Proposal for a Council Regulation Amending Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards originating, inter alia, in the People's Republic of China
Date: 2009-12-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, Ukraine, anti-dumping duty, household article, import, originating product

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 17.12.2009 
COM(2009) 677 final 

2009/0178 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

Amending Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on 
imports of ironing boards originating, inter alia, in the People's Republic of China  

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 
ironing  boards  originating,  inter  alia,  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China,  following  a 
new exporter review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation.  

•  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 

The  measures currently in force are imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 
imposing  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  and  collecting  definitively  the  provisional  duty 
imposed  on  imports  of  ironing  boards  originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China  and 
Ukraine.  

•  Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

2) CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

•  Consultation of interested parties 

Interested parties concerned by the proceeding have 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 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On  30  April  2009,  the  European  Commission  (the  Commission)  initiated  a  new 
exporter review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of ironing boards 
originating in the People's Republic of China imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 
452/2007 of 23 April 2007. 

The  request  for  the  review  was  lodged  by  a  Chinese  exporting  producer,  namely 
Greenwood  Houseware  (Zhuhai)  Ltd,  who  presented  prima  facie  evidence  that  it  did 
not  produce  ironing  boards  before  and  during  the  investigation  period  of  the  original 
anti-dumping proceeding. 

The review investigation showed that Greenwood Houseware (Zhuhai) Ltd fulfilled the 
relevant provisions of the basic Regulation as a new exporter and an individual margin 
of dumping was calculated accordingly. The definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to 
the company should therefore be set at the level of the dumping margin found.  

Therefore,  it  is  suggested  that  the  Council  adopts  the  attached  proposal  for  a 
Regulation  amending  the  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  Greenwood  Houseware 
(Zhuhai)  Ltd,  which  should  be  published  in  the  Official  Journal  no  later  than  28 
January 2010.  

•  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 European Union (EU). The 
subsidiarity principle therefore does not apply. 

•  Proportionality principle 

The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reason(s). 

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  EU,  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 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The proposal has no implication for the EU budget. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
2009/0178 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

Amending Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on 
imports of ironing boards originating, inter alia, in the People's Republic of China  

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union, 

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 11(4) thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

A. MEASURES IN FORCE 

(1) 

The measures currently in force on imports of ironing boards originating, inter alia, in 
the People's Republic of China (‘PRC’) are definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  452/20072.  Pursuant  to  the  same  Regulation,  anti-dumping 
duties were also imposed on imports of ironing boards originating in Ukraine.  

B. CURRENT INVESTIGATION 

1. Request for a review 

(2) 

This  'new  exporter'  review  was  initiated  on  the  basis  of  a  request  lodged,  and 
information  provided,  by  Greenwood  Houseware  (Zhuhai)  Ltd  (‘the  applicant’  or 
‘Greenwood  Houseware’),  an  exporter  from  the  PRC.  The  applicant  claimed  that  it 
was  not  related  to  any  of  the  exporting  producers  in  the  PRC  subject  to  the  anti-
dumping  measures  in  force  with  regards  to  ironing  boards.  Furthermore,  it  claimed 
that  it  had  not  exported  ironing  boards  to  the  Community  during  the  original 
investigation  period  (the  original  IP,  i.e.  the  period  from  1  January  2005  to  31 
December 2005), but had started to export ironing boards to the Community thereafter.  

2. Initiation of a "new exporter" review  

1 
2 

OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.  
OJ L109, 26.4.2007, p.12. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
(3) 

(4) 

The Commission examined the evidence submitted by the applicant and considered it 
sufficient to justify the initiation of a review in accordance with Article 11(4) of the 
basic  Regulation.  After  consulting  of  the  Advisory  Committee  and  after  the 
Community  industry  had  been  given  the  opportunity  to  comment,  the  Commission 
initiated, by Regulation (EC) No 356/20093, a review of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 
with regard to the applicant and commenced its investigation. 

Pursuant to the Commission regulation initiating the review, the anti-dumping duty of 
38,1%  imposed  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  452/2007  on  imports  of  ironing  boards 
produced by the applicant was repealed. Simultaneously, pursuant to Article 14(5) of 
the basic Regulation, customs authorities were directed to take the appropriate steps to 
register such imports. 

3. Product concerned 

(5) 

The product concerned by the current review  is the same as  that  in  the investigation 
that  led  to  the  imposition  of  the  measures  in  force  on  imports  of  ironing  boards 
originating,  inter  alia,  in  the  PRC,  i.e.  ironing  boards,  whether  or  not  free-standing, 
with  or  without  a  steam  soaking  and/or  heating  top,  including  sleeve  boards,  and 
essential parts thereof, i.e. the legs, the top and the iron rest, currently falling within 
CN codes ex 3924 90 00, ex 4421 90 98, ex 7323 93 90, ex 7323 99 91, ex 7323 99 
99, ex 8516 79 70 and ex 8516 90 00 and originating in the PRC. 

4. Parties concerned 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

The  Commission  officially  advised  the  applicant,  the  Community  industry  via  its 
representatives and the representatives of the exporting country of the initiation of the 
review.  Interested  parties  were  given  the  opportunity  to  make  their  views  known  in 
writing and to be heard.  

The  Commission  also  sent  a  market  economy  treatment/individual  treatment 
(‘MET/IT’) claim form and a questionnaire to the applicant and received replies within 
the deadlines set for that purpose.  

The Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for the 
purpose  of  MET/IT  and  for  the  determination  of  dumping.  Verification  visits  were 
carried out as follows: 

a) Exporting producer in the PRC 

Greenwood Houseware (Zhuhai) Ltd, People's Republic of China  

b) Related to the exporting producer companies  

Brabantia S&S, Hong Kong  

Brabantia S&L Belgium NV, Overpelt, Belgium 

Brabantia Belgium NV, Overpelt, Belgium 

3 

OJ L 109, 30.4.2009, p.6. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Brabantia International BV, Valkenswaard, Netherlands 

Brabantia Branding BV, Valkenswaard, Netherlands 

Brabantia Export, Valkenswaard, Netherlands 

Brabantia S&L (UK) Ltd, Bristol United Kingdom 

Brabantia UK Limited, Bristol, United Kingdom 

(9) 

In the light of the need to establish a normal value for the exporting producer in the 
PRC in case MET might not be granted, a verification to establish normal value on the 
basis of data  from  a Community  industry  producer took  place at the premises  of the 
following company: 

Vale Mill Ltd, Rochdale, United Kingdom  

5. Investigation period 

(10)  The  investigation  of  dumping  covered  the  period  from  1  October  2007  to  31  March 
2009 (‘the investigation period’ or ‘IP’). The 18 month long investigation period was 
selected in order to use the data also in a parallel refund investigation relevant to the 
applicant. 

C. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION 

1. "New exporter" qualification 

(11)  The investigation confirmed that the applicant had not exported the product concerned 
during  the  original  IP  and  that  it  had  begun  exporting  to  the  Community  after  this 
period. During the original IP the applicant's related trading company exported ironing 
boards  purchased  from  one  other  Chinese  producer.  However  this  was  only  trading 
activity not in breach with Article 11(4) of basic Regulation.  

(12)  Furthermore, the applicant was able to demonstrate that it was not related to any of the 
exporters or producers in the PRC which are subject to the anti-dumping measures in 
force on imports of ironing boards originating in the PRC.  

(13)  Therefore, it is confirmed that the applicant should be considered a "new exporter" in 

accordance with Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation. 

2. Market economy treatment 

(14)  Pursuant  to  Article  2(7)(b)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  in  anti-dumping  investigations 
concerning  imports  originating  in  the  PRC  normal  value  shall  be  determined  in 
accordance  with  paragraphs  1  to  6  of  the  said  Article  for  those  exporting  producers 
which have shown that they meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic 
Regulation,  i.e.  where  it  is  demonstrated  by  such  exporting  producers  that  market 
economy conditions prevail in respect of the manufacture and sale of the like product. 
Briefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out in a summarised form 
below:  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
1.  business  decisions  and  costs  are  made  in  response  to  market  conditions,  without 
significant State interference, and costs reflect market values; 

2. firms have one clear set of accounting records which are independently audited, in 
line with International Accounting Standards ('IAS') 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; 

5. currency exchanges are carried out at the market rate. 

(15)  The applicant requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation and 
was invited to complete a MET claim form. It replied to the MET claim form within 
the given deadline. 

(16)  The Commission sought all information deemed necessary and verified all information 
submitted in the MET application at the premises of the company in question. 

(17) 

It was considered that MET should not be granted to the applicant on the basis that it 
did not meet the second and the third criterion as laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the 
basic Regulation. 

(18)  As  far  as  criterion  2  is  concerned  it  was  established  on  spot  that  fundamental 
International  Accounting  Standards  (‘IAS’)  principles  and  in  particular  IAS  1  were 
disregarded  (i.e.  accrual  principle,  off-setting,  lack  of  fair  representation  of 
transactions, wrong reporting of basic information relating to the tax regime applicable 
to  the  company)  both  in  the  accounts  and  in  their  audit,  which  put  into  question  the 
reliability  of  the  company's  accounts.  Consequently,  it  was  concluded  that  the 
company has not shown that it fulfils criterion 2.  

(19)  As  far  as  criterion  3  is  concerned  it  was  established  on  spot  that  the  company  was 
benefiting  from  specific  tax  schemes  carried  over  from  the  non  market  economy 
system. Indeed, the on-spot verification established that during the IP the applicant did 
not pay any income tax as it was still in its first two profitable years of the special tax 
program  applied  to  foreign  enterprises  (‘Two  Free,  Three  Year  Half’)  where 
companies are exempted from income tax during the first two profitable years and are 
subject to half the applicable tax rate (set at 25%) for the following three years which 
in this particular case entails that the company will enjoy the 50% reduction of income 
tax  rate  until  2012.  The  company  was  also  exempt  from  payment  of  a  set  of  taxes 
including city maintenance tax, embankment protection fee, customs duty and VAT on 
equipment  purchases.  The  investigation  also  revealed  the  existence  of  significant 
distortions with respect to land use rights (‘LUR’) relevant to the applicant pointing to 
the  conclusion  that  the  land  use  rights  does  not  correspond  to  market  economy 
conditions.  Account  taken  of  all  the  above,  it  was  consequently  concluded  that  the 
company has not shown that it fulfils criterion 3.  

(20)  The applicant and the Community industry were given an opportunity to comment on 
the above findings. The Community industry agreed with the above findings but also 
claimed that the Commission should have evaluated the impact of distorted steel prices 
on  the  Chinese  market.  With  regard  to  Criterion  2,  the  applicant  claimed  that  it 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
complies  with  the  IAS  and,  with  regards  to  Criterion  3,  it  submitted  comments  and 
explanations concerning its tax regime and the LUR issues raised by the Commission. 

(21)  With  respect  to  the  Community  industry’s  comments  it  is  noted  that  the  issue  of 
distorted steel prices on the Chinese market was not investigated due to the other clear 
shortcomings found with respect to MET. No conclusion is therefore reached on this 
point. 

(22)  The  Commission  carefully  reviewed  and  examined  the  comments  submitted  by  the 
applicant. With respect to Criterion 2 the explanations provided did not undermine the 
factual  basis  on  which  the  accounting  discrepancies  were  established  while  the 
explanations  of  the  applicable  IAS  rules  were  found  to  be  not  relevant.  As  regards 
Criterion 3 and in particular the protection fee, customs duty and VAT exemptions, the 
explanations  and  information  provided  by  the  applicant  were  accepted.  Nevertheless 
other explanations and information provided by the applicant could not undermine the 
clear shortcomings linked to Criterion 3 namely that the allocation of land is linked to 
business undertakings, the construction of public facilities without compensation and 
the lack of LUR price variation in time. In view of the remaining clear shortcomings 
linked to Criterion 3, this criterion continues not to be met. 

(23)  On  the  basis  of  the  above,  it  was  concluded  that  the  applicant  has  not  shown  that  it 
fulfils all the criteria set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and, thus, could 
not be granted MET. 

3. Individual treatment 

(24)  Pursuant  to  Article  9(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  a  country-wide  duty,  if  any,  is 
established  for  countries  falling  under  Article  2(7)(a),  except  in  those  cases  where 
companies are able to demonstrate that they meet all criteria set out in Article 9(5) of 
the basic Regulation and can thus be granted IT. 

(25)  Greenwood Houseware claimed IT in the event that it would not be granted MET. 

(26)  On the basis of the information available, it was established that the company fulfilled 
the  requirements  foreseen  in  Article  9(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  It  was  therefore 
concluded that the applicant could be granted IT. 

4. Normal Value 

4.1. Analogue country 

(27)  According  to  Article  2(7)(a)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  in  case  of  imports  from  non-
market-economy  countries  and  to  the  extent  that  MET  could  not  be  granted,  for 
countries specified in Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, normal value should be 
established on the basis of the price or constructed value in an analogue country. 

(28) 

In the notice of initiation the Commission indicated its intention to use Turkey as an 
appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value for the PRC 
and invited the interested parties to comment thereon. Turkey has already been used as 
an analogue country in the original investigation. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
(29)  No  comments  were  received  on  the  selection  of  Turkey  as  analogue  country  for  the 

establishment of normal value. 

(30)  The Commission sought co-operation from producers in Turkey. Letters and relevant 
questionnaires were sent to three companies in Turkey. None of these companies co-
operated  with 
information.  The 
investigation  or  submitted  any  relevant 
Commission contacted all known producers in Turkey again, however no replies were 
submitted. The Community industry and the applicant were informed of the aforesaid 
situation  and  asked to  provide any  relevant comments  with  respect  to  methods  to  be 
used for the selection of market economy third country. No comments were received.  

the 

(31) 

In view of the above, it was considered appropriate, in accordance with Article 2.7(a) 
of  the  basic  Regulation  to  request  the  Community  industry  whether  it  intended  to 
cooperate  in  order  to  allow  the  Commission  to  obtain  necessary  information  to 
establish normal value.  

(32)  Letters and relevant questionnaires were sent to the Community industry producers in 
order  to  obtain  necessary  information  to  establish  normal  value  and  Greenwood 
Houseware was invited to comment thereon.  

(33)  No  comments  on  using  the  information  obtained  from  Community  industry  for 

establishment of normal value were received from Greenwood Houseware. 

(34)  One  European  producer  submitted  all  the  necessary  information  in  due  time  for  the 
determination  of  normal  value  and  agreed  to  co-operate  in  the  investigation.  It  was 
therefore decided to establish normal value on this basis. 

4.2. Determination of normal value 

(35)  Following  the  choice  of  using  the  Community  industry’s  data,  normal  value  was 
calculated on the basis of the information verified at the premises of the co-operating 
Community producer, Vale Mill Ltd. 

(36)  The domestic sales of the Community producer of the like product were found to be 
representative compared to the product concerned exported to the Community by the 
exporting producer in the PRC. 

(37)  Pursuant  to  Article  2(7)(a)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  normal  value  for  the  PRC  was 
established  on  the  basis  of  verified  information  received  from  the  sole  co-operating 
Community  producer,  i.e.  on  the  basis  of  prices  paid  or  payable  on  the  Community 
market  for  comparable  product  types,  where  these  were  found  to  be  made  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  trade,  or  on  constructed  values,  where  no  domestic  sales  in  the 
ordinary course of trade for comparable product types were found, i.e. on the basis of 
the cost of manufacturing of ironing boards manufactured by the Community producer 
plus a reasonable amount for selling, general and administrative (‘SGA’) expenses and 
for  profit.  The  profit  margin  used  is  in  line  with  the  one  used  in  the  original 
investigation. 

5. Export price 

(38)  The  applicant  made  all  export  sales  to  the  Community  through  related  trading  and 
broker  companies  located  both  outside  the  Community  (one  company  registered  in 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
Hong Kong) and inside the Community (25 companies registered in various Member 
States of the European Union(EU)).  

(39)  As all export sales to the Community were made through related trading companies, 
the export price was established on the basis of the prices of the product when sold by 
the related trading companies to the first independent buyer in accordance with Article 
2(9) of the basic Regulation.  

(40)  Greenwood Houseware used a large number of related companies for sales to the first 
independent  buyer  in  the  Community.  The  product  concerned  first  entered  into  free 
circulation in  the Community  by one  company related to the applicant company and 
then sold to different related companies that performed trading and other activities for 
the applicant in various Member States of the EU The applicant requested to limit the 
dumping  calculations  to  the  transactions  referring  to  its  three  main  related  parties, 
selling in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Belgium, that represented a major 
proportion  of  its  sales  in  the  EU.  In  view  of  the  high  total  number  of  related  sales 
parties  and  the  time  constraints  in  concluding  the  investigation  it  is  considered 
appropriate  to  base  findings  on  dumping  on  the  aforesaid  main  markets  of  the 
applicant  in  the  EU.  The  Commission  verified  the  totality  of  export  sales  from  the 
PRC via Hong Kong and up to the point where the product concerned entered into free 
circulation in the EU and resold to its various trading companies. It was only at this 
point  that  the  Commission  limited  its  assessment  of  dumping  to  the  three  main 
markets mentioned above.  

(41)  As a consequence, and in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, export 
prices were constructed on the basis of the prices at which the imported product was 
first  resold  to  independent  customers  in  the  Netherlands,  the  United  Kingdom  and 
Belgium. A deduction had to be made for all costs incurred between importation and 
resale, including selling, general and administrative costs by the importing companies 
during the IP. These costs were verified on spot at the respective companies.  

(42)  Profit margins covering the applicant's operations in respect of the product concerned 
during the IP also had to be deducted. In this respect, the actual profit of the related 
traders could not be used since the relationship between the exporting producer and the 
related traders made these profit levels unreliable. In addition the company explained 
on  spot  that  they  did  not  normally  account  for  such  profitability  rates  in  the  manner 
required by the investigation. The applicant therefore suggested that the Commission 
used the normal profit level used in the previous investigation. In the absence of other 
figures as explained above, it was therefore decided to use the rate set in the original 
investigation.  

6. Comparison 

(43)  Pursuant  to  Article  2(11)  and  (12)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  dumping  margin  for 
Greenwood  Houseware  was  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.  

(44)  The comparison was made on an ex-factory basis and at the same level of trade. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
(45)  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. Allowances for differences in indirect taxes, transport and insurance costs, 
handling,  loading  and  ancillary  costs,  packing  costs,  credit  costs,  warranty  and 
guarantee costs and commissions have been granted where applicable and justified. 

7. Dumping Margin 

(46)  The comparison showed the existence of dumping. This dumping margin expressed as 
a percentage of the net, free-at-European Union-frontier price, duty unpaid is 22.7 %.  

D. RETROACTIVE LEVYING OF THE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY 

(47) 

In light of the above findings, the anti-dumping duty applicable to the applicant should 
be  levied  retroactively  on  imports  of  the  product  concerned  which  have  been  made 
subject  to  registration  pursuant  to  Article  3  of  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No 
356/2009.  

E. DISCLOSURE 

(48) 

Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis 
of which it was intended to impose on imports of ironing boards from the applicant an 
amended  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  and  to  levy  this  duty  retroactively  on  imports 
made subject to registration.  

(49)  All  interested  parties  were  given  an  opportunity  to  comment.  Their  comments  were 
considered and taken into account where appropriate but they were not of a nature as 
to change the conclusions. 

(50)  This  review  does  not  affect  the  date  on  which  the  measures  imposed  by  Regulation 
(EC) No 452/2007 will expire pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation,  

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 

The  table  in  Article  1(2)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  452/2007  is  hereby  amended  by 
adding the following: 

Country 

Manufacturer 

Rate of duty (%) 

TARIC additional 
code 

The People’s 
Republic of China 

Greenwood 
Houseware (Zhuhai) 
Ltd 

22.7 

A953 

2. 

The  duty  hereby  imposed  shall  be  levied  retroactively  on  imports  of  the  product 
concerned which have been registered pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
356/2009.  Customs  authorities  are  hereby  directed  to  cease  the  registration  of 
imports of the product concerned originating in the People’s Republic of China and 
produced by Greenwood Houseware (Zhuhai) Ltd. 

3. 

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

Article 2 

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

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

13 

   EN