for  the  exporting  producers  in  the  PRC  not  granted 
MET was refined.  

(24) 

In the absence of any comments with regard to the determination of the normal value 
for  the  exporting  producers  not  granted  MET,  the  general  methodology  as  set  out  in 
recitals (41) to (51) of the provisional Regulation is definitively confirmed. 

3. 

Export prices 

(25) 

In the absence of any comments with regard to export prices, the general methodology 
as set out in recitals (52) to (54) of the provisional Regulation, is hereby confirmed.  

4. 

Comparison 

(26)  Following  the  provisional  disclosure,  one  exporting  producer  claimed  that  an 
adjustment  for  differences  in  commissions, according  to  Article  2(10)(i)  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  made  on  the  export  price  for  sales  made  through  a  related  company  in 
Taiwan,  was  not  warranted.  The  exporter  claimed  that  the  Taiwanese  company  does 
not perform any of the functions referred to in Article 2(10)(i). However, this claim is 
in contradiction with the description of the sales process given in the company's reply 
to the anti-dumping questionnaire and as verified during the on-spot investigation, and 
therefore this claim cannot be accepted.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
(27) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  in  this  respect,  recitals  (55)  and  (56)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

5. 

a) 

Dumping margin 

For the cooperating exporting producer granted MET 

(28)  One  cooperating  exporting  producer  claimed  that  an  individual  dumping  margin 
should also be attributed to one company in the group who had not exported to the EC 
during  the  IP.  Given  that  the  group  has  fully  cooperated  in  the  investigation,  their 
claim was accepted and the group's average dumping margin should also be attributed 
to this company, Cionlli Bicycle Components (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. 

(29) 

In the light of the above-mentioned revisions relating to normal value,  the definitive 
dumping  margins,  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  CIF  Community  frontier  price, 
duty unpaid, are as follows:  

Company 

Definitive dumping 
margin 

Cionlli  Bicycle  (Taicang)  Co.  Ltd.,  Shunde  Hongli 
Bicycle  Parts  Co.  Ltd.,  Safe  Strong  Bicycle  Parts 
Shenzhen  Co.  Ltd.  and  Cionlli  Bicycle  Components 
(Tianjin) Co. Ltd. 

Giching  Bicycle  Parts  (Shenzhen)  Co.  Ltd.  and  Velo 
Cycle Kunshan Co. Ltd. 

5,8 % 

0% 

b) For all other exporting producers 

(30)  Following  the  provisional  disclosure,  one  importer  claimed  that  the  country-wide 
dumping  margin  should  not  have  been  based  on  the  single  cooperating  exporting 
producer  to  which  neither  MET  nor  IT  was  granted.  According  to  this  importer,  the 
country-wide dumping margin should also have been based on the export price of the 
group of exporting producers mentioned in recital (12). 

(31)  However,  as  stated  in  recital  (23)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  there  are  serious 
doubts  on  the  integrity  of  the  whole  data  provided  by  that  exporter  which  had 
deliberately omitted to declare its relationship with one of its main domestic customers 
and was thus considered as non-cooperating in this investigation. 

(32) 

In light of the comments received it was considered nevertheless, that given the very 
small volume of exports represented by the single cooperating exporting producer to 
which  neither  MET  nor  IT  was  granted,  it  would  be  more  appropriate  to  base  the 
calculation  of  the  country-wide  duty  also  on  import  data from  Eurostat,  based  on  an 
average weight of 500 grams per saddle. 

(33)  Accordingly,  the  country-wide  dumping  margin  was  determined  as  the  weighted 

average of : 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
– 

– 

the dumping margin found for the cooperating exporter to which neither MET 
nor IT was granted and  

a dumping margin calculated from Eurostat import data, by excluding the value 
and quantity of exports from the cooperating exporting producers. 

(34)  Some  minor  corrections  were  also  made  to  the  normal  value  based  on  the  analogue 

country data. 

(35)  The  Community  industry  claimed  that  the  average  weight  of  500  grams  per  saddle 
used  by  the  Commission  in  the  calculation  of  the  country-wide  duty  was  an  over-
estimation. The industry argued that an average weight of 420 grams should have been 
used instead, which would have implied a lower average price per saddle on the basis 
of Eurostat data. However, the industry was not able to support this claim with enough 
verifiable evidence. Therefore, the estimate of an average weight of 500 grams, which 
is supported by the data gathered during the investigation, was maintained. 

(36)  On this basis, the definitive country-wide level of dumping is established at 29.6 % of 

the CIF Community frontier price, duty unpaid. 

1. 

Community production 

E. 

INJURY 

(37) 

In the absence of comments concerning Community production, recitals (64) and (65) 
of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2. 

Definition of the Community industry 

(38) 

In  the  absence  of  comments  concerning  the  definition  of  the  Community  industry, 
recitals (66) and (67) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3. 

Community consumption 

(39) 

In the absence of comments concerning the Community consumption, recital (68) and 
(69) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4. 

Imports into the Community from the country concerned 

(40) 

In the absence of any comments concerning the imports from the country concerned, 
recitals (70) to (76) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

5. 

Situation of the Community industry 

(41) 

In  the  absence  of  comments  concerning  the  situation  of  the  Community  industry, 
recitals (77) to (100) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

F. 

CAUSATION 

(42) 

In the absence of any new and substantiated information or argument in this respect, 
recitals (105) to (118) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
G. 

COMMUNITY INTEREST 

(43) 

In the absence of substantially new information or argument in this particular respect, 
recitals (119) to (135) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

H. 

DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 

1. 

Injury elimination level 

(44) 

In the absence of any other comments concerning the injury elimination level, recitals 
(136) to (140) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2. 

Form and level of the duties 

(45) 

In  the  light  of  the  foregoing  and  in  accordance  with  Article  9(4)  of  the  basic 
Regulation, a definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed at the level sufficient to 
eliminate  the  injury  caused  by  the  imports  without  exceeding  the  dumping  margin 
found. 

(46)  On the basis of the above, the definitive duties are as follows: 

Company 

Definitive duty 

Cionlli  Bicycle  (Taicang)  Co.  Ltd.,  Shunde  Hongli 
Bicycle  Parts  Co.  Ltd.,  Safe  Strong  Bicycle  Parts 
Shenzhen  Co.  Ltd.  and  Cionlli  Bicycle  Components 
(Tianjin) Co. Ltd. 

Giching  Bicycle  Parts  (Shenzhen)  Co.  Ltd.  and  Velo 
Cycle Kunshan Co. Ltd. 

All other companies 

5,8%

0%

29,6%

(47)  The  individual  company  anti-dumping  duty  rates  specified  in  this  Regulation  were 
established  on  the  basis  of  the  findings  of  the  present  investigation.  Therefore,  they 
reflect  the  situation  found  during  that  investigation  with  respect  to  these  companies. 
These  duty  rates  (as  opposed  to  the  country-wide  duty  applicable  to  'all  other 
companies')  are  thus  exclusively  applicable  to  imports  of  products  originating  in  the 
country  concerned  and  produced  by  the  companies  and  thus  by  the  specific  legal 
entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically 
mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with its name and address, including 
entities  related  to  those  specifically  mentioned,  cannot  benefit  from  these  rates  and 
shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to 'all other companies'. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
(48)  Any claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty 
rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of 
new  production  or  sales  entities)  should  be  addressed  to  the  Commission3  forthwith 
with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company's activities 
linked  to  production,  domestic  and  export  sales  associated  with,  for  example,  that 
name  change  or  that  change  in  the  production  and  sales  entities.  If  appropriate,  the 
Regulation  will  then  be  amended  accordingly  by  updating  the  list  of  companies 
benefiting from individual duty rates.  

(49) 

In  order  to  ensure  a  proper  enforcement  of  the  anti-dumping  duty,  the  residual  duty 
level  should  not  only  apply  to  the  non-cooperating  exporters,  but  also  to  those 
companies  which  did  not  have  any  exports  during  the  IP.  However,  the  latter 
companies are invited, when they fulfil the requirements of Article 11(4) of the basic 
Regulation, second paragraph, to present a request for a review pursuant to that Article 
in order to have their situation examined individually. 

4. 

Definitive collection of provisional duties and special monitoring 

(50) 

(51) 

(52) 

In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and in the light of the level of 
the  injury  caused  to  the  Community  industry,  it  is  considered  necessary  that  the 
amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty,  imposed  by  the 
provisional  Regulation,  i.e.  Regulation  (EC)  No  1999/2006,  should  be  definitively 
collected  to  the  extent  of  the  amount  of  the  definitive  duties  imposed.  Where  the 
definitive duties are lower than the provisional duties, amounts provisionally secured 
in  excess  of  the  definitive  rate  of  anti-dumping  duties  shall  be  released.  Where  the 
definitive duties are higher than the provisional duties, only the amounts secured at the 
level of the provisional duties shall be definitely collected. 

In order to minimise the risks of circumvention due to the high difference in the duty 
rates, it is considered that special measures are needed in this case to ensure the proper 
application  of  the  anti-dumping  duties.  These  special  measures,  which  only  apply  to 
companies for which an individual duty rate is introduced, include the presentation to 
the  customs  authorities  of  the  Member  States  of  a  valid  commercial  invoice,  which 
shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex to this Regulation. Imports not 
accompanied  by  such  an  invoice  shall  be  made  subject  to  the  residual  anti-dumping 
duty applicable to all other exporters. 

It  is  recalled  that  should  the  exports  by  the  companies  benefiting  from  lower 
individual duty rates increase significantly in volume after the imposition of the anti-
dumping measures, such an increase in volume could be considered as constituting in 
itself  a  change  in  the  pattern  of  trade  due  to  the  imposition  of  measures  within  the 
meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation. In such circumstances, and provided 
the  conditions  are  met,  an  anti-circumvention  investigation  may  be  initiated.  This 
investigation may, inter alia, examine the need for the removal of individual duty rates 
and the consequent imposition of a country-wide duty. 

3 

European Commission 
Directorate-General for Trade 
Direction H, office J-79 5/16 
1049 Brussels/Belgium 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of saddles and essential parts 
thereof  i.e.,  bases,  cushions  and  covers,  of  bicycles  and  other  cycles  (including  delivery 
tricycles), not motorised, of cycles fitted with an auxiliary motor with or without sidecars, of 
fitness  machines  and  of  home  trainers,  falling  within  CN  codes  8714 95 00,  ex  8714 99 90 
and ex 9506 91 10 (TARIC codes 8714 99 90 81 and 9506 91 10 10) and originating in the 
People’s Republic of China. 

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

Company 

Anti-Dumping 
Duty 

TARIC 
Additional Code 

Cionlli  Bicycle  (Taicang)  Co.  Ltd.,  Shunde  Hongli 
Bicycle  Parts  Co.  Ltd.,  Safe  Strong  Bicycle  Parts 
Shenzhen Co. Ltd. and Cionlli Bicycle Components 
(Tianjin) Co. Ltd. 

Giching Bicycle Parts (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. and Velo 
Cycle Kunshan Co. Ltd. 

All other companies 

5,8% 

0% 

29,6% 

A787 

A788 

A999 

3.  The  application  of  the  individual  duty  rates  specified  for  the  companies  mentioned  in 
paragraph 2 shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member 
States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the 
Annex. If no such invoice is presented, the duty rate applicable to all other companies shall 
apply.  

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

Article 2 

Amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  pursuant  to  Commission 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1999/2006  on  imports  of  saddles  and  essential  parts  thereof  i.e.,  bases, 
cushions and covers, of bicycles and other cycles (including delivery tricycles), not motorised, 
of cycles fitted with an auxiliary motor with or without sidecars, of fitness machines and of 
home trainers, falling within CN codes 8714 95 00, ex 8714 99 90 and ex 9506 91 10 (TARIC 
codes 8714 99 90 81 and 9506 91 10 10) and originating in the People’s Republic of China 
shall be definitively collected. The amounts secured in excess of the amount of the definitive 
anti-dumping  duties  shall  be  released.  Where  the  definitive  duties  are  higher  than  the 
provisional  duties,  only  the  amounts  secured  at  the  level  of  the  provisional  duties  shall  be 
definitely collected. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

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

Article 3 

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

Done at Brussels, […] 

For the Council 
The President

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
ANNEX 

The  valid  commercial  invoice  referred  to  in  Article  1(3)  of  this  Regulation  must  include  a 
declaration signed by an official of the company, in the following format: 

(1) 

(2) 

The  name  and  function  of  the  official  of  the  company  which  has  issued  the 
commercial invoice. 

The following declaration “I, the undersigned, certify that the [volume] of saddles and 
essential  parts  thereof  sold  for  export  to  the  European  Community  covered  by  this 
invoice was manufactured by (company name and address) (TARIC additional code) 
in  (country  concerned).  I  declare  that  the  information  provided  in  this  invoice  is 
complete and correct.” 

Date and signature 

EN 

14 

   EN