Council Regulation (EC) No 691/2007 of 18 June 2007 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: 2007-06-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, two-wheeled vehicle, vehicle parts

21.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 160/1

(Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory)

I

REGULATIONS

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 691/2007

of 18 June 2007

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,

Commission analysed data covering the period from
1 January 2002 to the end of the investigation period
(period considered).

Having regard to the Treaty
Community,

establishing the European

B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE

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:

A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES

(1)

(2)

The Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 1999/2006 (2)
(the provisional Regulation) imposed a provisional anti-
dumping duty on imports of certain saddles, currently
classifiable
8714 95 00,
CN
ex 8714 99 90 and ex 9506 91 10, originating in the
People's Republic of China (PRC).

within

codes

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
the
trends

assessment,

relevant

injury

the

for

(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 L 379, 28.12.2006, p. 11.

(3)

(4)

the essential

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. All parties were
informed of
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 de-
finitive collection of
the amounts secured by way of
the provisional duty. They were also granted a period
within which
representations
subsequent
to this disclosure. The oral and written
comments submitted by the parties were considered,
and, where
been
modified accordingly.

findings have

could make

appropriate,

they

the

C. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

the latter was not

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
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.

L 160/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.6.2007

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

It

first of all,

that
saddles and essential parts

the complaint
It should be noted,
mentions
is
thereof.
considered, however, that the prima facie evidence of
dumping necessary for initiating an investigation does
types included in the
not need to cover all product
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
concerned to the
the product
the
Community.

exports of

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.

(10) 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.

the same purposes. This

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
finding was not
used for
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
therefore
rejected.

the product concerned was

(11)

(12)

benefited

exporting
aimed

The Community industry claimed that the fact that some
from tax
producers
the
of
exemptions
direct
at
investment is incompatible with the granting of MET
to these
the actual
exporting producers. However,
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.

encouraging

foreign

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
is
export
certain percentage of
considered that
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.

it
these provisions, which were not

sales. However,

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

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.

(13)

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

D. DUMPING

(a) Determination of normal value for the exporting producers

in the PRC granted MET

2. Normal value

1. Market economy treatment (MET) and individual

treatment (IT)

(14)

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

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
corrected
accordingly.
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 pro-
visional Regulation is hereby confirmed.

the normal

value were

21.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 160/3

(b) Determination of normal value for the exporting producers

in the PRC not granted MET

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

Following the provisional disclosure, one importer re-
iterated a statement already made earlier in the pro-
cedure by another party, claiming that the only coop-
erating 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
cooperating
the position of
Brazilian producer on the Brazilian market or its re-
lationship to the complainant may have affected the re-
liability of the data submitted or the appropriateness of
Brazil as analogue country, the conclusion made at pro-
visional stage is confirmed. 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.

the

( i i ) N o r m a l v a l u e

related company

Regulation, made on the export price for sales made
in Taiwan, was not
through a
the Taiwanese
warranted. The exporter claimed that
company does not perform any of
functions
the
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 ques-
tionnaire and as verified during the on-the-spot investi-
gation, and therefore this claim cannot be accepted. In
the absence of any other comments in this respect,
recitals 55 and 56 of
the provisional Regulation are
hereby confirmed.

5. Dumping margin

(a) For the cooperating exporting producer granted MET

(19) 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 coop-
erated 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. 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:

(15)

(16)

that verification,

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 proceedings for
its results to be reflected in those measures. In view of
the results of
the
normal value for the exporting producers in the PRC
In the absence of any
not granted MET was refined.
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.

the calculation of

3. Export prices

(17)

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.

(20)

4. Comparison

(18)

Following the provisional disclosure, one
exporting
producer claimed that an adjustment for differences in
commissions, according to Article 2(10)(i) of the basic

Company

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

Definitive
dumping
margin

5,8 %

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

0 %

(b) For all other exporting producers

single

Following the provisional disclosure, one
importer
claimed that the countrywide dumping margin should
not have been based on the
cooperating
exporting producer to which neither MET nor IT was
granted. According to this importer,
the countrywide
dumping margin should also have been based on the
export price of
the group of exporting producers
mentioned in recital 9. 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.

L 160/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.6.2007

(21)

the comments received it was considered
In light of
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
countrywide duty also on import data from Eurostat,
based on an average weight of 500 grams per saddle.
Accordingly,
the countrywide dumping margin was
determined as the weighted average of:

— 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. Some
minor corrections were also made to the normal
value based on the analogue country data.

(22)

The Community industry claimed that the average weight
of 500 grams per saddle used by the Commission in the
calculation of
the countrywide 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
the industry
on the basis of Eurostat data. However,
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. On this basis,
the definitive countrywide level of dumping is established
at 29,6 % of
the cif Community frontier price, duty
unpaid.

E. INJURY

1. Community production

(23)

In the absence of comments concerning Community
production, recitals 64 and 65 of the provisional Regu-
lation are hereby confirmed.

2. Definition of the Community industry

(24)

In the absence of comments concerning the definition of
the Community industry, recitals 66 and 67 of the pro-
visional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

3. Community consumption

(25)

In the absence of comments concerning the Community
consumption, recitals 68 and 69 of the provisional Regu-
lation are hereby confirmed.

4. Imports into the Community from the country

concerned

(26)

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

(27)

In the absence of comments concerning the situation of
the Community industry, recitals 77 to 100 of the pro-
visional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

F. CAUSATION

(28)

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.

G. COMMUNITY INTEREST

(29)

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

(30)

In the absence of any other comments concerning the
injury elimination level, recitals 136 to 140 of the pro-
visional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

2. Form and level of the duties

(31)

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.

(32) 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

5,8 %

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

0 %

All other companies

29,6 %

21.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 160/5

(33)

the

duty

rates

company

individual

findings of

the present

anti-dumping

(as opposed to the

rates
The
specified in this Regulation were established on the
basis of
investigation.
Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that
to these companies. These
investigation with respect
duty
countrywide duty
applicable to ‘all other companies’) are thus exclusively
applicable to imports of products originating in the
country concerned and produced by the companies 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’.

(e.g.

(34) Any claim requesting the application of these individual
following a
company anti-dumping duty rates
the entity or following the
change in the name of
setting up of new production or sales entities) should
be addressed to the Commission (1) forthwith with all
relevant information,
in particular any modification in
the company's activities linked to production, domestic
and export sales associated with, for example, that name
that change in the production and sales
change or
entities.
then be
amended accordingly by updating the list of companies
benefiting from individual duty rates.

the Regulation will

If appropriate,

(35)

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 Regu-
lation, second paragraph,
for a
review pursuant to that Article in order to have their
situation examined individually.

to present a request

3. Definitive collection of provisional duties and

special monitoring

(36)

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. Regu-
lation (EC) No 1999/2006,
should be definitively
collected to the extent of the amount of the definitive

(1) European Commission

Directorate-General for Trade
Direction H, office J-79 5/16
B-1049 Brussels.

(37)

(38)

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 Regu-
lation. Imports not accompanied by such an invoice shall
to the residual anti-dumping duty
be made subject
applicable to all other exporters.

individual duty rates

It is recalled that should the exports by the companies
benefiting from lower
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 Regu-
the
lation.
conditions are met, an anti-circumvention investigation
may be initiated. This
inter alia,
examine the need for the removal of
individual duty
rates and the consequent imposition of a countrywide
duty,

In such circumstances,

investigation may,

and provided

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

thereof

saddles and essential parts

A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on
1.
imports of
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
falling within CN codes 8714 95 00,
and of home trainers,
ex 8714 99 90
codes
and
8714 99 90 81 and 9506 91 10 10) and originating in the
People's Republic of China.

ex 9506 91 10

(TARIC

L 160/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.6.2007

The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to
2.
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

presented,
shall apply.

the duty rate applicable to all other companies

Unless otherwise

4.
concerning customs duties shall apply.

specified,

the provisions

in force

5,8 %

A787

Article 2

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

0 %

A788

All other companies

29,6 %

A999

thereof

saddles and essential parts

Amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties
pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1999/2006 on
imports of
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
falling within CN codes 8714 95 00,
and of home trainers,
ex 8714 99 90
codes
and
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.

ex 9506 91 10

(TARIC

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
If no such invoice is
in the Annex.
requirements set out

Article 3

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

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

Done at Luxembourg, 18 June 2007.

For the Council
The President

F.-W. STEINMEIER

21.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 160/7

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

(2) 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