Proposal for a COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1458/2007 on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, whether declared as originating in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam or not
Date: 2013-02-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, Viet Nam, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping measure, import (EU), originating product

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 22.2.2013  
COM(2013) 94 final 

2013/0058 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION 

extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) 
No 1458/2007 on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters originating in 
the People’s Republic of China to imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint 
lighters consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, whether declared as 
originating in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam or not 

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  1225/2009  of 
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the 
European Community ('the basic Regulation') in the investigation of possible circumvention 
of the anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1458/2007 on imports 
of  gas-fuelled,  non-refillable  pocket  flint  lighters  originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of 
China  by  imports  of  gas-fuelled,  non-refillable  pocket  flint  lighters  consigned  from  the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam.  

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 and in particular Article 13 thereof. 

Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

The  measures  were  imposed  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1458/2007  imposing  a 
definitive  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  gas-fuelled,  non-refillable  pocket  flint  lighters 
originating in the People's Republic of China. These measures have expired on 13 December 
2012. 

Consistency with the other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

2. 

RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS WITH THE INTERESTED PARTIES AND 
IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 

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  provide  for  a  general  impact  assessment  but  contains  an 
exhaustive list of conditions that have to be assessed. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

3. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

Summary of the proposed action 

The attached proposal for a Council Implementing Regulation is based on the findings of the 
investigation, which has confirmed that assembly of lighters in Vietnam using Chinese parts 
is taking place and that all other criteria for the establishment of circumvention as set out in 
Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation are met.  

It  is  therefore  proposed  that  the  Council  adopt  the  attached  proposal  to  extend  the  anti-
dumping measures on gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters originating in the PRC 
to imports of the same product consigned from Vietnam.  

The relevant Council Regulation should be published in the Official Journal of the European 
Union no later than 23 March 2013. 

Legal basis 

Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped 
imports from countries not members of the European Community and in particular Article 13 
thereof.  

Subsidiarity principle 

The proposal  falls  under  the exclusive competence of the Union. 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  the  financial  and  administrative  burden  falling  upon  the  Union,  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:  The  above-mentioned  basic 
Regulation does not provide for alternative options. 

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION  

The proposal has no implication for the Union budget. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

2013/0058 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION 

extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) 
No 1458/2007 on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters originating in 
the People’s Republic of China to imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint 
lighters consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, whether declared as 
originating in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam or not 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection 
against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community1 (‘the basic 
Regulation’), and in particular Article 13 thereof, 

Having  regard  to  the  proposal  from  the  European  Commission  (‘the  Commission’)  after 
consulting the Advisory Committee, 

Whereas: 

1. 

1.1. 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

PROCEDURE 

Background 
In  1991,  the  Council,  by  Regulation  (EEC)  No  3433/912,  imposed  a  definitive  anti-
dumping duty of 16.9% on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters 
originating,  inter  alia,  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China  ('PRC')  (the  product  under 
investigation). 
In 1995, by Council Regulation  (EC)  No  1006/953 the  original ad valorem duty was 
replaced by a specific duty of ECU 0,065 per lighter. 

Further to an investigation in accordance with Article 13 of the basic Regulation the 
above  measures  were  extended  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  192/19994  to  (1) 
imports  of  gas-fuelled,  non-refillable  pocket  flint  lighters  consigned  from  or 
originating  in  Taiwan  and  (2)  imports  of  certain  refillable  lighters  originating  in  the 
PRC  or  consigned  from  or  originating  in  Taiwan  with  a  free-at-Community  frontier, 
duty unpaid value per piece below EUR 0,15.  
In  2001,  the  Council,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1824/20015  confirmed  the  definitive 
anti-dumping duties imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1006/95 as extended by 
Council Regulation (EC) No 192/1999 ('existing measures') pursuant to Article 11(2) 
of the basic Regulation. 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. 
OJ L 326, 28.11.1991, p. 1. 
OJ L 101, 4.5.1995, p.38. 
OJ L 22, 29.1.1999, p.1. 
OJ L 248, 18.9.2001, p.1. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
(5) 

(6) 

In  2007,  the  Council,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1458/20076  (‘the  original  Regulation’) 
confirmed  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  imposed  by  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1824/2001  pursuant  to  Article  11(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  These  measures  will 
hereinafter be referred to as 'the original measures' and the investigation that led to the 
measures  imposed  by  the  original  Regulation  will  be  hereinafter  referred  to  as  'the 
original investigation'.  
The  Commission,  published  on  12  December  20127  a  notice  of  expiry  of  the  anti-
dumping measures. 

(7)  With  the  expiry  of  the  measures  on  13  December  2012,  by  Regulation  EC  No 
1192/20128  the  registration  of  imports  of  gas-fuelled,  non-refillable  pocket  flint 
lighters  consigned  from  Vietnam,  whether  declared  as  originating  in  Vietnam  or  not 
was therefore discontinued as from the same date (see also recital (14)).  

1.2. 

(8) 

Request 

On 17 April 2012, the European Commission received a request pursuant to Articles 
13(3)  and  14(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation  (the  request)  to  investigate  the  possible 
circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of gas-fuelled, non-
refillable  pocket  flint  lighters  originating  in  the  PRC  and  to  make  imports  of  gas-
fuelled,  non-refillable  pocket  flint  lighters  consigned  from  the  Socialist  Republic  of 
Vietnam  (‘Vietnam’),  whether  declared  as  originating  in  Vietnam  or  not,  subject  to 
registration. 

(9) 

The  request  was  lodged  by  Société  BIC,  a  Union  producer  of  gas-fuelled,  non-
refillable pocket flint lighters. 

(10)  The request contained sufficient prima facie evidence that the original measures were 

being circumvented by means of assembly operations in Vietnam. 

(11)  The  request  showed  that  following  the  imposition  of  the  original  measures,  a 
significant change in the pattern of trade involving exports from the PRC and Vietnam 
to  the  Union  occurred,  for  which  there  was  insufficient  due  cause  or  economic 
justification  other  than  the  imposition  of  the  original  measures.  This  change  in  the 
pattern  of  trade  stemmed  allegedly  from  the  assembly  operations  of  lighters  in 
Vietnam using parts originating in the PRC. 

(12)  Furthermore, the prima facie evidence pointed to the fact that the remedial effects of 
the original measures were being undermined both in terms of quantity and price. The 
evidence showed in particular that the increased imports from Vietnam were made at 
prices below the non-injurious price established in the original investigation. 

(13)  Finally, there was also sufficient prima facie evidence that prices of gas-fuelled, non-
refillable pocket flint lighters consigned from Vietnam were dumped in relation to the 
normal value established during the original investigation. 

1.3. 

Initiation 

(14)  Having  determined,  after  consulting  the  Advisory  Committee,  that  sufficient  prima 
facie evidence existed for the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Article 13 of the 
basic  Regulation,  the  Commission  initiated  an  investigation  by  Commission 

6 
7 
8 

OJ L 326, 12.12.2007, p. 1. 
OJ C 382, 12.12.2012, p. 12. 
OJ L 340, 13.12.2012, p. 37. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
Regulation (EU) No 548/20129 (‘the initiating Regulation’). Pursuant to Articles 13(3) 
and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission, by the initiating Regulation, also 
directed  the  customs  authorities  to  register  imports  of  gas-fuelled,  non-refillable 
pocket  flint  lighters  consigned  from  Vietnam,  whether  declared  as  originating  in 
Vietnam or not. 

1.4. 

Investigation 

(15)  The  Commission  officially  advised  the  authorities  of  the  PRC  and  Vietnam,  the 
exporting  producers  in  those  countries,  the  importers  in  the  Union  known  to  be 
concerned and Société BIC (the applicant), a Union producer representing more than 
75%  of  the  production  of  gas-fuelled,  non-refillable  pocket  flint  lighters  in  the 
European Union, of the initiation of the investigation.  

(16)  Questionnaires  were  sent  to  70  exporting  producers  in  the  PRC  and  15  exporting 
producers  in  Vietnam  known  to  the  Commission  from  the  request.  Questionnaires 
were  also  sent  to  59  importers  in  the  Union  named  in  the  request.  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 initiating Regulation. All parties were informed 
that  non-cooperation  might  lead  to  the  application  of  Article  18  of  the  basic 
Regulation and to findings being based on the facts available. 

(17)  Eight  out  of  the  15  known  exporting  producers  in  Vietnam  came  forward,  one  of 
which  claimed  that  it  did  not  want  to  be  considered  as  interested  party  as  it  did  not 
produce the product under investigation and did not have any exports to the Union.  

(18)  The  following  seven  companies  submitted  replies  to  the  questionnaires  and 

verification visits were subsequently carried out at their premises: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Viet Giai Thanh Co. Ltd, Ho Chi Minh City 

Hoa Hung Co. Ltd, Tay Ninh Province 

Trung Lai Gas Lighter Manufacture Co. Ltd, Nghe An Province 

Textion Plastic Co. Ltd, Binh Duong Province 

Cherry  Year  Vietnam  Lighter  Manufacture  Co.  Ltd,  Tay  Ninh 
Province 

Huaxing Vietnam Manufacture Co. Ltd, Tay Ninh Province 

Top Field Enterprises Co. Ltd, Tay Ninh Province 

(19)  None  of  the  known  exporting  producers  in  the  PRC  came  forward  or  submitted  a 

questionnaire reply.  

(20)  As  regards  importers,  eight  submitted  a  questionnaire  reply  whereas  six  companies 
came forward and claimed that they did not want to be considered as interested parties 
as  they  did  not  import  in  the  Union  gas-fuelled,  non-refillable  pocket  flint  lighters 
from Vietnam (the product under investigation). The remaining known companies did 
not come forward at all. 

(21)  Following the initiation of the ivestigation, two importers requested and were granted 
a  hearing  which  was  held  in  the  course  of  September  2012.  The  importers  also 
provided  their  observations  in  writing.  Their  observations  questioned  the  grounds  of 
the  initiation  of  the  investigation  as  regards  the  product  scope,  import  volumes, 

9 

OJ L 165, 26.6.2012, p. 37. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
economic justification for the changes in the pattern of trade, the motivations behind 
the request and the financial situation of the Union prducer having made the request. 
In  the  opinion  of  the  importers,  there  were  insufficient  grounds  to  initiate  an 
investigation.  

(22)  The Commission provided a detailed reply to the observations and gave the parties an 
opportunity to comment. The Commission outlined why it considered that the request 
contained sufficient prima facie evidence to justify the initiation of the investigation. 
The  comments  made  by  the  two  importers  did  not  demonstrate  that  there  would  not 
have been sufficient prima facie evidence to justify the initiation of the investigation. 

1.5. 

Investigation period 

(23)  The  investigation  period  covered  the  period  from  1  January  2008  to  31  March  2012 
(‘the IP’). Data were collected for the IP to investigate, inter alia, the alleged change 
in the pattern of trade. More detailed data were collected for the reporting period from 
1  April  2011  to  31  March  2012  (‘the  RP’)  in  order  to  examine  the  possible 
undermining of the remedial effect of the measures and the existence of dumping. 

2. 

2.1. 

(24) 

RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION 

General considerations 

In  accordance  with  Article  13(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  assessment  of  the 
existence of circumvention was made by analysing successively whether there was a 
change in the pattern of trade between the PRC, Vietnam and the Union; if this change 
stemmed from a practice, process or work for which there was insufficient due cause 
or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty; if there was evidence 
of injury or that the remedial effects of the duty were being undermined in terms of the 
prices  and/or  quantities  of  the  product  under  investigation;  and  whether  there  was 
evidence  of  dumping  in  relation  to  the  normal  values  previously  established  in  the 
original  investigation,  if  necessary  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Article  2  of 
the basic Regulation. 

2.2. 

Product concerned and the product under investigation 

(25)  The  product  concerned  is  as  defined  in  the  original  investigation:  gas-fuelled,  non-
refillable  pocket  flint  lighters  currently  falling  within  CN  code  ex  9613  10  00  and 
originating in the People's Republic of China ('the product concerned'). 

(26)  The product under investigation is the same as that defined in the previous recital, but 
consigned from Vietnam, whether declared as originating in Vietnam or not, currently 
falling  within  the  same  CN  code  as  the  product  concerned  ('the  product  under 
investigation'). 

(27)  The  investigation  showed  that  gas-fuelled,  non-refillable  pocket  flint  lighters,  as 
defined  above,  exported  from  the  PRC  to  the  Union  and  those  consigned  from 
Vietnam to the Union have the same basic physical and technical characteristics and 
have  the  same  uses,  and  are  therefore  to  be  considered  as  like  products  within  the 
meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation. 

2.3. 

Degree of cooperation and determination of the trade volumes  

Vietnam 

(28)  As stated in recital (18), seven companies submitted questionnaire replies. For the RP, 
the  total  volume  of  lighters  reported  as  sold  to  the  Union  according  to  these  replies 
represented more than 100% of the total volume of lighters reported as imported into 

EN 

7 

   EN 

the  Union  according  to  the  Eurostat  Comext  database.  Despite  the  fact  that  the 
information regarding sales volumes in the replies was considered to be unreliable as 
explained in recital (29) below, it is considered that this still gives an indication that 
cooperation was high and that the companies investigated are representative. 

(29)  During  the  verification  visits  carried-out  at  the  premises  of  the  seven  Vietnamese 
exporting producers, it was found that they all had submitted information which could 
not be considered to be reliable for the purpose of establishing the findings relevant to 
the  investigation.  In  particular,  the  seven  companies  were  found  to  have  wrongly 
stated  their  production  volumes,  imports  of  lighter  parts  and  total  sales.  It  was  also 
found  that  part  of  the  business  relating  to  the  product  under  investigation  was  not 
inluded in the official acounts and that certain assembly operations were carried out by 
unofficial subcontractors. Moreover, quantities of imports of parts from the PRC were 
not  declared  or  wrongly  stated,  and  part  of  the  sales  were  not  accounted  for  in  the 
accounts of the companies. As a result, it has not been possible to reliably establish in 
particular the total production and total sales volumes of the companies concerned and 
to  reconcile  the  actual  sale  prices  of  the  product  under  investigation  and  the  costs 
relating to key input materials such as gas with the data provided in the questionnaire 
replies.  

(30) 

In view of the situation described above in recital (29), the exporting producers were 
informed that pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation it was envisaged to base 
the findings and conclusions of the investigation on best facts available. Parties were 
given  an  opportunity  to  comment  and  were  granted  a  hearing  when  requested.  Each 
party  received  an  individual  letter  outlining  the  specific  and  detailed  findings  which 
led to the conclusion that the data provided could not be considered to be reliable and 
was not suitable to establish the facts necessary for the investigation.  

(31)  Two  exporting  producers  did  not  provide  any  comments  on  the  intention  to  apply 
Article  18  of  the  basic  Regulation.  The  other  five  exporting  producers,  composed  of 
two  individual  companies  and  one  group  of  three  companies,  requested  and  were 
granted  a  hearing  which  was  held  in the course of November 2012. These exporting 
the 
producers  also  provided 
Commission’s  intention  to  disregard  the  data  they  provided  and  the  possible 
conclusion  of  the  existence  of  circumvention  based  on  the  application  of  best  facts 
available.  

in  writing.  They  disputed 

their  observations 

(32)  Four  of  the  exporting  producers  did  not  contest  the  fact  that  the  information  they 
provided  was  not  complete  or  reliable  and  admitted  the  discrepancies  in  their 
accounting  and  the  fact  that  not  all  operations  were  disclosed  or  recorded  in  their 
books.  However,  they  claimed  that  these  differences  only  concerned  their  domestic 
sales  and  did  not  have  any  effect  on  their  export  sales.  One  party  claimed  that  its 
records  had  been  destroyed  by  a  fire,  which  explained  the  incompleteness  of  the 
information  available.  They  further  claimed that  the  quantity  of  gas  contained  in  the 
lighters  was  wrongly  estimated  by  the  Commission  and  that  therefore  the  findings 
regarding  the  production  volumes  were  not  correct.  One  company  claimed  that  the 
discrepancy  in  gas  consumption  was  explained  by  intentional  releases  of  gas  during 
the  warmer  months.  These  parties  could  however  not  provide  any  substantiated 
evidence to support these claims.  

(33)  The companies also stated that they were fully cooperative and were not withholding 
any information concerning their business.  They admitted to have provided deficient 
replies  but  strongly  contested  having  submitted  false  and  misleading  information.  In 

EN 

8 

   EN 

(34) 

their  view,  undisclosed  and  unverifiable  data  in  itself  does  not  consitute  a  proof  of 
circumvention  and  according  to  them,  the  Commission  has  not  demonstrated  that 
circumvention was taking place based on positive evidence. 

It should nevertheless be pointed out that although the companies have not themselves 
provided  complete  and  accurate  records  of  their  activities,  the  Commission  has  used 
alternative  methods,  such  as  the  consumption  of  raw  materials,  to  reconcile  the  key 
data  provided  in  the  questionnaire  replies  with  the  information  provided  and 
discovered  on  spot.  Such  alternative  methods,  even  if  inevitably  less  precise  than 
actual  records,  showed  that  the  data  provided  was  not  reliable.  For  instance,  the 
outcome  concerning  production  volume  showed  that  the  production  quantities 
declared by the companies did not match with their consumption of raw materials. 

(35)  The  Commission  considers  that  the  absence  of  reliable  records,  the  withholding  of 
information  which  is  relevant  for  the  investigation  and  the  submission  of  false  or 
misleading information rendered the data unreliable following a verification process.  

(36)  Given  the  above,  findings  in  respect  of  imports  of  gas-fuelled,  non-refillable  pocket 
flint  lighters  from  Vietnam  into  the  Union  had  to  be  made  on  the  basis  of  facts 
available in accordance with Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation. As a consequence, 
in  order  to  ensure  that  the  failure  of  the  parties  to  provide  the  information  does  not 
hinder the investigation, the Commission has replaced the unverifiable data provided 
by the Vietnamese producers with other available  data, such as the Eurostat Comext 
database to  determine the overall  import volumes  from  Vietnam  into  the  Union,  and 
cost data provided in the request to determine the share of Chinese parts (see recital 
(50) below).  

The People's Republic of China 

(37)  There was no cooperation from the Chinese exporting producers. Therefore, findings 
in  respect  of  imports  of  the  product  concerned  into  the  Union  and  exports  of  gas-
fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters from the PRC to Vietnam had to be made 
on the basis of facts available in accordance with Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation. 
UN Comtrade statistics provided in the request were used for the determination of the 
overall exports from the PRC to Vietnam. 

2.4. 

Change in the pattern of trade 

Imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters into the Union  

(38) 

(39) 

Imports of the product concerned from PRC dropped in 1991 when the measures were 
first  introduced.  The  imports  have  remained  small  throughout  the  successive 
modifications and extensions of the measures in 1995, 1999, 2001 and 2007.  

Imports  of  lighters  from  PRC  between  1  January  2008  to  31  March  2012  were 
relatively stable in terms of volume, around 50 million pieces for 2008 and 2009, 70 
million  pieces  in  2010  and  60  million  in  2011  and  the  RP.  They  consisted  however 
only  of  refillable  models  and  electrical  piezo  lighters  which  were  not  subject  to  the 
measures.  

(40)  The  imports  of  the  product  under  investigation  from  Vietnam  have  increased  over 
time.  While  in  1997  there  were  practically  no  imports  into  the  Union  of  the  product 
under investigation from Vietnam, since 2007 there was a rapid increase in the import 
volume of the product under investigation.  

(41) 

In RP imports from Vietnam represented 84% of all imports to the EU. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

Imports from Vietnam into the EU27 of non-refillable lighters in % of all imports 

2008 

Market share 

80% 

2009 

84% 

2010 

83% 

2011 

84% 

RP 

84% 

Source: statistics provided in the request 

Exports of lighter parts from the PRC to Vietnam 

(42)  Flint lighter parts were exported from the PRC to Vietnam during the IP. Vietnam is 
the most important export destination of flint lighter parts from PRC. According to the 
statistics  provided  in  the  request,  the  exports  of  lighter  parts  from  PRC  to  Vietnam 
have increased significantly since 1999. In 1999, exports of lighter parts from the PRC 
to Vietnam were less than 3% of total exports, whereas in 2010 Vietnam became the 
first  export  destination  of  lighter  parts  with  a  share  of  26%.  In  volumes,  this  would 
correspond to an increase from less than 50 million to 200 million finished lighters. 

Production volumes of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters in Vietnam 

(43)  As  the  information  provided  by  the  Vietnamese  producers  had  to  be  disregarded,  no 
verifiable  information  could  be  obtained  on  the  possible  levels  of  the  genuine 
production of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters.  

2.5. 

Conclusion on the change in the pattern of trade 

(44)  The  overall  decrease  of  the  exports  from  the  PRC  to  the  Union  and  the  increase  of 
exports from Vietnam to the Union since 2007 and the significant increase of exports 
of  lighter  parts  from  the  PRC  to  Vietnam  since  1999  constituted  a  change  in  the 
pattern  of  trade  between  the  above  mentioned  countries,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
Union, on the other. 

2.6. 

Nature of the circumvention practice 

(45)  Article  13(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation  requires  that  the  change  in  the  pattern  of  trade 
stems  from  a  practice,  process  or  work  for  which  there  is  insufficient  due  cause  or 
economic justification other than the imposition of the duty. The practice, process or 
work  includes,  inter  alia,  the  assembly  of  parts  by  an  assembly  operation  in  a  third 
country.  For  this  purpose  the  existence  of  assembly  operations  is  determined  in 
accordance with Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation.  

Assembly operations 

(46)  As mentioned above, the absence of reliable records and witholding information which 
was relevant for the investigation has led to the application of Article 18 of the basic 
Regulation. Whether or not an assembly operation in Vietnam could be considered to 
circumvent the measures had to be based on facts available.  

(47)  The investigation has revealed that the circumvention is taking place through assembly 
operations conducted by Vietnamese companies that operate in close cooperation with 
Chinese and Hong Kong registered companies. The cooperating Vietnamese producers 
are  in  vast  majority  owned  by  Chinese  and  Hong  Kong  companies.  Also  the 
management  of  the  Vietnamese  companies  is  to  a  large  extent  composed  of  Chinese 
professionals who have previously worked for lighter producers in PRC. 

(48)  The  Vietnamese  producers  import  their  lighter  parts  from  PRC  through  related 
companies registered in Hong Kong. Some of the Vietnamese producers operate under 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
processing  agreements  with  Chinese  and/or  Hong  Kong  principals.  Under  these 
agreements,  the  Chinese  principal  provides  the  lighter  parts  and  plastic  to  the 
Vietnamese  factory,  and  sells  the  finished  lighters.  Even  in  the  absence  of  such 
processing  agreements,  the  lighters  produced  in  Vietnam  are  typically  sold  to  Hong 
Kong companies who are in charge of the commercial relationship with EU importers. 

(49)  Due  to  the  unreliability  of  the  information  provided  by  the  Vietnamese  producers,  it 
has not been possible to determine whether the percentage thresholds set out in Article 
13(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation  are  fulfilled  or  not.  It  has  not  been  possible  to  verify 
whether the lighter parts originating from the PRC constitute more or less than 60% of 
the  total  value  of  the  assembled  lighters  and  whether  or  not  the  value  added  to  the 
parts brought in has been greater or lesser than 25% of the manufacturing cost. 

(50) 

In  the  absence  of  reliable  information  from  the  Vietnamese  producers,  the 
determination  must  be  made  on  the  basis  of  the  facts  available.  The  information 
provided  in  the  request  shows  that  the  lighter  parts  originating  from  PRC  represent 
between 60% and 70% of the total value and that the value added to the parts brought 
in  corresponds  to  12%  of  the  manufacturing  costs.  These  values  are  based  on 
comparable  production  costs  of  a  manufacturer  located  in  the  PRC.  The  underlying 
calculations  are  considered  to  be  reasonably  accurate  and  to  reflect  the  division  of 
costs in Vietnam, because the lighter parts and raw materials used are the same in both 
the  PRC  and  Vietnam.  Any  adjustments  due  to  lower  local  costs  in  Vietnam  would 
result in an even larger share of Chinese value in the finished lighters. 

2.7. 

Insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the anti-
dumping duty 

(51)  The investigation did not bring to light any other due cause or economic justification 
for the assembly operations than the avoidance of the original measures on the product 
concerned.  The  Vietnamese  producers  have  claimed  that  the  cause  for  moving  the 
production  would  be  the  lower  labour  costs  in  Vietnam,  but  the  claim  has  not  been 
substantiated. In any case a general labour cost difference would not explain why the 
production  in  a  specific  sector  (lighters)  would  move  to  Vietnam,  whereas  PRC 
continues to be a producer in other sectors and of lighter parts for example.  

2.8. 

Injury or undermining of the remedial effect of the anti-dumping duty  

(52)  The existence of injury having been addressed in the original regulation, the scope of 
the current investigation included the assessment of whether the remedial effects of the 
duties in place are being undermined in terms of the prices and/or quantities of the like 
product. 

(53)  To assess whether the imported product under investigation had, in terms of quantities 
and prices, undermined the remedial effects of the original measures on imports of the 
product  concerned,  Eurostat  Comext  datase  was  used  as  the  best  data  available 
concerning quantities and prices of imports  from Vietnam. The prices  so  determined 
were  compared  to  the  injury  elimination  level  established  for  Union  producers  in 
recital (63) of Regulation No1006/95.  

(54)  The  increase  of  imports  from  Vietnam  to  the  Union  from  0.6%  of  Union  imports  in 
1998 to 80% in 2008 (start of the IP) and to 84% of Union imports in the RP (the end 
of  the  IP),  see  the  table  in  paragraph  2.4  above,  was  considered  to  be  significant  in 
terms  of  quantities.  In  the  same  period,  the  imports  from  PRC  into  the  Union 
decreased significantly, from 30% to 10% of share of all imports.  

EN 

11 

   EN 

(55)  The  comparison  of  the  injury  elimination  level  as  established  in  the  original 
investigation and the weighted average export price for Vietnamese declared exports 
showed significant underselling. It was therefore concluded that the remedial effects of 
the  duty,  as  determined  in  the  original  regulation  are  being  undermined  in  terms  of 
both quantities and prices. 

2.9. 

Evidence of dumping  

(56)  Finally,  in  accordance  with  Article  13(1)  and  (2)  of  the  basic  Regulation  it  was 
examined  whether  there  was  evidence  of  dumping  by  comparing  the  normal  value 
previously  established  in  the  original  investigation  with  the  export  prices  from 
Vietnam. 

(57) 

In the original investigation the normal value was established on the basis of prices in 
Brazil,  which  in  that  investigation  was  found  to  be  an  appropriate  market  economy 
analogue country for the PRC.  

(58)  The  export  prices  from  Vietnam  were  based  on  facts  available,  i.e.  on  the  average 
export  price  of  gas-fuelled,  non-refillable  pocket  flint  lighters  during  the  RP  as 
reported in Eurostat Comext database. The use of facts available was due to unreliable 
information  from 
the  product  under 
the  Vietnamese  producers  concerning 
investigation.  

(59)  For the purpose of a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, 
due  allowance,  in  the  form  of  adjustments,  was  made  for  differences  which  affect 
prices  and  price  comparability  in  accordance  with  Article  2(10)  of  the  basic 
Regulation.  Accordingly,  adjustments  were  made  for  differences  in  transport, 
insurance  and  packing  costs.  Given  that  there  was  no  reliable  information  obtained 
from the producers in Vietnam and the PRC, the adjustments had to be established on 
the basis of the best facts available. Thus, the adjustments for these allowances were 
based on a percentage calculated as the proportion of the total transport, insurance and 
packing costs over the value of the sales transactions to the Union with CIF delivery 
terms  provided  by  the  cooperating  Chinese  exporting  producers  in  the  original 
investigation.  

(60) 

In  accordance  with  Articles  2(11)  and  2(12)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  dumping  was 
calculated  by  comparing  the  weighted  average  normal  value  as  established  in  the 
original  Regulation  and  the  corresponding  weighted  average  export  prices  for 
Vietnamese declared exports during  this investigation’s RP according to the Comext 
database, expressed as a percentage of the CIF price at the Union frontier duty unpaid. 

(61)  The  comparison  of  the  weighted  average  normal  value  and  the  weighted  average 
export  price,  after  the  adjustments  explained  in  recital  (59)  above,  showed  the 
existence of significant dumping.  

2.10.  Comments to the disclosure 

(62)  Following  the  disclosure,  a  group  of  interested  parties  composed  of  Vietnamese 
producers  and  EU  importers,  even  though  admitting  not  being  directly  concerned  by 
the measures, commented on the findings of the investigation. They argued again that 
any misleading information had not been provided intentionally, that the Commission 
had not found any positive evidence of circumvention and that there was no remedial 
effect to be achieved by retroactive imposition of the measures, also demonstrated by 
the  non-prolongation  of  the  original  measures  against  China.  According  to  these 
parties,  the  non-prolongation  of  the  original  measures  against  China  was  based  on 
findings  concerning  the  same  time-period  as  the  conclusion  that  the  circumvention 

EN 

12 

   EN 

practices  undermine  the  remedial  effects  of  the  original  measures.  Finally  they  also 
questioned the intended effect and what the Union interest would be in extending the 
measures which were terminated in December 2012. In their view the extension of the 
measures  would  bring  no  benefit  to  the  EU  industry  and  would  only  penalise  EU 
importers. 

(63)  Upon  presentation  and  admittance  of  a  valid  request  for  an  anti-circumvention 
investigation, the Commission has a legal obligation to fully investigate the matter and 
take  appropriate  action  if  justified.  In  the  case  at  hand  it  was  found  that  all  the 
conditions  of  Article  13  of  the  basic  Regulation  to  determine  that  circumvention  is 
taking  place  were  fulfilled.  Consequently,  the  measures  had  to  be  extended  in  the 
appropriate manner to imports from Vietnam. 

(64)  When  assessing  whether  circumvention  practices  undermine  the  remedial  effects  of 
the  original  measures,  the  Commission  must  base  its  analysis  on  the  developments 
following  the  imposition  of  these  measures  and  takes  into  consideration  the  findings 
from  the  original  investigation  on  the  basis  of  which  the  remedial  effects  have  been 
determined. By contrast, the assessment of the necessity to initiate an expiry review is 
determined on the basis of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and 
injury  in  the  future  on  the  basis  of  findings  relating  to  a  different  period  of  time. 
Therefore, contrary to what the interested parties have alleged, the two findings do not 
concern the same time period. As regards the claim that only EU importers would be 
affected and that there would be no benefit to the Union industry, the Commission has 
to point out that the Union interest for the imposition of the measures was confirmed 
in the original investigation. In accordance with article 13 of the basic Regulation, the 
extension of the remedial effects of the original measures against circumvention is in 
this respect justified as long as the original measures are in force. The purpose of the 
extension  of  the  measures  is  in  any  case  not  to  penalise  parties  but  to  correct  the 
distortive effect of the circumvented dumped imports from Vietnam had on the Union 
market  by  introducing  a  level  playing  field  in  terms  of  prices  or  quantities  of  such 
imports. In any event, it must be noted that the alleged sole influence of the measures 
on importers is not supported by any evidence or analysis.  

(65)  One  other  interested  party,  an  importer,  submitted  comments  on  the  investigation 
arguing  that  it  had  not  been  informed  about  the  initiation  of  the  circumvention 
investigation.  It  has  to  be  noted  in  this  respect  that  this  party  was  not  known  to  the 
Commission  prior  to  the  initiation  of  the  investigation  and  that  the  initiation  notice 
was made public by means of publication in the official journal. 

(66)  One  further  importer  reacted  by  announcing  that  it  would  within  six  months  submit 
evidence  demonstrating  that  their  imports  of  lighters  did  not  involve  circumvention. 
The  Commission  notes  that  all  interested  parties  have  been  invited  in  the  initiation 
notice to submit evidence during the investigation (see in particular recitals 10, 19 and 
20  and  Article  3(2)  of  the  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  548/201210).  The 
Commission must conclude the investigation within the legal deadline of 9 months and 
therefore cannot await additional submissions at this stage. 

3. 

MEASURES 

(67)  Given the above, it was concluded that the definitive anti-dumping  duty imposed on 
imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters originating in the PRC was 

10 

OJ L 165, 26.6.2012, p. 37. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

                                                 
(68) 

(69) 

(70) 

circumvented by assembly operations via Vietnam within the meaning of Article 13(1) 
and 13(2) of the basic Regulation. 

In  accordance  with  the  first  sentence  of  Article  13(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the 
original measures on imports of the product concerned, should be extended to imports 
of the product under investigation, i.e. the same product but consigned from Vietnam, 
whether declared as originating in Vietnam or not. 

In  light  of  the  non-cooperation  in  this  investigation,  the  measures  to  be  extended 
should be the measures established in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1458/2007, 
i.e. a definitive anti-dumping duty of EUR 0,065 per lighter. 

In accordance with Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, which provides 
that  any  extended  measure  should  apply  to  imports  which  entered  the  Union  under 
registration imposed by the initiating Regulation, duties should be collected on those 
registered  imports  of  gas-fuelled,  non-refillable  pocket  flint  lighters  consigned  from 
Vietnam. Given that the original measures have expired on 13 December 2012 and the 
registration has been terminated on the same day, the collection of duties would only 
apply up to that date. 

4. 

REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION 

(71)  The  seven  companies  in  Vietnam  submitting  questionnaire  replies  requested  an 
exemption  from  the  possible  extended  measures  in  accordance  with  Article  13(4)  of 
the basic Regulation.  

(72)  All  of  these  seven  companies  were  found  to  have  provided  false  or  misleading 
information. In accordance with Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation, these companies 
were  informed  of  the  intention  to  disregard  the  information  submitted  by  them  and 
were granted a time-limit to provide further explanations.  

(73)  Further explanations by these companies were not such so as to lead to a change in the 
conclusion.  Therefore  in  accordance  with  Article  18(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation, 
findings with regard to these companies were based on facts available.  

(74)  Taking  into  account  the  nature  of  the  false  and/or  misleading  information  as  set  out 
above,  the  exemptions  as  requested  by  these  seven  companies  could,  in  accordance 
with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, not be granted.  

5. 

DISCLOSURE 

(75)  All interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations leading to 
the above conclusions and were invited to comment. The oral and written comments 
submitted by the parties were considered. None of the arguments presented gave rise 
to a modification of the findings.  

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1.  The  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  imposed  by  Article  1(2)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1458/2007  on  imports  of  gas-fuelled,  non-refillable  pocket  flint  lighters  originating  in  the 
People's Republic of China is hereby extended to imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket 
flint  lighters  consigned  from  Vietnam,  whether  declared  as  originating  in  Vietnam  or  not, 
currently falling under CN code ex 9613 10 00. 

2. The duty extended by paragraph 1 of this Article shall be collected on imports consigned 
from Vietnam from 27 June 2012 until 13 December 2012, whether declared as originating in 

EN 

14 

   EN 

Vietnam or not, registered in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 548/2012 and 
Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. 

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

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

Article 2 

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

15 

   EN