Proposal for a COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China by imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not
Date: 2013-05-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, anti-dumping measure, import (EU), originating product, two-wheeled vehicle

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 6.5.2013  
COM(2013) 261 final 

2013/0135 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION 

extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Implementing 
Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic 
of China by imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and 
Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia 
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  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No 
990/2011  on  imports  of  bicycles  originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China  ('PRC')  by 
imports  of  bicycles  consigned  from  Indonesia,  Malaysia,  Sri  Lanka  and  Tunisia,  whether 
declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not. 

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 currently in force were imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 
990/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the 
People’s Republic of China. 

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 transhipment of bicycles from the PRC and assembly 
of bicycles using Chinese parts in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia is taking place 
and that all criteria for the establishment of circumvention as set out in Article 13(1) and (2) 
of the basic Regulation were met.  

Therefore the anti-dumping measures in force on bicycles originating in the PRC should be 
extended to imports of the same product consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and 
Tunisia.  

It  is  therefore  proposed  that  the  Council  adopt  the  attached  proposal  to  extend  the  anti-
dumping  measures  on  bicycles  originating  in  the  PRC  to  imports  of  the  same  product 
consigned  from  Indonesia,  Malaysia,  Sri  Lanka  and  Tunisia.  The  duty  corresponds  to  the 
country-wide  duty  on  imports  of  bicycles  from  the  PRC  (48.5%).  The  duty  shall  be  levied 
from the date of initiation of the investigation. 

The relevant Council Regulation should be published in the Official Journal of the European 
Union no later than 5 June 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  minimised 
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 

2013/0135 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION 

extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Implementing 
Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic 
of China by imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and 
Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia 
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  submitted  by  the  European  Commission  (‘the  Commission’) 
after having consulted the Advisory Committee, 

Whereas: 

1. 

1.1. 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

PROCEDURE 

Existing measures 
By Regulation (EEC) no 2474/932 the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty 
of  30.6%  on  imports  of  bicycles  originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China  ('the 
PRC'). Following an anti-circumvention investigation in accordance with Article 13 of 
the basic Regulation, this duty was extended by Council Regulation (EC) No 71/973 to 
imports  of  certain  bicycles  parts  originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China.  In 
addition, it was decided to create an 'exemption scheme' on the basis of Article 13(2) 
of the anti-dumping basic Regulation. The details of the scheme were provided for in 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 88/974.  

Following  an  expiry  review  pursuant  to  Article  11(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the 
Council,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1524/20005,  decided  that  the  above  mentioned 
measures should be maintained. 

Following  an  interim  review  pursuant  to  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the 
Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1095/20056, increased the anti-dumping duty in force 
to 48,5%.  

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. 
OJ L 228, 9.9.1993, p. 1 
OJ L 16, 18.1.1997, p. 55 
OJ L 17, 21.1.1997, p. 17 
OJ L 175, 14.7.2000, p. 39 
OJ L 183, 14.7.2005, p. 1 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

In  October  2011  following  an  expiry  review  pursuant  to  Article  11(2)  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  the  Council,  by  Regulation  (EU)  No  990/20117,  decided  that  the  above 
mentioned measures should be maintained ('the existing measures'). 

In  March  2012  the  Commission  announced  by  a  notice  published  in  the  Official 
Journal of the European Union8 the initiation of an interim review of the anti-dumping 
measures  concerning  imports  into  the  Union  of  bicycles  originating  in  the  PRC 
pursuant to Article 11(3) and 13(4) of the anti-dumping basic Regulation.  
In  May  2013  the  Council,  by  Regulation  (EU)  No  XXX/20139[to  be  filled  in  during 
written  procedure  by  the  Council  Secretariat],  amended  Council  Implementing 
Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of 
bicycles  originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China  following  an  interim  review 
pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.  

In April 2012 the Commission announced by a notice published in the Official Journal 
of  the  European  Union10  the  initiation  of  an  anti-subsidy  proceeding  with  regard  to 
imports  into  the  Union  of  bicycles  originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of  China 
pursuant to Article 10 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 200911. 

In  November  2012  the  Commission  announced  by  a  notice  published  in  the  Official 
Journal of the European Union12 that the findings in the present investigation may be 
used in the anti-subsidy investigation mentioned in recital (7) above. 
In May 2013 the Commission by Regulation (EU) No xxx/201313[to be filled in during 
written procedure by the Council Secretariat], terminated the anti-subsidy proceeding 
mentioned in recital (7) above without imposing measures. 

1.2. 

Request 

(10)  On 14 August 2012 the Commission received a request pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 
14(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation  to  investigate  the  possible  circumvention  of  the  anti-
dumping measures imposed on imports of bicycles originating in the PRC and to make 
imports  of  bicycles  consigned  from  Indonesia,  Malaysia,  Sri  Lanka  and  Tunisia, 
whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not, 
subject to registration.  

(11)  The request was lodged by the European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (EBMA) 
on behalf of In Cycles – Montagem e Comercio de Bicicletas, Ldo, SC. EUROSPORT 
DHS S.A. and MAXCOM Ltd, three Union producers of bicycles. 

1.3. 

Initiation 

(12)  Having  determined,  after  consulting  the  Advisory  Committee,  that  sufficient  prima 
facie evidence existed for the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Articles 13(3) 
and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission decided to investigate the possible 
circumvention  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  imposed  on  imports  of  bicycles 
originating  in  the  PRC  and  to  make  imports  of  bicycles  consigned  from  Indonesia, 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 

OJ L 261, 6.10.2011, p. 2 
OJ C 71, 9.3.2012, p. 10 
OJ L XX, [date], p.x 
OJ C 122, 27.4.2012, p. 9 
OJ L 188, 18.7.2009, p. 93 
OJ C 346, 14.11.2012, p.7 
OJ L XXX, date, page 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
Malaysia,  Sri  Lanka  and  Tunisia,  whether  declared  as  originating  in  Indonesia, 
Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not, subject to registration. 

(13)  The  investigation  was  initiated  on  25  September  2012  by  Commission  Regulation 

(EU) No 875/201214 (‘the initiating Regulation’). 

(14)  The prima facie evidence at the Commission's disposal showed a significant change in 
the pattern of trade involving exports from  the  PRC,  Indonesia,  Malaysia,  Sri  Lanka 
and Tunisia to the Union following the increase of the anti-dumping duty on imports 
of the product concerned by Council Regulation (EC) 1095/2005 mentioned in recital 
(3)  above.  The  change  in  the  pattern  of  trade  appeared  to  have  occurred  without 
sufficient due cause or justification other than the increase of the duty. 

(15)  This  change  appeared  to  stem  from  the  transhipment  of  bicycles  originating  in  the 
PRC via Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia to the Union and from assembly 
operations in Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia. 

(16)  Furthermore, the evidence pointed to the fact that the remedial effects of the existing 
anti-dumping measures on the product concerned are being undermined both in terms 
of  quantity  and  price.  Significant  volumes  of  imports  of  the  product  under 
investigation appeared to have replaced imports of the product concerned originating 
in the PRC. In addition, there was sufficient evidence that imports of the product under 
investigation  were  made  at  prices  below  the  non-injurious  price  established  in  the 
investigation that led to the existing measures. 

(17)  Finally,  there  was  evidence  that  the  prices  of  the  product  under  investigation  were 
dumped  in  relation  to  the  normal  value  previously  established  for  the  product 
concerned. 

1.4. 

Investigation 

(18)  The  Commission  officially  advised  the  authorities  of  the  PRC,  Indonesia,  Malaysia, 
Sri Lanka and Tunisia, the producers/exporters in those countries, the importers in the 
Union  known  to  be  concerned  and  the  Union  industry  of  the  initiation  of  the 
investigation. 

(19)  Exemption  forms  were  sent  to  the  producers/exporters  in  Indonesia,  Malaysia,  Sri 
Lanka  and  Tunisia  known  to  the  Commission  or  through  the  Missions  of  Indonesia, 
Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia to the European Union. Questionnaires were sent to 
the producers/exporters in the PRC known to the Commission or through the Mission 
of  the  PRC  to  the  European  Union.  Questionnaires  were  also  sent  to  the  known 
unrelated importers in the Union. 

(20) 

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. 

(21)  Four  producers/exporters  in  Indonesia,  one  in  Malaysia,  six  in  Sri  Lanka  and  two  in 
Tunisia submitted replies to the exemption forms. There was no cooperation from the 
Chinese  producers/exporters.  Three  unrelated  importers  in  the  Union  submitted  a 
questionnaire reply. 

14 

OJ L 258, 26.9.2012, p. 21. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
(22)  The  Commission  carried  out  the  verification  visits  at  the  premises  of  the  following 

companies: 

– 

P.T. Insera Sena, Buduran, Sidoarjo, Indonesia, 

–  Wijaya Indonesia Makmur Bicycles Industries, Driyorejo, Gresik, Jawa Timur, 

Indonesia, 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

P.T. Terang Dunia Internusa, Slipi, Jakarta Barat, Indonesia, 

P.T. Chin Haur, Tangerang, Indonesia, 

Tan Lan Venture Corporation Sdn Bhd, Kampar, Perak, Malaysia, 

Asiabike Industrial Limited, Henamulla, Panadura, Sri Lanka, 

BSH Ventures Limited, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 

City Cycle Industries, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 

Firefox Lanka (Pvt) Ltd, Weliketiya Pamunugama, Sri Lanka, 

Kelani Cycles Pvt Ltd, Katunayake, Sri Lanka, 

Samson Bikes (Pvt) Ltd, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 

–  Mediterranean United Industries, Bouhajar Monastir, Tunisia, 

– 

Euro Cycles, Sousse, Tunisia. 

1.5. 

Reporting period and investigation period 

(23)  The investigation period covered the period from 1 January 2004 to 31 August 2012 
(‘the IP’). Data were collected for the IP to investigate, inter alia, the alleged change 
in the pattern of trade following the increase of the anti-dumping duty in 2005. More 
detailed  data  were  collected  for  the  reporting  period  from  1  September  2011  to  31 
August 2012 (‘the RP’) in order to examine the possible undermining of the remedial 
effect of the measures in force and 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, the four countries concerned 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, if necessary in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of 
the basic Regulation. 

2.2. 

Product concerned and product under investigation 

(25)  The  product  concerned  is  bicycles  and  other  cycles  (including  delivery  tricycles,  but 
excluding  unicycles),  not  motorised,  originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of  China, 
currently  falling  within  CN  codes  8712  00  30  and  ex  8712  00  70  (‘the  product 
concerned’). 

EN 

7 

   EN 

(26)  The product under investigation is the same as that defined above but consigned from 
Indonesia,  Malaysia,  Sri  Lanka  and  Tunisia,  whether  declared  as  originating  in 
Indonesia,  Malaysia,  Sri  Lanka  and  Tunisia  or  not,  currently  falling  within  the  same 
CN codes as the product concerned ('the product under investigation’). 

(27)  The  investigation showed  that  bicycles,  as  defined  above,  exported  from  the  PRC  to 
the Union and those consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia 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 

2.3.1. 

Indonesia 

(28)  The four Indonesian companies that submitted a request for exemption in accordance 
with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation represented 91% of the total imports from 
Indonesia  to  the  Union  during  the  RP.  The  overall  import  volumes  from  Indonesia 
were established on the basis of the data from Comext15. 

(29)  The data submitted by one company was unverifiable as the company claimed that it 
kept no working sheets used to fill in the exemption form. Therefore, the company was 
unable to explain and demonstrate how the reported figures were obtained. Moreover, 
the data submitted by the company proved to be unreliable as the reported figures that 
were  tested  and  recalculated  on  the  basis  of  the  bookkeeping  available  at  the 
company's  premises  were  found  inaccurate  (e.g.  purchases,  production  volume).  The 
investigation revealed furthermore that the sales manager of the company was in fact 
in  the  same  time  employed  by  a  Chinese  producer  of  bicycles  which  was  the  main 
supplier of the raw material (bicycle parts) of the Indonesian company.  

(30)  Therefore, in accordance with Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation, the company was 
informed of the intention to disregard the information submitted by it and was granted 
a time limit to provide its comments. 

(31)  The  company  stated  that  it  was  very  cooperative  by  providing  all  the  documents 
requested  apart  from  the  working  sheets  which  allegedly  were  not  requested  before. 
However,  the  working  sheets  were  requested  in  the  pre-verification  letter  sent  to  the 
company  prior  to  the  on-spot  verification.  Moreover,  the  company  claimed  that  the 
calculation of the production and purchases values was affected by wrong explanations 
from  a  worker  and  that  the  checking  of  the  export  transactions  was  accurate.  In  this 
regards, it should be pointed out that in spite of several explanations from the workers, 
in  the  end  it  was  not  possible  to  reconcile  the  numbers  provided  on-spot  with  the 
numbers submitted in the exemption form. As concerns the value of the export sales, 
the  reconciliation  was  indeed  accurate.  Furthermore,  during  the  verification  visit  the 
workers that participated at the verification were not able to explain the source of the 
numbers stated in the exemption form neither how the numbers have been compiled. 
Moreover, the company confirmed that the sales manager was in parallel working for a 
Chinese producer of bicycles.  

(32)  Therefore, the information provided by the company in question had to be disregarded.  

15 

Comext is a database on foreign trade statistics managed by Eurostat 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
(33)  Findings  with  regard  to  this  company  were  therefore  based  on  facts  available  in 
compliance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. The other three companies were 
considered cooperating. 

2.3.2.  Malaysia 

(34)  The  sole  Malaysian  company  that  submitted  a  request  for  exemption  in  accordance 
with Article  13(4)  of the basic Regulation represented  between  20% and 30%  of  the 
total  imports  from  Malaysia  to  the  Union  during  the  RP.  Total  imports  of  bicycles 
from Malaysia into the Union were established on the basis of the data from Comext. 
The company was considered cooperating. 

2.3.3.  Sri Lanka 

(35)  The  six  Sri  Lankan  companies  that  submitted  a  request  for  exemption  in  accordance 
with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation represented 69% of the total imports from 
Sri  Lanka  to  the  Union  during  the  RP.  The  overall  import  volumes  from  Sri  Lanka 
were established on the basis of the data from Comext.  

(36)  One of the companies withdrew its request for exemption during the investigation on 
the grounds that it had stopped the production of bicycles in Sri Lanka. Therefore, data 
with regard to this company were disregarded.  

(37)  The  cooperation  of  the  second  company  was  found  to  be  insufficient.  The  data 
submitted  was  unverifiable  as  the  value  and  volume  of  parts  of  Chinese  origin 
purchased by the company could not be reliably determined. Moreover, the value and 
volume  of  the  parts  used  in  the  manufacturing  process  could  not  be  verified  as  they 
were purchased by a third party and only consigned to the company for assembly. 

(38)  Therefore, in accordance with Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation, the company was 
informed of the intention to disregard the information submitted by it and was granted 
a time limit to provide its comments. The company did not provide any comments. 

(39)  The cooperation of another company was also considered insufficient. The information 
provided could not be verified on-spot as the company withheld essential information. 
More specifically, it failed to prepare information explicitly requested prior to the on-
spot verification, such as the working sheets or the list of its related companies, thus 
impeding  the  verification  process.  On  the  other  hand,  the  purchase  value  of  parts  of 
local  origin  as  reported  by  the  company  was  found  unreliable,  notably  as  the 
investigation revealed at least some links between the company and its local supplier 
of bicycle parts that were going beyond a normal buyers and sellers relationship and 
which could not be clarified by the company.  

(40) 

In accordance with Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation, the company was informed 
of  the  intention  to  disregard  the  information  submitted  by  it  and  was  granted  a  time 
limit  to  provide  its  comments.  In  response,  the  company  contested  the  findings  and 
submitted  further  evidence  and  explanations.  None  of  the  newly  submitted  evidence 
could  have  been  accepted.  Firstly,  because  it  could  not  have  been  verified  anymore 
since provided after the on-spot visit, In most cases the newly submitted evidence was 
found  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  explanations  and  evidence  gathered  on  spot.  As 
regards the newly submitted explanations, these were found to be insufficient as they 
did  not  address  the  main  outstanding  issues,  in  particular,  the  missing  clarifications 
regarding related companies.  

(41)  Therefore the information provided by the company in question had to be disregarded.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

(42)  Findings  with  regard  to  this  company  were  therefore  based  on  facts  available  in 

compliance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. 

2.3.4.  Tunisia 

(43)  The  two  Tunisian  companies  that  submitted  a  request  for  exemption  in  accordance 
with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation represented all imports from Tunisia to the 
Union during the RP as reported in Comext. They were considered cooperating.  

2.3.5.  The People’s Republic of China 

(44)  As mentioned in recital (21) above, there was no cooperation from any of the Chinese 
producers/exporters.  Therefore,  findings  in  respect  of  imports  of  the  product 
concerned into the Union, on the one hand, and exports of bicycles from the PRC to 
Indonesia,  Malaysia,  Sri  Lanka  and  Tunisia,  on  the  other  hand,  were  based  on  facts 
available  in  accordance  with  Article  18(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  With  regards  to 
imports  to  the  Union  import  data  recorded  in  Comext  were  used.  Chinese  national 
statistics were used as regards the determination of export volumes from the PRC to 
Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia. 

2.4. 

Change in the pattern of trade 

2.4.1. 

Imports into the Union from the PRC, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia 

(45) 

Imports  of  the  product  concerned  from  the  PRC  into  the  Union  decreased  by  38.2% 
since  2005,  i.e.  after  the  increase  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  in  July  2005,  and 
continued decreasing in the following years. In total, imports from the PRC decreased 
by over 80% in the IP. 

(46)  At the same time, imports of the product under investigation from Indonesia into the 
Union increased from 2005 onwards and more than doubled in 2006 as compared to 
2004.  Imports  continued  increasing,  with  the  exception  of  2009,  albeit  remaining  at 
levels well above those of 2004. Since 2009, imports increased again continuously up 
to the RP. In the RP imports from Indonesia increased by 157% as compared to 2004. 

(47)  As  concerns  the  imports  of  the  product  under  investigation  from  Malaysia  into  the 
Union, they were negligible before the increase of the anti-dumping duty in July 2005. 
In  2005,  they  increased  significantly  (more  than  two  hundred  fold)  but  decreased  in 
2009 by 46%, followed by another increase of 38% in 2010. Although imports from 
Malaysia decreased again in 2011 and during the RP, the import level from Malaysia 
during the RP still exceeded by far the import level from 2004 before the increase of 
the  anti-dumping  measures,  i.e.  185  158  bicycles  as  compared  to  10  749  pieces  in 
2004 or by 1 623%.  

(48)  The  imports  of  the  product  under  investigation  from  Sri  Lanka  into  the  Union 
increased  significantly  after  the  increase  of  the  anti-dumping  duties  in  2005  and 
continued increasing in the following years by almost 500% reaching a peak in 2010. 
In  2011  and  during  the  RP  the  imports  from  Sri  Lanka  of  the  product  under 
investigation  decreased,  albeit  still  exceeding  by  far  the  import  levels  from  2004 
before the increase of the anti-dumping measures, i.e. overall imports from Sri Lanka 
increased by 282% between 2004 and the RP. 

(49)  Finally,  imports  of  the  product  concerned  from  Tunisia  into  the  Union  increased  by 
almost  30%  in  2005,  i.e.  after  the  increase  of  the  anti-dumping  duties,  and  by  more 
than 20% in 2006. They more than doubled between 2006 and 2007 reaching a peak in 
2007.  Imports  during  2008  and  2010  were  decreasing,  increasing  again  in  2011  and 

EN 

10 

   EN 

finally  decreasing  slightly  during  the  RP.  During  the  IP  imports  from  Tunisia 
increased by 200.3%. 

(50)  Table 1 below shows import quantities of bicycles from the PRC, Indonesia, Malaysia, 
Sri  Lanka  and  Tunisia  into  the  Union  from  1  January  2004  to  31  August  2012,  i.e. 
during the IP.  

EN 

11 

   EN 

Table 1 

(pieces) 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

1.9.2011-
31.8.2012 
(RP) 

The PRC 

 2,550,775 

 1,575,452 

 995,715 

986,514

 941,522 

 597,339 

 627,066 

 584,303 

411,642 

Index (2004 = 100) 

100

61.8

39.0

38.7

36.9

23.4

24.6

22.9

16.1 

Indonesia 

237,648

282,045

500,623

593,769

634,623

437,023

551,847

614,798

612,448 

Index (2004 = 100) 

100

118.7

210.7

249.9

267.0

183.9

232.2

258.7

257.7 

Malaysia 

10,749

229,354

497,974

475,463

360,871

193,102

266,164

177,306

185,158 

Index (2004 = 100) 

100

 2,133.7 

 4,632.7 

 4,423.3 

 3,357.3 

 1,796.5 

 2,476.2 

 1,649.5 

 1,722.6  

Sri Lanka 

 249,491 

 352,078 

 534,413 

 574,153 

 749,358 

 1,016,523 

 1,237,406 

 975,297 

953,169 

Index (2004 = 100) 

100

 141.1 

 214.2 

 230.1 

 300.4 

 407.4 

 496.0 

 390.9 

 382.0  

Tunisia 

 167,137 

 212,257 

 251,054 

 549,848 

 527,209 

 529,734 

 414,488 

 519,217 

501,853 

Index (2004 = 100) 

100

 127.0 

 150.2 

 329.0 

 315.4 

 316.9 

 248.0 

 310.7 

 300.3  

Source: Comext statistics 

EN 

12 

EN 

 
  
2.4.2.  Exports from the PRC to Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia 

(51)  Exports  of  bicycles  from  the  PRC  to  Indonesia  increased  first  in  2008  (by  56.2%). 
Between 2008 and the RP, imports continued increasing with the exception of 2009. 
During the IP exports from the PRC to Indonesia increased in total by 83.8%.  

(52)  Exports of bicycles from the PRC to Malaysia increased in 2005, after the increase of 
the  anti-dumping  measures,  by  almost  30%  and  continued  increasing  until  they 
reached a peak in 2011, i.e. an increase of 110.8% as compared to 2004. In the RP the 
exports from the PRC to Malaysia, decreased slightly, but remained at levels largely 
exceeding  those  of  2004.  Overall,  Chinese  exports  to  Malaysia  increased  by  99.6% 
during the IP. 

(53)  Exports of bicycles from the PRC to Sri Lanka also increased following the increase of 
the anti-dumping duties in July 2005. They slightly decreased in 2007 but more than 
doubled in 2010 and 2011 as compared to 2004. Overall, Chinese exports to Sri Lanka 
increased by 132.5% during the IP.  

(54)  Finally  exports  from  the  PRC  to  Tunisia  were  negligible  before  the  increase  of  the 
anti-dumping duties. From 2005 on exports to Tunisia increased significantly reaching 
a  peak  in  2008  (from  2  534  pieces  in  2004  to  389  445  pieces  in  2008).  Although 
exports  from  the  PRC  to  Tunisia  decreased  and  remained  at  lower  levels  after  2008 
they still remained at much higher levels than during 2004. Overall, Chinese exports to 
Tunisia increased from 2 534 bicycles in 2004 to 170 772 bicycles in the RP. 

(55)  Table 2 shows exports of bicycles from the PRC to Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and 

Tunisia from 1 January 2004 to 31 August 2012, i.e. during the IP. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
Table 2 

(pieces) 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

1.9.2011-
31.8.2012 
(RP) 

Indonesia 

2,128,804

1,731,224

2,121,019

1,906,364

3,325,531

2,287,374

3,644,836

3,773,852

3,912,882 

Index (2004 = 100) 

100

81.3

99.6

89.6

156.2

107.4

171.2

177.3

183.8 

Malaysia 

721,335

933,943

890,241

974,860

1,515,886

1,111,251

1,291,766

1,520,276

1,440,132 

Index (2004 = 100) 

100

 129.5 

 123.4 

 135.1 

 210.2 

 154.1 

 179.1 

 210.8 

 199.6  

Sri Lanka 

267,371

315,233

345,953

254,774

425,405

383,377

699,328

685,744

621,620 

Index (2004 = 100) 

Tunisia 

Index (2004 = 100) 

Source: Chinese statistics 

100

2,534

100

117.9

129.4

95.3

159.1

143.4

261.6

256.5

232.5 

7,188

37,042

175,761

 389,445 

171,332

 225,369 

 204,465 

170,772 

 283.7 

 1,461.8 

 6,936.1 

 15,368.8 

 6,761.3 

 8,893.8 

 8,068.9 

 6,739.2  

EN 

14 

EN 

 
  
2.4.3.  Production volumes  

(56)  The companies in Indonesia and Tunisia increased their production between 2009 and 
the  RP,  by  54%  and  24%  respectively.  The  Sri  Lankan  companies  however  have 
slightly decreased their output during the same period. 

(57)  Concerning Malaysia, the sole Malaysian company that cooperated started to produce 
and export bicycles in 2010. As no other company cooperated, no information could 
be  obtained  on  the  possible  levels  of  the  genuine  production  of  the  product  under 
investigation in this country. 

Table 3 

Production of bicycles of the cooperating companies in Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia 

Production volumes in units 

2009 

2010 

2011 

RP 

Indonesia 

Index 

Sri Lanka 

Index 

Tunisia 

Index 

1,217,664 

1,631,459 

1,877,067  

1,877,381 

100 

134 

154  

154 

 737,632 

 886,191 

 688,059  

 692,454 

 100 

 120 

 93  

 94 

430,022 

483,135 

575,393  

 532,425 

100 

112 

134  

124 

2.5. 

Conclusion on the change in the pattern of trade 

(58)  The  overall  decrease  of  the  exports  from  the  PRC  to  the  Union  and  the  parallel 
increase of exports from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia to the Union and 
the increase of exports from the PRC  to Indonesia, Malaysia,  Sri Lanka and Tunisia 
after  the  increase  of  the  anti-dumping  measures in July 2005 constitutes  a change in 
the pattern of trade between the countries concerned, on the one hand, and the Union, 
on the other hand, within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation. 

2.6. 

Nature of the circumvention practices 

(59)  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  consignment  of  the  product  subject  to  the  existing 
measures via third countries and the assembly of parts by an assembly operation in the 
Union  or  a  third  country.  The  existence  of  assembly  operations  is  determined  in 
accordance with Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation. 

2.6.1. 

Indonesia 

T r a n s h i p m e n t  

(60)  The exports of the four initially cooperating Indonesian companies amounted to 91% 

of the total Indonesian exports to the Union in the RP.  

(61)  For  three  out  of  the  four  initially  cooperating  companies,  the  investigation  did  not 

reveal any transhipment practices. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
(62)  As concerns the fourth company, as stated in recitals (29) to (33) above, application of 
Article 18 of the basic Regulation was warranted. The investigation revealed that the 
company did not own sufficient equipment to justify the volumes of exports into the 
Union in the RP and, in the absence of any other justification, it can be concluded that 
the company was involved in circumvention practices via transhipment. 

(63)  For  the  remaining  exports  to  the  Union  there  was  no  cooperation  as  described  in 

recitals (29) to (33) above. 

(64)  Therefore, in light of the change of the pattern of trade concluded in recital (58)above 
between  Indonesia  and  the  Union  within  the  meaning  of  Article  13(1)  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  the  findings  of  one  Indonesian  company  as  stated  in  recital  (61)  above, 
and the fact that not all Indonesian producers/exporters came forward and cooperated 
the existence of transhipment of Chinese-origin products via Indonesia is confirmed. 

A s s e m b l y   o p e r a t i o n  

(65)  The sources of raw materials (bicycle parts) and the cost of production were analysed 
for  each  cooperating  company  to  establish  whether  any  assembly  operation  in 
Indonesia  is  circumventing  the  existing  measures  according  to  the  criteria  of  Article 
13(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  For  three  out  of  the  four  companies  that  initially 
cooperated the Chinese-origin raw materials (bicycle parts) did not constitute 60% or 
more  of  the  total  value  of  the  parts  of  the  assembled  product.  It  was  not  necessary, 
therefore, to examine whether or not the value added to the parts brought in, during the 
assembly  operation,  was  greater  than  25%  of  the  manufacturing  cost.  Consequently, 
assembly operations were not established with regard to these three companies.  

(66)  For  the  fourth  company,  Article  18(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation  was  applied  as 
mentioned in recitals (29) to (33) above. Since the company could not provide reliable 
data, it could not be established whether it was involved in assembly operations. 

(67)  Therefore, the existence of assembly operations within the meaning of Article 13(2) of 

the basic Regulation was not established. 

2.6.2.  Malaysia 

T r a n s h i p m e n t  

(68)  The  exports  of  the  sole  cooperating  Malaysian  company  amounted  to  between  20% 
and 30% of the total Malaysian exports to the Union in the RP. This company started 
to produce and export to the Union the product concerned only at the end of 2011. No 
transhipment  practices  were  found  with  regard  to  this  company.  For  the  remaining 
exports to the Union there was no cooperation as made clear in recital (34) above.  

(69)  Therefore,  in  light  of  the  change  of  the  pattern  of  trade  concluded  in  recital 
(58)between Malaysia and the Union within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic 
Regulation and the fact that not all Malaysian producers/exporters came forward and 
cooperated  it  can  be  concluded  that  the  remaining  volumes  of  exports  which  are  not 
coming from this company can be attributed to transhipment practices. 

(70)  The  existence  of  transhipment  of  Chinese-origin  products  via  Malaysia  is  therefore 

confirmed. 

A s s e m b l y   o p e r a t i o n  

(71) 

In  case  of  Malaysia  the  scope  of  the  investigation  was  extended  to  cover  other 
circumvention  practices  that  were  identified  in  the  course  of  the  investigation,  i.e. 
assembly operations, as provided for in recital (12) to the initiating Regulation. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
(72)  The  criteria  of  Article  13(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation  were  analysed  for  the  sole 
cooperating  company  to  establish  whether  any  assembly  operation  in  Malaysia  is 
circumventing the existing measures. The investigation led to the following findings. 

(73)  The company started operating in 2010 and therefore after the anti-dumping measures 
against  the  PRC  were  increased.  The  company  was  found  to  be  export  oriented 
targeting the Union market, as only negligible sales were made on the domestic market 
or other third countries. Also, the parts used in production were found to be sourced 
primarily from the PRC. The criteria of Article 13(2)(a) of the basic Regulation were 
therefore considered to be met. 

(74) 

In addition, this company purchased completely knocked down bicycle kits from the 
PRC,  except  for  three  types  of  parts.  In  this  case,  the  Chinese-origin  raw  material 
(bicycle  parts)  constituted  more  than  60%  of  the  total  value  of  the  parts  of  the  final 
product.  Furthermore,  the  value  added  to  the  parts  brought  in  during  the  assembly 
operation  was  not  found  to  be  greater  than  25%  of  the  manufacturing  cost  of  this 
company. The criteria of Article 13(2)(b) were therefore met. 

(75)  Also, in accordance with Articles 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, a comparison 
of the normal value, as previously established (see recital (98) below), and the export 
prices  of  the  company  to  the  Union  during  the  RP,  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the 
CIF  price  at  the  Union  frontier  duty  unpaid,  showed  significant  dumping  by  the 
company in question with regard to the imports of the product under investigation. The 
comparison was carried out per each type of the product under investigation exported 
to the Union in the RP. In addition, it was found that the export prices of this company 
were well below the injury elimination level established for the Union industry in the 
original investigation. The calculation was done by main product categories, based on 
the  information  available.  Thus,  the  remedial  effects  of  the  duty  in  force  are  found 
undermined in terms of prices. On these grounds, it was concluded that the criteria of 
Article 13(2)(c) of the basic Regulation were met. 

(76)  On  this  basis  the  company  was  found  involved  in  an  assembly  operation.  Therefore, 
the existence of assembly operations within the meaning of Article 13(2) of the basic 
Regulation in Malaysia is confirmed.  

2.6.3.  Sri Lanka 

T r a n s h i p m e n t  

(77)  The exports of the initially cooperating Sri Lankan companies amounted to 69% of the 
total  Sri  Lankan  exports  to  the  Union  in  the  RP.  For  three  out  of  the  six  initially 
cooperating  companies,  the  investigation  did  not  reveal  any  transhipment  practices. 
For the remaining exports there was no cooperation as explained in recitals (35) to (42) 
above. 

(78)  Therefore,  in  light  of  the  change  of  the  pattern  of  trade  concluded  in  recital  (58) 
between  Sri  Lanka  and  the  Union  within  the  meaning  of  Article  13(1)  of  the  basic 
Regulation  and  the  fact  that  not  all  Sri  Lankan  producers/exporters  came  forward 
and/or  cooperated  it  can  be  concluded  that  the  exports  of  those  producers/exporters 
can be attributed to transhipment practices.  

(79)  The  existence  of  transhipment  of  Chinese-origin  products  via  Sri  Lanka  is  therefore 

confirmed. 

A s s e m b l y   o p e r a t i o n  

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
(80)  The sources of raw materials (bicycle parts) and the cost of production were analysed 
for  each  cooperating  company  to  establish  whether  any  assembly  operation  in  Sri 
Lanka is circumventing the existing measures according to the criteria of Article 13(2) 
of the basic Regulation. 

(81)  For  three  out  of  the  six  companies  that  initially  cooperated  the  Chinese-origin  raw 
materials (bicycle parts) did not constitute 60% or more of the total value of the parts 
of the assembled product. It was not necessary, therefore, to examine whether or not 
the  value  added  to  the  parts  brought  in,  during  the  assembly  operation,  was  greater 
than  25%  of  the  manufacturing  cost.  Consequently,  assembly  operations  were  not 
established with regard to these three companies. 

(82)  Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation was applied to two other companies as explained 
in  recitals  (37)  to  (42)  above,  while  one  other  company  withdrew  its  cooperation 
during  the  on-spot  verification  as  mentioned  in  recital  (36)  above.  Therefore,  the 
existence  of  assembly  operations  within  the  meaning  of  Article  13(2)  of  the  basic 
Regulation was not established. 

2.6.4.  Tunisia 

T r a n s h i p m e n t  

(83)  The  exports  of  the  cooperating  Tunisian  companies  covered  the  total  imports  from 

Tunisia to the Union in the RP.  

(84)  The verification of the two cooperating companies did not reveal any transhipment of 

Chinese-origin products via Tunisia. 

A s s e m b l y   o p e r a t i o n  

(85)  The sources of raw materials (bicycle parts) and the cost of production were analysed 
for each cooperating company to establish whether any assembly operation in Tunisia 
is circumventing the existing measures according to the criteria of Article 13(2) of the 
basic  Regulation.  For  one  cooperating  company  the  Chinese-origin  raw  material 
(bicycle  parts)  constituted  more  than  60%  of  the  total  value  of  the  parts  of  the 
assembled  product.  However,  the  investigation  showed  that  the  value  added  to  the 
parts  brought  in  during  the  assembly  operation  exceeded  25%  of  the  manufacturing 
cost of this company. On this basis the company was found not to be involved in an 
assembly operation. 

(86)  The  criteria  of  Article  13(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation  were  analysed  for  the  other 

Tunisian company. The investigation led to the following findings. 

(87)  The  company  started  operating  as  of  2006  and  therefore  after  the  anti-dumping 
measures  against  the  PRC  were  increased.  The  company  was  found  to  be  export 
oriented  and  targeting  the  Union  market,  as  only  negligible  sales  were  made  on  the 
domestic  market  or  other  third  countries.  Also,  the  parts  used  in  production  were 
found  to  be  sourced  primarily  from  the  PRC.  Therefore,  it  is  considered  that  the 
criteria of Article 13(2)(a) of the basic Regulation were met. 

(88)  Also, the company in question was found to have a Chinese manufacturer of bicycles 

as its majority shareholder.  

(89)  Moreover, the company purchased all parts from the PRC and therefore the Chinese-
origin raw material (bicycle parts) constituted more than 60% of the total value of the 
parts of the final product. Furthermore, the investigation revealed that the sole supplier 
of  the  services  and  of  the  Chinese  parts  was  related  to  the  Chinese  majority 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
(90) 

shareholder  of  the  company  in  question.  The  added  value  of  the  parts  brought  in 
during  the  assembly  operations  of  the  company  did  not  exceed  25%  of  the 
manufacturing cost of this company either. On this basis the criteria of Article 13(2)(b) 
of the basic Regulation were therefore considered to be met. 

In addition, the verification revealed a large number of mistakes in the list of exports 
to the Union in the RP and, therefore, a new file was constructed based on the sampled 
sales  invoices  covering  around  25%  of  the  total  exports  to  the  Union  market. 
Consequently,  as  provided  by  Article  2(11)  and  (12)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  in  the 
absence  of  detailed  information  regarding  the  exports  transactions  of  the  respective 
company to the Union, the comparison between the normal value and the export price 
was  made  on  the  basis  of  the  weighted  average  normal  value  previously  established 
(see  recital  (98)  below)  to  a  weighted  average  export  price  of  this  company  to  the 
Union. The dumping margin expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier value 
was  found  to  be  significant.  In  addition,  it  was  found  that  the  export  prices  of  this 
company  were  on  average  well  below  injury  elimination  level  established  for  the 
Union industry in the original investigation. The calculation was done on a weighted 
average basis. Thus, the remedial effects of the duty in force are found undermined in 
terms of prices. Therefore, it was concluded that the criteria of Article 13(2)(c) of the 
basic  Regulation  were  met.  On  this  basis  the  company  was  found  involved  in  an 
assembly operation. 

(91)  Therefore,  the  existence  of  assembly  operations  in  Tunisia  within  the  meaning  of 

Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation is confirmed. 

2.7. 

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

(92)  The investigation did not bring to light any due cause or economic justification for the 
transhipment  and  assembly  operations  other  than  the  avoidance  of  the  existing 
measures  on  the  product  concerned.  No  elements  were  found,  other  than  the  duty, 
which  could  be  considered  as  a  compensation  for  the  costs  of  transhipment  and 
assembly  operations  in  particular  regarding  transport  and  reloading  of  bicycles 
originating in the PRC via Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia. 

2.8. 

Undermining of the remedial effect of the anti-dumping duty 

(93)  For  the  assessment  of  whether  the  imported  products  had,  in  terms  of  quantities  and 
prices,  undermined  the  remedial  effects  of  the  existing  measures  on  imports  of  the 
product  concerned  from  the  PRC,  Comext  data  was  used  as  the  best  available  data 
concerning  quantities  and  prices  of  exports  by 
initially  cooperating 
producers/exporters where Article 18 of the basic Regulation was applied and by non-
cooperating companies. Where applicable, for the cooperating companies found to be 
involved  in  circumvention  practices,  their  reported  quantities  and  prices  of  exports 
were used. The export prices so determined were compared to the injury elimination 
level  for  Union  producers  last  established,  i.e.  in  the  interim  review  concluded  in 
2005, mentioned in recital (3) above. 

the 

(94)  The comparison of the injury elimination level as established in the interim review in 
2005 and the weighted average export price during the RP of the current investigation 
showed significant underselling for each of the four countries concerned. 

(95)  The increase of imports from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia to the Union 

was considered significant in terms of quantities as discussed in section 2.4.1 above. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
(96) 

It was therefore concluded that the existing measures are being undermined in terms of 
quantities and prices. 

2.9. 

Evidence of dumping 

(97)  Finally,  in  accordance  with  Article  13(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation  it  was  examined 
whether  there  was  evidence  of  dumping  in  relation  to  the  normal  value  previously 
established for the product concerned. 

(98) 

In the interim review concluded in 2005, mentioned in recital (3) above, normal value 
was established on the basis of prices in Mexico, which in that investigation was found 
to  be  an  appropriate  market  economy  analogue  country  for  the  PRC  ('normal  value 
previously established'). 

2.9.1. 

Indonesia 

(99)  A  significant  part  of  Indonesian  exports  were  found  to  be  genuine  Indonesian 
production exported by three Indonesian companies that were found not to be involved 
in circumventing practices as stated in recitals (61) and (65) above. For this reason, in 
order  to  establish  the  export  prices  from  Indonesia  which  are  affected  by 
circumvention practices, only the exports of the non-cooperating producers/exporters 
were  considered.  To  this  end,  resort  was  made  to  the  best  facts  available  and  export 
prices  were  established  on  the  basis  of  the  average  export  price  of  bicycles  from 
Indonesia to the Union during the RP as reported in Comext.  

(100)  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  submitted  by  the  Union  industry  in  its  request  for  the 
current investigation. 

(101)  In  accordance  with  Article  2(11)  and  2(12)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  dumping  was 
calculated by comparing the weighted average normal value as previously established 
and  the  corresponding  weighted  average  export  prices  of  Indonesia  during  the  RP, 
expressed as a percentage of the CIF price at the Union frontier duty unpaid. 

(102)  The  comparison  of  the  weighted  average  normal  value  and  the  weighted  average 

export price as established showed dumping. 

2.9.2.  Malaysia 

(103)  Due  to  the  low  cooperation  by  the  producers  of  the  product  under  investigation  in 
Malaysia, the export price from Malaysia had to be based on facts available, i.e. on the 
average export price of bicycles during the RP as reported in Comext. 

(104)  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  the  cooperation  was  low,  the  relevant 
adjustments  were  based  on  the  information  submitted  by  the  Union  industry  in  its 
request for the current investigation.  

(105)  In  accordance  with  Article  2(11)  and  2(12)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  dumping  was 
calculated by comparing the weighted average normal value as previously established 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
and  the  corresponding  weighted  average  export  prices  of  Malaysia  during  the  RP, 
expressed as a percentage of the CIF price at the Union frontier duty unpaid. 

(106)  The  comparison  of  the  weighted  average  normal  value  and  the  weighted  average 

export price as established showed dumping. 

2.9.3.  Sri Lanka 

(107)  Since the cooperation from Sri Lanka was low, the export price was established on the 
basis of facts available, i.e. on the average export price of bicycles during the RP as 
reported in Comext which was cross checked with the available export data from the 
companies not involved in circumvention practices. 

(108)  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,  and  given  the  absence  of  any  other  information  available, 
adjustments were made for differences in transport, insurance and packing costs based 
on  the  information  submitted  by  the  Union  industry  in  its  request  for  the  current 
investigation. 

(109)  In  accordance  with  Article  2(11)  and  2(12)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  dumping  was 
calculated by comparing the weighted average normal value as previously established 
and  the  corresponding  weighted  average  export  prices  of  Sri  Lanka  during  the  RP, 
expressed as a percentage of the CIF price at the Union frontier duty unpaid. 

(110)  The  comparison  of  the  weighted  average  normal  value  and  the  weighted  average 

export price as established showed dumping. 

2.9.4.  Tunisia 

(111)  The export price was established on the basis of the average export price of bicycles 
during  the  RP  as  reported  in  Comext  which  was  cross  checked  with  the  export  data 
from the company not involved in circumvention practices.  

(112)  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 based on information submitted by the Union industry in 
its request for the current investigation.  

(113)  In  accordance  with  Article  2(11)  and  2(12)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  dumping  was 
calculated by comparing the weighted average normal value as previously established 
and  the  corresponding  weighted  average  export  prices  of  Tunisia  during  the  RP, 
expressed as a percentage of the CIF price at the Union frontier duty unpaid. 

(114)  The  comparison  of  the  weighted  average  normal  value  and  the  weighted  average 

export price as established showed dumping. 

3. 

MEASURES 

(115)  Given the above, it can be concluded that the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on 
imports  of  bicycles  originating  in  the  PRC  was  circumvented  by  transhipment  via 
Indonesia,  Malaysia,  Sri  Lanka  and  assembly  operations  via  Malaysia  and  Tunisia 
within the meaning of Article 13 of the basic Regulation. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
(116)  In  accordance  with  the  first  sentence  of  Article  13(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the 
existing measures on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC, should 
therefore  be  extended  to  imports  of  the  same  product  consigned  from  Indonesia, 
Malaysia,  Sri  Lanka  and  Tunisia  whether  declared  as  originating  in  Indonesia, 
Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not. 

(117)  The measures to be extended should be the ones currently established in Article 1(2) 
of Regulation (EC) No 990/2011, which are a definitive anti-dumping duty of 48.5% 
applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before customs duty. 

(118)  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  bicycles  consigned  from  Indonesia,  Malaysia,  Sri  Lanka  and 
Tunisia. 

4. 

REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION 

4.1. 

Indonesia 

(119)  The  four  companies  in  Indonesia  that  requested  an  exemption  from  the  possible 
extended measures in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation submitted 
a reply to the exemption form.  

(120)  As  stated  in  recitals  (29)  to  (33)  above,  application  of  Art  18  was  warranted  for  one 
company. Therefore, in view of the findings with regard to the change in the pattern of 
trade  and  transhipment  as  set  out  in  recital  (58)  above,  the  exemption  cannot  be 
granted to this company. 

(121)  The other three cooperating companies in Indonesia that requested an exemption from 
the  possible  extended  measures  in  accordance  with  Article  13(4)  of  the  basic 
Regulation were not found to be engaged in the circumvention practices subject to this 
investigation  as  stated  in  recital  (65)  above.  Furthermore,  these  producers  could 
demonstrate  that  they  are  not  related  to  any  of  the  producers/exporters  engaged  in 
circumvention  practices  nor  to  any  of  the  Chinese  producers/exporters  of  bicycles. 
Therefore, an exemption from the extended measures could be granted to these three 
companies. 

4.2. 

Malaysia 

(122)  One  company  in  Malaysia  that  requested  an  exemption  from  the  possible  extended 
measures in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation submitted a reply to 
the exemption form. 

(123)  As  stated  in  recital  (72)  to  (76)  above,  the  company  was  found  to  be  involved  in 
circumvention practices. Therefore, in view of the findings with regard to the change 
in the pattern of trade and transhipment as set out in recital (58) above, an exemption 
cannot be granted to this company. 

4.3. 

Sri Lanka 

(124)  The  six  companies  in  Sri  Lanka  that  requested  an  exemption  from  the  possible 
extended measures in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation submitted 
replies to the exemption form. 

(125)  As  stated  in  recital  (36)  above,  one  of  the  companies  withdrew  its  request  for 
exemption during the investigation and therefore, in view of the findings with regard 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
to the change in the pattern of trade and transhipment as set out in recital (58) above, 
an exemption cannot be granted to this company.  

(126)  For  other  two  companies  application  of  Article  18  of  the  basic  Regulation  was 
warranted as stated in recitals (36) to (42) above and therefore, in view of the findings 
with regard to the change in the pattern of trade and transhipment as set out in recital 
(58) above, an exemption cannot be granted to these companies. 

(127)  The other three cooperating companies in Sri Lanka requesting an exemption from the 
possible extended measures in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation 
were  found  not  to  be  engaged  in  the  circumvention  practices  subject  to  this 
investigation  as  stated  in  recitals  (80)  and  (81)  above.  Furthermore,  these  producers 
could  demonstrate  that  they  are  not  related  to  any  of  the  companies  found  to 
circumvent  nor  to  any  of  the  Chinese  producers/exporters  of  bicycles.  Therefore,  an 
exemption from the extended measures could be granted to these companies. 

4.4. 

Tunisia 

(128)  The two companies in Tunisia that requested an exemption from the possible extended 
measures in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation submitted replies to 
the exemption form. 

(129)  One company was found not to be engaged in the circumvention practices subject to 
this investigation. Furthermore, this producer could demonstrate that it is not related to 
any  of 
the  Chinese 
producers/exporters of bicycles. Therefore, an exemption from the extended measures 
could be granted to this company. 

the  companies  found 

to  circumvent  nor 

to  any  of 

(130)  As  stated  in  recital  (89)  above,  the  second  company  was  found  to  be  involved  in 
circumvention practices. Therefore, in view of the findings with regard to the change 
in the pattern of trade and transhipment as set out in recital (58) above, an exemption 
cannot be granted.  

4.5. 

Special measures 

(131)  It  is  considered  that  special  measures  are  needed  in  this  case  in  order  to  ensure  the 
proper application of such exemptions. These special measures are the requirement of 
the presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial 
invoice,  which  shall  conform  to  the  requirements  set  out  in  the  Annex  to  this 
Regulation. Imports not accompanied by such an invoice shall be made subject to the 
extended anti-dumping duty. 

4.6. 

Newcomers 

(132)  Without prejudice to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, other producers/exporters 
in  Indonesia,  Malaysia,  Sri  Lanka  and  Tunisia  which  did  not  come  forward  in  this 
proceeding and did not export the product under investigation to the Union in the RP 
and  which  consider  lodging  a  request  for  an  exemption  from  the  extended  anti-
dumping  duty  pursuant  to  Articles  11(4)  and  13(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation  will  be 
required to complete a questionnaire in order to enable the Commission to determine 
whether an exemption may be warranted. Such an exemption may be granted after the 
assessment  of  the  market  situation  of  the  product  under  investigation,  production 
capacity  and  capacity  utilisation,  procurement  and  sales  and  the  likelihood  of  a 
continuation  of  practices  for  which  there  is  insufficient  due  cause  or  economic 
justification and the evidence of dumping. The Commission would normally also carry 
out an on-spot verification visit. The request should be addressed to the Commission 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
forthwith,  with  all  relevant  information,  in  particular  any  modification  in  the 
company’s activities linked to the production and sales. 

(133)  Where  an  exemption  is  warranted,  the  extended  measures  in  force  shall  be  amended 
accordingly.  Subsequently,  any  exemption  granted  will  be  monitored  to  ensure 
compliance with the conditions set therein. 

5. 

DISCLOSURE 

(134)  All interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations leading to 

the above conclusions and were invited to comment.  

(135)  One Indonesian company reiterated its claims mentioned in recital (31) above without 
bringing  any  new  substantiated  evidence.  In  this  regard,  as  mentioned  in  recital  (29) 
above,  the  data  submitted  by  the  company  was  unverifiable  as  no  working  files 
substantiating the figures provided in the exemption form were kept by the company. 
Moreover,  the  reported  figures  that  were  tested  and  recalculated  on  the  basis  of  the 
bookkeeping  available  at  the  company's  premises  i.e.  purchases  and  production 
volume, were found inaccurate. Therefore, these claims are rejected. 

(136)  One  Malaysian  company  argued  that  the  fact  that  the  weight  of  the  Chinese  origin 
parts  in  the  manufacturing  cost  of  the  bicycles  was  only  slightly  above  the  60% 
threshold should not lead the Commission to reject its exemption request. In addition, 
the company submitted certain invoices for purchasing of parts which allegedly were 
wrongly reported as originating from the PRC when in fact they were from Indonesia.  

(137)  In  this  respect  it  should  be  noted  that  the  thresholds  set  in  Article  (13)(2)(b)  of  the 
basic  Regulation  are  very  clear  and,  therefore,  it  is  not  relevant  by  how  much  the 
weight of  the  Chinese origin parts in the  manufacturing cost of the  bicycles exceeds 
the 60% threshold but that the Chinese origin parts should represent less than 60% in 
the manufacturing cost of the bicycles. Moreover, these invoices could not be traced 
back in the list of purchases provided by the company and, in addition, the value of the 
invoices  submitted  were  not  material  as  to  change  the  original  assessment  of  the 
Commission. Therefore, these claims are rejected. 

(138)  In addition, the company in question argued that there is no sufficient legal basis for 
the  denial  of  the  company's  request  for  exemption  as  the  conclusions  reached  are 
based  on  calculations  without  taking  due  account  of  the  individual  situation  of  the 
company  in  question.  In  response  to  this  claim  the  company  received  further 
explanations reflecting the analysis in recitals (72) to (75) above. 

(139)  In  addition,  the  company  claimed  that  the  increase  of  imports  of  the  product  under 
investigation  by  the  company  in  question  coincides  with  the  relaxation  of  the 
Generalised  System  of  Preferences  for  Malaysia  and  therefore  the  increase  in 
company's  exports  into  the  Union  in  2010  had  no  economic  justification  in  the 
increase  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  imposed  against  the  PRC.  In  response  to  this 
argument  it  was  considered  that  while  the  relaxation  of  the  Generalised  System  of 
Preferences rules could have contributed to the company's motivation to export to the 
Union,  it  does  not  contradict  the  finding  that  the  company  started  its  operation  after 
the anti-dumping duties against the PRC were increased and that it sourced the parts 
mainly  from  the  PRC  (see  recital  (73)  above).  Therefore,  the  argument  of  the  party 
was rejected. 

(140)  The  same  company  also  claimed  that  the  reported  data  concerning  the  values  of 
purchased  and  consumed  bicycle  parts  were  not  duly  verified  as  no  distinction 
between purchased and consumed parts was made. In this respect it is noted that based 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
on the figures reported by the company, the values of purchased and consumed parts 
were found to be identical. In addition, the reported values of purchased parts in 2011 
corresponded  to  the  value  of  consumed  parts  reported  in  the  annual  report  of  the 
company for 2011. The figures concerning purchased and consumed parts reported for 
RP and 2010 were accepted as declared by the company. Therefore, the argument was 
rejected.  

(141)  The  company  in  question  submitted  further  cost  breakdowns  per  product  model 
demonstrating its alleged compliance with the requirement that the parts sourced from 
the PRC shall not exceed 60% of the total value of the parts of the assembled product. 
This  information  contradicted  the  cost  breakdowns  per  model  collected  and  verified 
for selected models on spot for which the failure of the company to comply with the 
60% threshold was confirmed. The new information submitted by the company in this 
respect  was  not  backed  up  by  any  evidence  and,  in  essence,  contradicted  verified 
information. For this reason the information was disregarded.  

(142)  Further,  the  company  claimed  that  it  acted  in  good  faith  as  relying  on  its  alleged 
compliance  with  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  1063/201016  laying  down  the 
applicable  rules  of  origin.  In  this  context  it  is  noted  that  the  purpose  of  the  anti-
circumvention investigation is not to verify the compliance with the applicable rules of 
origin.  Such  verification  was  not  carried  out  in  the  context  of  the  current  anti-
circumvention  investigation  and  therefore  the  alleged  compliance  with  the  rules  of 
origin cannot be in this case confirmed. For this reasons, the alleged compliance with 
the  rules  of  origin  in  this  case  does  not  exclude  in  any  way  the  possibility  of 
circumvention  as  defined  in  Article  13(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation17.  Against  this 
background, the argument is therefore rejected.  

(143)  Finally, the company claimed that the dumping margin calculation should have been 
carried out based on the company specific data. This request was accepted as reflected 
in recital (75) above and the company was informed accordingly.  

(144)  A company from Sri Lanka disputed the relevance of the documents requested during 
the  verification  visit  and  therefore  argued  that  its  exemption  request  should  not  be 
rejected. In this respect it should be noted that the documents showing the origin of the 
parts  used  in  the  assembly  of  the  bicycles  exported  to  the  Union  have  significant 
importance for the assessment of compliance with the conditions of Article 13(2)(b). 
Also,  as  mentioned  in  recital  (37)  above,  the  data  submitted  by  the  company  was 
unverifiable. In addition, the company admitted on spot that the parts purchased from 
the PRC were actually not recorded in its accounts and consequently the compliance 
with the criteria set out in Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation could not have been 
determined. Therefore, the claims are rejected. 

(145)  Another  company  from  Sri  Lanka  claimed  that  had  it  known  that  the  exports  to  the 
Union  from  Sri  Lanka  could  be  subject  to  the  anti-dumping  duty  as  extended  to  Sri 
Lanka  as  from  the  initiation  of  the  investigation,  it  would  have  not  withdrawn  its 
request for exemption. However, it is underlined that, at the time of the withdrawal of 
its request for exemption, the company is considered aware of the possible application 
of  the  anti-dumping  duty  as  extended  as  from  the  date  of  the  registration  of  imports 
from Sri Lanka to the Union, i.e. the initiation of the anti-circumvention investigation. 

16 
17 

OJ L 307, 23.11.2010, p. 1. 
See also previous cases, e.g. recital (48) of Council Regulation (EC) No 388/2008 (OJ L 117, 1.5.2008. 
p. 1). 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The company has been informed of this consequence in three instances, through recital 
(20) of the initiating Regulation, during a hearing at the beginning of the investigation 
and during the on-spot visit. Therefore, the claim could not be accepted.  

(146)  Another  company  from  Sri  Lanka  submitted  new  information  that  it  should  have 
submitted  before  the  verification  visit  and  due  to  the  advanced  stage  of  the 
investigation  that  information  could  not  be  verified  anymore.  Furthermore,  the 
company argued that it had submitted all the information required. 

(147)  As mentioned in recitals (39) and (40) the company did not submit all the information 
requested in order to be verified on-spot. In particular, the purchase value of parts of 
local  origin  as  reported  by  the  company  was  found  unreliable.  As  a  result,  the 
compliance with the criteria set out in Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation could not 
have been determined. 

(148)  In addition, the company claimed irregularities concerning the on-spot visit in respect 
of its length and language issues. In this regard, it should be noted that the company 
was  recently  set  up  and  therefore  only  one  day  of  verification  was  scheduled.  The 
verification was carried out during a full working day. At the end of the verification, 
the  company  did  not  ask  to  submit  any  additional  information  that  was  not  able  to 
provide during the verification.  

(149)  Furthermore,  before  the  on-spot  verification  the  company  was  informed  that  the 
verification will be carried out in English and the party has not raised any objections. 
Moreover,  the  Commission  was  accompanied  by  an  interpreter  during  the  on-spot 
verification  to  facilitate  language  communication  problems,  if  any.  In  addition,  it  is 
highlighted  that  most  of  the  documents  submitted  by  the  company  during  the 
verification visit were actually in English, including the accounting related documents. 

(150)  In view of the above, all the claims of the company are rejected.  

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 

In light of the purpose of this Regulation, the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable 
to ‘all other companies’ imposed by Article 1(2) of  Implementing Regulation  (EU) 
No  990/2011  on  imports  of  bicycles  and  other  cycles  (including  delivery  tricycles, 
but  excluding  unicycles),  not  motorised,  originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of 
China, is hereby extended to imports of bicycles and other cycles (including delivery 
tricycles,  but  excluding  unicycles),  not  motorised,  consigned  from  Indonesia, 
Malaysia,  Sri  Lanka  and  Tunisia  whether  declared  as  originating  in  Indonesia, 
Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not, currently falling within CN codes ex 8712 
00 30 and ex 8712 00 70 (TARIC code 8712 00 30 10 and 8712 00 70 91) with the 
exception of those produced by the companies listed below: 

Country 

Company 

TARIC 
code 

additional 

Indonesia  

P.T. Insera Sena, 393 Jawa Street, Buduran, Sidoarjo 
61252, Indonesia  

B765 

PT  Wijaya  Indonesia  Makmur  Bicycle  Industries 
(Wim  Cycle),  Raya  Bambe  KM.  20,  Driyorejo, 

B766 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
 
Gresik 61177, Jawa Timur Indonesia 

P.T.  Terang  Dunia  Internusa,  (United  Bike),  Jl. 
Anggrek Neli Murni 114 Slipi, 11480, Jakarta Barat, 
Indonesia  

B767 

Sri Lanka 

Asiabike  Industrial  Limited,  No  114,  Galle  Road, 
Henamulla, Panadura, Sri Lanka  

B768 

BSH  Ventures  (Private)  Limited,  No.  84,  Campbell 
Place, Colombo-10, Sri Lanka  

B769 

Samson Bikes (Pvt) Ltd., No 110, Kumaran Rathnam 
Road, Colombo 02, Sri Lanka  

B770 

Tunisia 

Euro  Cycles  SA,  Zone  Industrielle  Kelaa  Kebira, 
4060, Sousse, Tunisia  

B771 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

The  application  of  exemptions  granted  to  the  companies  specifically  mentioned  in 
paragraph  1  of  this  Article  or  authorised  by  the  Commission  in  accordance  with 
Article 2(2) of this Regulation shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs 
authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform 
to  the  requirements  set  out  in  the  Annex  to  this  Regulation.  If  no  such  invoice  is 
presented,  the  anti-dumping  duty  as  imposed  by  paragraph  1  of  this  Article  shall 
apply. 

The  duty  extended  by  paragraph  1  of  this  Article  shall  be  collected  on  imports 
consigned  from  Indonesia,  Malaysia,  Sri  Lanka  and  Tunisia,  whether  declared  as 
originating  in  Indonesia,  Malaysia  Sri  Lanka  and  Tunisia  or  not,  registered  in 
accordance  with  Article  2  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  875/2012  and  Articles  13(3)  and 
14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 with the exception of those produced by the 
companies listed in paragraph 1.  

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

Article 2 

Requests for exemption from the duty extended by Article 1 shall be made in writing 
in  one  of  the  official  languages  of  the  European  Union  and  must  be  signed  by  a 
person authorised to represent the entity requesting the exemption. The request must 
be sent to the following address: 

European Commission 
Directorate-General for Trade 
Directorate H 
Office: N-105 08/20 
1049 Brussels 
Belgium 
Fax (32 2) 295 65 05 

2. 

In accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 the Commission, 
after consulting the Advisory Committee, may authorise, by decision, the exemption 
of  imports  from  companies  which  do  not  circumvent  the  anti-dumping  measures 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
imposed  by  Regulation  (EU)  No  990/2011,  from the duty extended  by Article 1 of 
this Regulation. 

Customs authorities are hereby directed to discontinue the registration of imports, established 
in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 875/2012. 

Article 3 

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

Article 4 

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
 
ANNEX 

A  declaration  signed  by  an  official  of  the  entity  issuing  the  commercial  invoice,  in  the 
following format, must appear on the valid commercial invoice referred to in Article 1(2): 

(1) The name and function of the official of the entity issuing the commercial invoice; 

(2)  The  following  declaration:  ‘I,  the  undersigned,  certify  that  the  (volume)  of  (product 
concerned) sold for export to the European Union 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’; 

(3) Date and signature.  

EN 

29 

   EN