Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION amending 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
Date: 2013-05-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping measure, import (EU), originating product, two-wheeled vehicle

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 6.5.2013  
COM(2013) 263 final 

2013/0138 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

amending 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

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

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  interim  review 
investigation  concerning  the  anti-dumping  duty  in  force  in  respect  of  imports  of 
bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China (‘PRC’). 

General context 

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

Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 
By Regulation (EEC) no 2474/931 the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty 
of  30.6%  on  imports  of  bicycles  originating  in  the  PRC.  Following  an  anti-
circumvention  investigation  pursuant  to  Article  13  of  the  basic  Regulation,  this  duty 
was  extended  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  71/972  to  imports  of  certain  bicycles 
parts originating in the PRC. 

Following  an  expiry  review  pursuant  to  Article  11(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the 
Council,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1524/20003,  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  1095/20054,  decided  to  increase  the  anti-dumping 
duty in force to 48.5%. 

Following  an  expiry  review  pursuant  to  Article  11(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the 
Council,  by  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  990/20115,  decided  that  the  above 
mentioned measures should be maintained. 

Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Consultation of interested parties 

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

Collection and use of expertise 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

OJ L 228, 9.9.1993, p. 1  
OJ L 16, 18.1.1997, p. 55 
OJ L 175, 14.7.2000, p. 39 
OJ L 183, 14.7.2005, p. 1 
OJ L 261, 6.10.2011, p. 2 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
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. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

Summary of the proposed action 

On  9  March  2012,  the  Commission  announced  by  a  notice,  published  in  the  Official 
Journal of the European Union, the initiation of an interim review of the anti-dumping 
measures applicable to imports of bicycles originating in the PRC. 

The review was initiated on an ex officio basis.  

The  review  investigation  found  that  circumstances  with  regard  to  the  dumping  and 
injury have not changed significantly and that therefore the continued imposition of the 
measures was necessary to offset the dumping. It has also established that, should anti-
dumping  measures  be  lifted,  this  would  result  in  a  continuation  of  dumping  and 
material injury to the Union industry. It was further established that the continuation of 
measures was not against the interest of the Union.  

As  regards  the  three  co-operating  exporting  producers,  the  investigation  showed  that 
there  was  a  lasting  change  of  circumstances  and  therefore  their  individual  dumping 
margins should be amended. 

Therefore,  it  is  suggested  that  the  Council  adopts  the  attached  proposal  for  a 
Regulation  in  order  to  amend  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  990/2011,  which 
should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union by 5 June 2013 at 
the latest.  

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. 

Subsidiarity principle 

The  proposal  falls  under  the  exclusive  competence  of  the  European  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 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. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Choice of instruments 

Proposed instruments: regulation. 

Other means would not be adequate for the following reason: 

The basic Regulation does not provide for alternative options. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Union budget. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
2013/0138 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

amending 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 

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 Community6 (‘the basic 
Regulation’), and in particular Articles 9(4) and 11(3), (5) and (6) thereof, 

Having  regard  to  the  proposal  submitted  by  the  European  Commission  ('Commission')  after 
consulting the Advisory Committee, 

Whereas: 

A. PROCEDURE 

1. 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

Measures in force 
By Regulation (EEC) no 2474/937 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'  or  'the  country  concerned)  (the  ‘original  investigation’).  Following  an  anti-
circumvention investigation in accordance with Article 13 of the basic Regulation, this 
duty  was  extended  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  71/978  to  imports  of  certain 
bicycles  parts  originating  in  the  PRC.  In  addition,  it  was  decided  to  create  an 
'exemption scheme' on the basis of Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation. The details of 
the scheme were provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 88/979. In order to 
receive an exemption from the extended duty, bicycle producers in the Union have to 
respect  the  conditions  of  Article  13(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  namely  to  respect  a 
ratio  of  less  than  60%  of  Chinese  bicycle  parts  in  their  operation  or  the  addition  of 
more than 25% value to all parts brought into the operation. To date, more than 250 
exemptions have been granted. 

Following  an  expiry  review  pursuant  to  Article  11(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the 
Council,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1524/200010,  decided  that  the  above  mentioned 
measures should be maintained. 

Following  an  interim  review  pursuant  to  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation 
('amending interim review'), the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1095/200511, decided 
to increase 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 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
(4) 

(5) 

2. 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

Following a review of the anti-circumvention measures pursuant to Article 13(4) and 
11(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  Council,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  171/200812, 
decided  to  maintain  the  extension  of  the  anti-dumping  duty  imposed  on  imports  of 
bicycles originating in the PRC to imports of certain bicycles parts from the PRC. 

Following  an  expiry  review  pursuant  to  Article  11(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the 
Council,  by 
'previous 
investigation'), decided that the above mentioned measures should be maintained. 

(EU)  No  990/201113 

Implementing  Regulation 

(the 

Ex officio initiation  

Following  the  expiry  review  concluded  in  October  2011,  evidence  at  the  disposal  of 
the  Commission  indicated  that  as  far  as  dumping  and  injury  are  concerned,  the 
circumstances on the basis of which the existing measures were imposed might have 
changed and that these changes may be of a lasting nature. 

The prima facie evidence at the Commission’s disposal indicated that the export quota 
system  that  applied  to  bicycle  producers  in  the  PRC  and  that  hindered  the  exporting 
producers in being granted market economy treatment in the amending interim review, 
has been abolished in January 2011. 

Furthermore,  changes  to  the  structure  of  the  Union  industry  have  taken  place.  In 
particular, several Union producers switched from the complete cycle of production to 
(partial) assembly operations using imported parts. 

(9)  Moreover,  due  to  the  enlargements  of  the  European  Union  of  2004  and  2007,  a 
significant number of producers joined the Union bicycle industry. In addition, several 
producers  which  had  been  part  of  the  Union  industry  before  the  two  enlargement 
rounds  moved  their  production  facilities  or  set  up  new  facilities  in  the  new  Member 
States. As a result, the cost level of the Union industry might have changed. 

(10)  Finally,  the  present  injury  elimination  level  was  calculated  on  the  basis  of  bicycles 
made out of steel whereas it appears that currently the majority of bicycles are made of 
aluminium alloys.  

(11)  All these developments appeared to be of a lasting nature and therefore substantiated 

the need to reassess the injury and dumping findings. 

(12)  Moreover, the number of companies benefiting from the exemption scheme is rapidly 
growing,  without  the  scheme  having  been  adapted  since  its  introduction  in  1997.  In 
addition,  the  monitoring  system  of  the  imports  of  parts  exempted  from  the  anti-
dumping  measures  has  become  highly  complex  and  burdensome,  which  might 
endanger its effectiveness. 

(13)  Having  determined,  after  consulting  the  Advisory  Committee,  that  sufficient  prima 
facie evidence existed for the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Article 11(3) of 
the basic Regulation, the Commission announced by a notice (‘Notice of initiation’)14, 
published  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union  on  9  March  2012,  the 
initiation,  on  an  ex  officio  basis,  of  an  interim  review  of  the  anti-dumping  measures 
applicable to imports of bicycles originating in the PRC. 

3. 

Parallel anti-circumvention investigation 

11 
12 
13 
14 

OJ L 183, 14.7.2005, p. 1 
OJ L 55, 28.2.2008, p. 1 
OJ L 261, 6.10.2011, p. 2 
OJ C 71, 9.3.2012, p. 10 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                                                                                                                         
(14) 

(15) 

In  25  September  2012  by  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  875/201215,  the 
Commission initiated an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-
dumping measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 
on imports of bicycles originating in the 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, and making such imports subject to 
registration ('the anti-circumvention investigation'). 
In  May  2013,  the  Council  by  Regulation  (EU)  No  XXX/201316  (the 
'anti-
circumvention Regulation') extended the anti-dumping measures in force on imports of 
bicycles  originating  in  the  PRC  to  imports  of  bicycles  consigned  from  Indonesia, 
Malaysia,  Sri  Lanka  and  Tunisia,  whether  declared  as  originating  in  Indonesia, 
Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not, as these imports were found to circumvent the 
measures  by  transhipment  and/or  assembly  operations  within  the  meaning  of  Article 
13(1) and (2) of the basic Regulation. 

4. 

Parallel anti-subsidy investigation  

(16)  On  27  April  2012,  the  Commission  announced  by  a  notice  published  in  the  Official 
Journal  of  the  European  Union17,  the  initiation  of  an  anti-subsidy  proceeding  with 
regard  to  imports  into  the  Union  of  bicycles  originating  in  the  PRC  ('anti-subsidy 
investigation'). 

(17) 

In  November  2012  the  Commission  announced  by  a  notice  published  in  the  Official 
Journal  of  the  European  Union18,  that  the  findings  in  the  anti-circumvention 
investigation  may  be  used  in  the  anti-subsidy  investigation  mentioned  in  recital  (14) 
and (15) above.  

(18) 

In May 2013 the Commission by Regulation (EU) No xxx/2013, terminated the anti-
subsidy investigation without imposing measures19. 

5. 

Parties concerned by the investigation 

(19)  The  Commission  officially  notified  known  Union  producers,  known  associations  of 
Union  producers,  the  known  exporting  producers  in  the  PRC  and  an  association  of 
Chinese producers, the representatives of the country concerned, known importers and 
associations  of  importers,  known  Union  producers  of  bicycle  parts  and  their 
associations  and  known  association  of  users  of  the  initiation  of  the  investigation. 
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 Notice of initiation. 

(20) 

In  view  of  the  apparent  high  number  of  exporting  producers,  Union  producers  and 
unrelated  importers,  sampling  was  provided  for  in  the  Notice  of  initiation  in 
accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission 
to  decide  whether  sampling  would  be  necessary  and  if  so,  to  select  samples,  all 
exporting  producers  and  their  known  association,  all  Union  producers  and  unrelated 
importers were asked to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide, as 
specified in the Notice of initiation, basic information on their activities related to the 
product concerned during the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011. 

15 
16 
17 
18 
19 

OJ L 258, 26.9.2012, p.21. 
OJ L XXX, date, page 
OJ C 122, 27.4.2012, p. 9. 
OJ C 346, 14.11.2012, p.7 
OJ L XXX, date, page 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
(21)  Since the representatives of the country concerned did not come forward at initiation, 
the  Commission  contacted  about  70  Chinese  companies  already  known  to  the 
Commission services from the previous investigation. At a later stage, when the anti-
subsidy  investigation  mentioned  in  recital  (16)  above  was  initiated,  the  Commission 
identified  around  300  additional  Chinese  exporting  producers  that  were  contacted  in 
the context of this interim review as well. 

(22) 

In spite of the Commission's efforts to obtain cooperation, only eight Chinese groups 
of exporting producers came forward, out of which only four reported exports to the 
Union  in  the  review  investigation  period  ('RIP')  defined  in  recital  (37)  below, 
representing less than 4% of the total imports from the PRC of bicycles in the RIP.  

(23)  On the basis of the above it was decided that sampling was not necessary for exporting 

producers in the PRC. 

(24)  As  stated  in  recitals  (63)  to  (64)  and  (131)  below,  for  one  Chinese  exporting  group, 
Giant  China,  application  of  Article  18(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation  was  warranted. 
Consequently,  the  cooperation  of  the  Chinese  exporting  producers  decreased  even 
further.  

(25)  As explained in recital (32) to (35) below, a sample of Union producers was selected. 

(26)  As explained in recital (36) below, it was decided that sampling was not necessary for 

unrelated importers. 

(27)  The  Commission  sent  questionnaires  to  all  parties  known  to  be  concerned  and  to  all 
other parties that so requested within the deadlines set out in the Notice of initiation, 
namely the sampled Union producers, the cooperating exporting producers in the PRC, 
unrelated  importers  that  made  themselves  known  as  described  in  recital  (36)  below 
and to the known producers of bicycle parts in the Union. 

(28)  Replies to the questionnaires and other submissions were received from four groups of 
Chinese exporting producers and their representative, eight sampled Union producers, 
one  association  of  users  and  eight  associations  of  the  Union  producers,  53  bicycle 
parts  producers  and  one  association  of  producers  of  bicycle  parts.  None  of  the 
contacted unrelated importers submitted a questionnaire reply.  

(29)  The  Commission  sought  and  verified  all  the  information  deemed  necessary  for  a 
determination  of  dumping,  resulting  injury,  causality  and  Union  interest  and  carried 
out verifications at the premises of the following companies: 

(a)  Producers of bicycles in the Union 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Accell Hunland, Hungary 

Decathlon RGVS, Portugal 

Denver srl, Italy 

SC Eurosport DHS, Romania 

Koninklijke Gazelle, Netherlands 

–  Maxcom Ltd, Bulgaria 

–  MIFA, Germany 

– 

Sprick Rowery, Poland 

(b)  Producers of bicycle parts in the Union 

EN 

8 

   EN 

– 

– 

Chimsport, Romania  

Telai Olagnero, Italy 

(c)  Exporting producers in the PRC 

– 

– 

– 

Ideal (Dong Guan) Bike Co.,  

Oyama Bicycles (Taicang) Co., 

Zhejiang Baoguilai Vehicle Co., 

(30) 

In light of the need to establish a normal value for exporting producers in the PRC to 
which MET might not be granted, a verification visit to establish normal value on the 
basis  of  data  from  an  analogue  country  took  place  at  the  premises  of  the  following 
companies: 

– 

– 

– 

Distribuidora de Bicicletas Benotto, S.A. DE C.V., Mexico City, Mexico, 

Bicicletas Magistroni, Mexico City, Mexico, 

Bicicletas Mercurio SA DE CV, San Luis Potosi, Mexico. 

(31)  Following  the  disclosure  of  essential  facts  and  considerations  ('the  disclosure')  some 
parties argued that an inadequate period was provided for the parties to comment. In 
this  respect  it  is  noted  that  the  parties  were  provided  sufficient  time  to  comment  in 
accordance  with  Article  20(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  The  comment  is  therefore 
dismissed.  

6. 

Sampling of Union Producers 

(32)  The  Commission  announced  in  the  Notice  of  initiation  that  it  had  provisionally 
selected a sample of Union producers. This sample consisted of eight companies, out 
of  over  380  Union  producers  that  were  known  prior  to  the  initiation  of  the 
investigation, selected in particular on the basis of the largest representative volume of 
production  and  sales  that  can  reasonably  be  investigated  within  the  time  available 
taking into account the geographical spread. The sample covered the largest producing 
countries ranked according to the production volumes. For each of these countries, the 
companies included in the sample were among the largest representative cooperating 
producers.  The  sample  also  captured  entities  from  the  largest  cooperating  groups. 
Particular attention was given in this case to sampling an equal number of companies 
from the old and the new Member States.  

(33)  The sample represented around 25% of the total estimated Union production and sales 
during the RIP. Interested parties were invited to consult the file and to comment on 
the  appropriateness  of  this  choice  within  15  days  of  the  date  of  publication  of  the 
Notice  of  initiation.  All  interested  parties,  who  so  requested  and  showed  that  there 
were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.  

(34)  Certain  interested  parties  raised  objections  concerning  the  sampling  of  Union 
producers.  They  claimed  that:  (i)  the  provisional  sample  included  only  certain  legal 
entities pertaining to groups of related companies rather than all legal entities making 
up  the  full  economic  entity  producing  the  product  at  issue;  and  (ii)  the  proposal 
included  a  company  that  has  been  recently  operating  at  a  loss,  whereas  the  Union 
producers were thriving during that period. In addition, it was claimed that these losses 
were not linked to the product concerned. 

(35)  These arguments were dismissed on the following grounds: (i) The entities belonging 
to  larger  groups  that  were  found  to  operate  independently  from  other  subsidiaries  of 

EN 

9 

   EN 

the  same  group  were  considered  representative  of  the  Union  industry  and  there  was 
therefore  no  need  to  investigate  the  entire  group  on  a  consolidated  basis.  (ii)  The 
interested party concerned did not substantiate its claim that the company selected in 
the sample and which allegedly realised losses would indeed not be representative for 
the Union industry. Finally, while the selected sample should be representative for the 
Union  industry,  the  companies  selected  do  not  necessarily  need  to  be  homogeneous. 
The claim of this party had to be therefore rejected.  

7. 

Sampling of Unrelated Importers 

(36)  Sampling of unrelated importers was also provided for in the Notice of Initiation. All 
known unrelated importers were contacted upon initiation. Given the small number of 
replies  received  in  the  framework  of  the  sampling  exercise,  no  sample  was  selected. 
All  unrelated  importers  that  came  forward  were  invited  to  cooperate  and  received  a 
questionnaire. None of the unrelated importers provided a questionnaire reply, nor did 
they cooperate further in the present investigation. 

8. 

Investigation period 

(37)  The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 
December 2011 (the 'review investigation period' or 'RIP'). The examination of trends 
in  the  context  of  the  analysis  of  injury  covered  the  period  from  January  2008  to  the 
end of the RIP (the 'period considered'). 

B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

1. 

Product concerned 

(38)  The product subject to this review investigation is bicycles and other cycles (including 
delivery tricycles but excluding unicycles), not motorised ('the product under review') 
originating in the PRC, currently falling within CN codes 8712 00 30 and ex 8712 00 
70. 

(39)  As  in  the  previous  investigation,  the  bicycles  were  classified  in  the  following 

categories: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

(A) ATB (al-terrain bicycles including mountain bicycles 24″ or 26″), 

(B) trekking/city/hybrid/VTC/touring bicycles 26″ or 28″, 

(C) junior action (BMX) and children's bicycles 16″ or 20″, 

(D) other bicycles/cycles (excluding unicycles). 

(40)  All  types  of  bicycles  as  defined  above  have  the  same  basic  physical  and  technical 
characteristics.  Furthermore,  they  are  sold  through  similar  distribution  channels  such 
as specialised retailers, sport chains and mass merchandisers on the Union market. The 
basic application and use of bicycles being identical, they are largely interchangeable 
and models from different categories therefore compete with each other. On this basis, 
it was concluded that all the categories form one single product.  

(41)  One  party  argued  that  the  different  types  of  bicycles  have  significantly  different 
characteristics and intended uses and also significantly different prices, while from the 
consumers’  perspective  these  different  types  of  bicycle  are  not  interchangeable. 
Furthermore,  it  was  argued  that  steel  and  aluminium  bicycles  are  not  considered 
interchangeable and that their prices are different as well. 

(42) 

In  support  of  its  argument,  the  party  submitted  a  study  about  the  basic  physical  and 
technical  characteristics  and  uses  of  five  different  product  types  as  well  as  their 

EN 

10 

   EN 

interchangeability. It should be noted that the study was allegedly based on the replies 
of  36  individuals,  however  it  is  not  clear  how  the  respondents  have  been  chosen.  It 
seems furthermore that it was prepared specifically for the current investigation. The 
study does not include any quantifiable data. It is noted that the content of this study is 
apparently  based  on  statements  of  customers  and/or  bicycles  producers  rather  than 
verifiable  evidence.  Therefore,  the  representativity  of  the  results  of  this  study  is 
questionable. 

(43)  The party has not brought any other evidence in support of its claim.  

(44)  The investigation has confirmed that all types of bicycles, as defined above, have the 
same  basic  physical  and  technical  characteristics.  In  particular,  it  was  found  that  the 
use of different raw materials did not have an impact on the basic characteristics of a 
bicycle.  Although  steel  and  aluminium  have  some  different  technical  properties  like 
weight, the basic characteristics of the bicycles made of steel and aluminium remain 
similar.  

(45)  Likewise, there was no specific evidence provided by the party that bicycles made of 
steel on one hand and those made of aluminium on the other hand had indeed different 
basic physical and technical characteristics. 

(46)  Regarding  the  specific  application,  use  and  consumer  perception,  the  current 
investigation  has  confirmed  that  all  bicycles  have  the  same  basic  applications  and 
perform essentially the same function. While it is true that different categories are in 
principal  intended  to  meet  different  end  users  requirements,  end-users  will  regularly 
put a bicycle in a particular category to a variety of uses.  

(47)  There are consequently no clear dividing lines based on end-users' use and consumers' 

perceptions of different categories. 

(48)  Furthermore,  Union  producers  themselves  often  make  no  distinction  among  the 
bicycles  classified  in  different  categories  with  regard  to  production,  distribution  and 
accounting. Indeed, they often have a similar manufacturing process for all categories 
of bicycles.  

(49) 

In addition, the bicycles in the various categories are sold through similar distribution 
channels  such  as  specialised  retailers,  sport  chains  and  mass  merchandisers  on  the 
Union market.  

(50)  On this basis, it was concluded that all the categories form one single product. 

(51)  One party raised the point that the current investigation covers two CN codes as stated 
in  recital  (38)  above  while  the  previous  investigation  stated  in  recital  (5)  above 
covered  three  CN  codes,  i.e.  ex  8712  00  10,  8712  00  30  and  ex  8712  00  80.  In  this 
regard,  it  is  noted  that  the  changing  of  the  codes  was  due  to  amendments  to  the 
Combined Nomenclature imposed by Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 with the effect 
as from 1.1.201220. 

(52) 

In  this  context,  the  party  claimed  that  bicycles  without  ball  bearings  should  not  be 
considered  a  single  product  with  the  bicycles  with  ball  bearings.  However,  the 
investigation showed that bicycles with ball bearings and bicycles without ball bearing 
share  the  same  technical  characteristics  and  uses.  Furthermore,  the  party  has  not 
substantiated  its  claim  with  any  supporting  evidence  and  therefore,  the  claim  is 
rejected. 

20 

OL L 282, 28.10.2011, p.1. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

                                                 
(53)  Moreover, the party argued that there is a significant difference in the average import 
prices  as  recorded  in  Eurostat  between  the  two  CN  codes  covering  the  product 
concerned. In this regards, it is highlighted that as stated in recital (157) below due to 
the  product  mix,  the  average  price  as  recorded  in  Eurostat  can  only  serve  as  an 
indicator  of  price  trends,  but  is  not  useful  when  comparing  sales  prices  between 
various countries and the Union.  

(54)  After  the  disclosure  one  party  reiterated  its  claim  that  the  different  types  of  bicycles 
covered by the scope of this investigation are not like products and claimed that it had 
submitted  positive  evidence  in  support  of  the  differences  in  raw  materials,  physical 
characteristics,  technological  features,  end-uses  that  allegedly  exist  among  the 
different type of bicycles. 

(55) 

In  this  respect,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  positive  evidence  that  the  party  claims  to 
have  submitted  is  actually  the  study  assessed  by  the  Commission  in  the  recital  (42) 
above. After duly assessment, the Commission concluded that the representativity of 
the  results  of  this  study  was  questionable  for  the  reasons  mentioned  in  recital  (42) 
above.  

(56)  The parties claimed that children's bicycles defined by the party as bicycles with the 
size  of  the  wheel  of  less  than  and  including  16  inch  should  be  excluded  from  the 
product scope of the investigation. These claims were based on the assumption that in 
particular  duration  of  uses  and  simplicity  in  characteristics  clearly  divided  these 
bicycles  from  other  type  of  bicycles  falling  within  the  scope  of  the  current 
investigation. 

(57)  However, these claims were deemed insufficient to exclude bicycles with the size of 
the  wheel  of  less  than  and  including  16  inch  from  the  definition  of  the  product 
concerned because they were not substantiated with sufficient evidence showing that 
in  this  investigation  a  clear  dividing  line  could  be  drawn  between  bicycles  with  the 
size of the wheel of less than and including 16 inch and other bicycles types within the 
scope  of  the  investigation.  In  fact,  to  the  contrary  it  was  found  that  the  essential 
physical and technical characteristics of the bicycles with the size of the wheel of less 
than and including 16 inch which were common to those of the product concerned – a 
human-powered, pedal-driven vehicle having more than one wheel attached to a frame 
– were much more important than any differences (i.e. essentially size of the wheel). 
Furthermore,  it  appeared  that  production,  sales  channels  and  consumer  service  were 
not  fundamentally  different  from  other  bicycles  types  under  investigation.  Just  the 
mere fact that bicycles with the size of the  wheel of  less than and including  16 inch 
form a distinctive product sub-group within the scope of the product concerned does 
not warrant the exclusion from the product scope. Indeed, it was found that there is no 
clear  dividing  line  between  bicycles  with  the  size  of  the  wheel  of  less  than  and 
including  16  inch  and  the  product  concerned,  but  that  there  is  rather  a  large  overlap 
regarding the definition of the product concerned, notably that it is a human-powered, 
pedal-driven  vehicle  having  more  than  one  wheel  used  essentially  for  transportation 
and spot. In this regard, the investigation revealed that one of the co-operating Chinese 
exporting producers was actually exporting to the Union bicycles with the wheel size 
of 12 inch which were not considered necessarily bicycles for children but they were 
actually folding bicycles used by adults for which storage was an important feature of 
the bicycles.  

(58)  Therefore the request to exclude bicycles with the size of the wheel of less than and 

including 16 inch from the product scope of the investigation is rejected. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

2. 

Like product 

(59)  Bicycles  produced  and  sold  by  the  Union  industry  on  the  Union  market,  those 
produced and sold on the analogue country market and those imported into the Union 
market  originating  in  the  PRC  have  the  same  basic  physical  and  technical 
characteristics and the same uses and are, therefore, considered to be alike within the 
meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.  

1. 

Market Economy Treatment 

1.1. 

MET assessment 

C. DUMPING 

(60)  Pursuant  to  Article  2(7)(b)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  in  anti-dumping  investigations 
concerning  imports  originating  in  the  PRC,  normal  value  shall  be  determined  in 
accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the said Article for those producers which were 
found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. Briefly 
and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out in summarised form below: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Business decisions are made in response to market signals, without significant 
State interference, and costs reflect market values;  

Firms have one clear set of basic accounting records, which are independently 
audited  in  line  with  international  accounting  standards  (IAS)  and  are  applied 
for all purposes;  

There  are  no  significant  distortions  carried  over  from  the  former  non-market 
economy system;  

Bankruptcy and Property laws guarantee stability and legal certainty; and  

Exchange rate conversions are carried out at market rates. 

(61) 

In  the  present  investigation,  all  exporting  groups  that  initially  cooperated  with  the 
investigation  requested  MET  pursuant  to  Article  2(7)(b)  of  the  basic  Regulation  and 
replied to the MET claim form within the given deadlines. 

(62)  For  all  exporting  groups  that  initially  cooperated  with  the  investigation,  the 
Commission  sought  all  information  deemed  necessary  and  verified  information 
submitted in the MET claim at the premises of the groups in question. 

(63)  The reply of one group, Giant China, was considered as being significantly deficient 
as  it  did  not  include  all  the  required  information  on  the  structure  of  the  group, 
notwithstanding the Commission’s efforts to obtain the necessary information from the 
group. 

(64)  As required by Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, Giant China was informed of the 
likely  application  of  facts  available  to  it  and  invited  to  provide  comments.  As  Giant 
China,  however,  refused  to  provide  the  Commission  with  the  necessary  information, 
Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation was applied and the claim for MET was rejected.  

(65)  Furthermore, the investigation revealed that MET could not be granted to any of the 
Chinese  company  groups  as  none  of  them  fulfilled  all  the  criteria  set  out  in  Article 
2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, for the following reasons. 

Criterion 1 

(66)  All  cooperating  exporting  groups  failed  to  demonstrate  that  they  fulfil  Criterion  1 
because of State interference in decisions concerning the main raw materials (steel & 

EN 

13 

   EN 

aluminium).  The  cost  of  steel  and  aluminium  for  the  cooperating  exporting  groups 
represents  at  least  around  20%  to  25%  of  the  cost  of  production  of  the  product 
concerned. Many companies are fully vertically integrated, meaning that they purchase 
the  aluminium  ingots  or  steel  to  produce  tubes  which  then  are  used  to  produce 
frames/forks and finally the bicycles.  

(67)  The investigation demonstrated that the three cooperating Chinese groups of exporting 
producers  acquired  the  steel  and  aluminium  used  for  the  production  of  the  product 
concerned on the Chinese domestic market.  

(68)  Prices are based on the quotation of aluminium in the State-controlled Shanghai Non-
ferrous  Metal  Exchange  market  (‘the  Exchange’  or  ‘SHFE’).  The  SHFE  is  a  closed 
exchange  for  Chinese-registered  companies  and  Chinese  citizens  and  it  is  controlled 
by  the  State  Securities  Regulatory  Commission.  Several  rules  governing  the 
functioning  of  the  Exchange  contribute  to  low  volatility  and  prices  which  do  not 
reflect the market value at the SHFE: daily price fluctuations are limited to 4% above 
or  below  the  settlement  price  of  the  previous  trading  day,  trading  happens  at  a  low 
frequency  (until  the  15th  day  of  each  month),  futures  contracts  are  limited  to  a 
duration  of  up  to  12  months,  and  transaction  fees  are  charged  by  both  the  Exchange 
and brokers. 

(69)  Moreover, as concerns SHFE transactions, physical  deliveries can  only  take place in 
an  approved  warehouse  within  the  PRC,  unlike  international  exchanges,  where 
delivery can take place worldwide. Moreover, as the SHFE is a platform for physical 
exchanges  only  (no  derivatives  are  sold),  this  completely  insulates  the  Chinese 
aluminium  market.  As  a  consequence,  arbitrage  with  the  worldwide  benchmark,  the 
London Metals Exchange (‘LME’) or other markets is practically not possible and the 
exchange works in isolation from other world markets. Therefore, an arbitrage among 
these  markets  cannot  take  place.  During  the  RIP  primary  aluminium  prices  were 
around  7%  lower  on  the  SHFE  (excluding  VAT)  as  compared  to  the  LME  (also 
excluding VAT), compared on a spot price basis.  

(70)  The State also interferes with the price setting mechanisms in the SHFE as it is both a 
seller and a purchaser, via the State Reserve Bureau and other State Bodies, of primary 
aluminium.  In  addition,  the  State  sets  daily  price  limits  via  the  rules  of  the  SHFE 
which  have  been  approved  by  the  State  Regulator,  the  China  Securities  Regulatory 
Commission (‘the CSRC’). 

(71)  The  PRC  supports  the  processing  of  aluminium  products  by  granting  a  partial  VAT 
refund  on  the  export  of  many  aluminium  products  (for  bicycles,  the  rate  is  15%);  in 
case of exports of primary aluminium instead, there is no refund. This is an incentive 
for  Chinese  industry  to  further  process  aluminium  and  has  a  direct  bearing  on  the 
availability and price of primary aluminium on the domestic market. In addition, the 
investigation demonstrated that primary aluminium for export is subject to a 17 % tax, 
while no export tax is applied on exports of bicycles. This strengthens the finding of 
interference  of  the  Chinese  State  on  the  domestic  market  of  aluminium.  These  tools 
have  a  downward  impact  on  domestic  prices  encouraging  domestic  industry  to 
manufacture finished goods incorporating aluminium (such as the product concerned) 
for both the domestic and export markets.  

(72)  A further distortion by the Chinese State is in the form of interventions in the market 
by  the  State  Reserves  Bureau  (‘SRB’)  which  is  part  of  the  National  Development 
Reform  Commission  (‘NDRC’).  At  the  end  of  2008  and  the  beginning  of  2009  the 
SRB  started  buying  up  stocks  of  primary  aluminium  from  Chinese  aluminium 

EN 

14 

   EN 

smelters,  in  order  to  stimulate  the  price  of  the  commodity.  The  SRB  sold  primary 
aluminium back onto the market such as at the start of November 2010 as reported by 
Bloomberg21.  The  Xinhua  News  Agency  reported  the  stockpiling  measures  in 
December  2008,  explaining  that  it  was  planned  to  accumulate  300  000  tonnes  of 
aluminium  at  prices  which  were  10%  higher  than  the  market  price  in  a  measure 
designed to prop up prices22. The SRB stockpiling plan involved buying from several 
Chinese  smelters  although  around  half  was  to  be  bought  from  the  Aluminium 
Corporation  of  China  Ltd.  The  above  demonstrates  that  the  Chinese  State  has  a 
primary role in the setting of prices of primary aluminium and that it interferes in the 
market.  

(73)  That the significant State interference, as described above, is clearly targeted is, inter 
alia, corroborated by the 12th 5 Year Development Plan for Aluminium (2011-2015) in 
which the Government of the PRC explicitly states its intention of ‘adjusting tax and 
export tax rebates and other economic levers, and strictly control the total amount of 
expansion  and  exports  of  primary  products’.  This  plan  continues  the  policy  which 
existed  in  the  previous  Aluminium  Plan.  Furthermore  these  plans  have  been 
implemented  over  many  years  and,  as  demonstrated  above,  during  the  RIP  several 
implementing measures were in operation. 

(74)  Thus, the multiple State-induced distortions in the Chinese primary aluminium prices 
affect  the  raw  material  prices.  In  addition,  the  producers  enjoy  an  advantage  from 
these distortions, in the sense that they normally make their purchases in the Chinese 
market  from  local  suppliers  using  Chinese  spot  markets  prices  (or  SHFE)  as  a 
benchmark.  During  the  RIP,  these  prices  were  around  7  %  lower  than  the  world 
market  prices.  In  theory,  Chinese  companies  can  also  buy  certain  quantities  at  LME 
prices when prices in the Chinese market are higher as a result of State intervention – 
whilst the opposite is impossible for non-Chinese operators. 

(75) 

(76) 

It  was  therefore  concluded  that  the  Chinese  aluminium  market  is  distorted  due  to 
significant intervention of the State. 

Interference by the Chinese State in the steel sector is demonstrated by the fact that a 
large majority of the large Chinese steel producers are State-owned and steel installed 
capacity  and  output  are  influenced  by  the  various  five-year  Industrial  Plans,  in 
particular the current 12th Five-Year Plan (2011-2015) for the iron and steel sector. 

(77)  The  State  also  exercises  significant  control  over  the  market  of  raw  materials.  Coke 
(together  with  iron  ore  the  major  raw  material  to  produce  steel)  is  subject  to 
quantitative restrictions on exports and to an export duty of 40%. It may therefore be 
concluded  that  the  Chinese  steel  market  is  distorted  due  to  significant  State 
interference. 

(78)  An  anti-dumping  investigation  which  has  been  conducted  by  the  Commission23, 
confirmed the importance of the State intervention also in the specific sector of pipes 
and tubes, which are the main raw material used for the production of steel bicycles. 

(79) 

It was therefore concluded that the Chinese steel market is distorted due to significant 
intervention of the state. 

21 
22 
23 

www.bloomberg.com 
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-12/26/content_10564812. htm 
Commission  Regulation  (EU)  627/2011  imposing  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  and  Council 
Implementing Regulation 1331/2011, imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of seamless 
pipes and tubes from the People's Republic of China 

EN 

15 

   EN 

                                                 
(80)  Under  such  circumstances,  neither  of  the  companies  has  been  in  a  position  to  prove 
that their business decisions regarding acquisition of raw materials are not subject to 
significant State interference and that costs of major inputs substantially reflect market 
values. Therefore, they could not demonstrate that they fulfil criterion 1. 

(81)  Concerning the other four criteria, the three co-operating Chinese exporting producers 

were able to demonstrate that they met the remaining criteria.  

(82) 

In  view  of  the  above  findings  on  criterion  1,  it  was  considered,  after  consultation  of 
the  Advisory  Committee,  that  MET  should  be  rejected  for  the  three  cooperating 
Chinese group of exporting producers. 

(83)  The Commission officially disclosed the results of the MET findings to the companies 
concerned in the PRC and to the complainant. They were also given an opportunity to 
make  their  views  known  in  writing  and  to  request  a  hearing  if  there  were  particular 
reasons to be heard. 

1.2. 

Comments of the parties 

(84)  Following the MET disclosure, one company argued that the refusal to grant MET is 
based  on  the  Chinese  bicycle  industry  as  a  whole,  rather  than  on  an  individual 
company  basis.  In  this  respect  it  is  noted  that  although  the  Commission  made  an 
assessment of the steel and aluminium sectors in China, there is a clear link between 
the steel and aluminium markets in the PRC and the purchases of steel and aluminium 
products as a raw material by the co-operating groups. 

(85)  Moreover  it  was  argued  that  the  cost  advantage  for  the  Chinese  bicycle  producers 
concerning steel and aluminium is insignificant as it represents only between 1.4% and 
1.75%  when  considering  that  primary  aluminium  and  steel  account  for  20%-25%  of 
the  manufacturing  cost  of  bicycles  and  that  the  price  difference  between  LME  and 
SHFE prices was 7% during the RIP.  

(86) 

In this respect it is highlighted that the pivotal factor in the analysis is the proportion 
of the raw material in the manufacturing cost (which in this case was significant as it 
accounted for at least 20%-25% of the manufacturing costs) and the fact that the raw 
material market is distorted in the PRC. The exact quantitative impact of the distortion 
in the company's cost is not considered as a decisive factor. 

(87)  Furthermore, it was argued that in another investigation the Commission has analysed 
the  prices  of  the  direct  raw  materials  used  in  the  manufacturing  of  the  product 
concerned  rather  than  the  price  of  the  primary  raw  material  and,  therefore,  in  the 
current case, the Commission should have assessed the State interference in prices of 
direct  raw  material,  i.e.  aluminium  alloy  extrusion,  rather  than  in  the  primary 
aluminium which is the primary raw material.  

(88) 

(89) 

In  this  respect  it  is  noted  that  each  investigation  is  analysed  on  its  own  merits. 
Moreover,  the  fact  that  the  market  of  primary  aluminium  is  controlled  by  the  State 
indicates  that  the  market  of  intermediary  aluminium  products  also  does  not  operate 
under  market  economy  conditions,  i.e.  responding  to  supply  and  demand.  The  claim 
was therefore rejected. 

It was also argued that any price difference for primary aluminium between SHFE and 
LME may not lead to a price difference for aluminium alloy extractions between the 
respective  markets,  and  that  factors  such  as  production  efficiency,  residual  capacity, 
and cost of environmental obligations need to be taken into account.  

EN 

16 

   EN 

(90) 

(91) 

In  this  respect,  it  is  highlighted  that  no  evidence  was  submitted  in  support  of  this 
allegation.  In  the  absence  of  supporting  evidence,  the  Commission  was  not  in  the 
position to analyse and verify this allegation, which was therefore rejected.  

In  addition,  it  was  claimed  that,  by  ignoring  the  fact  that  there  are  a  number  of 
subsequent  intermediary  products,  the  Commission  ignored  the  actual  characteristics 
and factors for pricing the bicycle finish products. In particular, as the bicycle is sold 
directly  to  the  end-consumer  (unlike  the  primary  aluminium),  other  factors  than  the 
price  of  the  raw  material  determine  the  price  of  the  bicycles  such  as  the  specific 
technical features of the bicycle and the demand of the consumers.  

(92)  However,  no  concrete  details  were  provided  on  these  characteristics  and  factors  that 
should  be  taken  into  consideration  and  therefore  it  was  not  possible  for  the 
Commission to comment on them.  

(93) 

(94) 

It was further alleged that the Commission made a wrong assessment of the principles 
under  which  the  SHFE  operates.  It  was  argued  that  the  CSRC  regulates  SHFE 
functions  similarly  to,  among  others,  the  Autorité  des  marchés  financiers  ('AMF')  in 
France  or  the  Financial  Services  Authority  ('FSA')  in  UK  and  that  CSRC's  role  and 
specific regulatory/supervision measures are consistent with the G-20 principles. As a 
consequence  the  MET  conclusions  that  are  based  on  the  role  of  the  CSRC  and 
operation of the SHFE are without merit.  
It is noted that the company failed to take into account the fact that while FSA24 and 
AMF25  are  independent  non-governmental  bodies,  CSRC  is  a  ministry  level  unit 
operating directly under the State Council26. The State Council is the highest executive 
organ  of  State  power,  as  well  as  the  highest  organ  of  State  administration27.  This  is 
another example of the fact that the State is actively involved in the regulation of the 
aluminium  market  in  the  PRC.  As  concerns  the  compliance  to  G-20  principles,  the 
company  merely  provided  a  statement,  without  really  explaining  the  principles  to 
which it referred. The argument was therefore rejected. 

(95)  Moreover,  one  company  disagreed  with  the  Commission's  assessment  that  arbitrage 
between  the  worldwide  benchmark,  the  LME,  or  other  markets  and  SHFE  prices  is 
practically not possible and that therefore SHFE works in isolation from other world 
markets.  

(96) 

It  is  noted  that  this  contradicts  the  company's  acceptance  of  the  price  difference 
between the SHFE and the LME during the period when the SHFE price was higher 
than LME prices by arguing that during that period of time the Chinese producers paid 
more for the aluminium products than the Union producers.  

(97)  Furthermore,  the  company  argued  that  as  from  2010  the  SHFE  started  to  allow 
aluminium  physical  delivery  to  bonded  warehouses  in  Shanghai's  free  trade  zone.  It 
follows that this statement does not contradict, but rather confirms the Commission's 
assessment that physical deliveries can take place only in a warehouse within the PRC 
which has been approved by the SHFE, unlike international exchanges, where delivery 
can take place worldwide. 

24 
25 
26 
27 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/about/who 
http://www.amf-france.org/affiche_page.asp?urldoc=lesmissionsamf.htm&lang=en&Id_Tab=0 
http://www.csrc.gov.cn/pub/csrc_en/about/ 
http://english.gov.cn/links/statecouncil.htm 

EN 

17 

   EN 

                                                 
(98) 

(99) 

It was also argued that the SHFE is a futures market and aluminium futures contracts 
have been traded on the SHFE since 1991 and therefore the Commission's assessment 
that no derivatives are sold on the SHFE is wrong.  

Indeed the SHFE is a futures market. However, the futures contracts traded on SHFE 
are  settled  by  physical  delivery.  Derivatives  products  without  physical  delivery,  i.e. 
not actually exercised but traded before their delivery date, are limited in the PRC and 
therefore  the  SHFE  is  merely  a  platform  for  physical  exchanges  which  insulates  the 
Chinese aluminium market.  

(100)  It was also argued that the Commission's reasoning relating to the effects on bicycle 
pricing  of  the  VAT/tax  measures  and  inventory  measures  relating  to  primary 
aluminium are economically dubious and insufficiently reasoned. 

(101)  However,  since  the  company  did  not  explain  which  elements  the  Commission  is 
missing in its analysis, nor did it further substantiate this claim, it was not possible for 
the Commission to comment. 

(102)  Furthermore, it was argued that there are similarities between the industrial policy in 
the PRC and the EU policies and that the Commission has not demonstrated that the 
industrial policy in the PRC has any direct or significant impact on the input decisions, 
bicycles production or sales operation of the Chinese bicycles exporting producers.  

(103)  In this respect it is noted that it was not specified to which EU policies the company 
was  referring  and  therefore  the  Commission  cannot  comment  on  this  allegation.  In 
addition, concerning the statement that it has not been demonstrated that the industrial 
policy in the PRC has a significant impact on the input decisions, production or sales 
of  the  Chinese  exporting  producers  of  bicycles,  it  is  noted  that  the  existence  of  a  5-
year Plan in the Aluminium sector in the PRC, the distortions of the aluminium price 
which  is  traded  on  an  isolated  Exchange  when  aluminium  represents  20-25%  of  the 
total  manufacturing  costs  of  a  bicycle,  indicate  a  clear  link  between  the  industrial 
policy  in  the  PRC  and  the  input  decisions,  production  and  sales  of  the  Chinese 
exporting producers of bicycles. 

(104)  It was also argued that the Commission breached the three-month deadline specified in 
the basic Regulation. In this respect it is noted that due to the fact that the cooperation 
of the Chinese exporters was very low, the Commission made extra efforts to obtain 
more  cooperation  by  contacting  a  large  number  of  additional  exporters  that  were 
identified later in the investigation. As a result, it was not possible to make the MET 
determination  within  the  stipulated  period.  Moreover,  it  is  recalled  that  the  General 
Court28  has  recently  held  that  a  MET  determination  made  outside  the  three  month 
deadline laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation is not in itself sufficient 
to  lead  to  an  annulment  of  a  regulation  imposing  anti-dumping  measures.  It  is  also 
noted that Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation has meanwhile been amended with the 
effect  that  the  Commission  shall  only  make  MET  determinations  in  respect  of 
companies included in a sample and that such a determination shall normally be made 
within seven months of, but in any event not later than eight months after the initiation 
of  the  investigation29.  This  amendment  is  applicable  to  all  new  and  pending 

28 

29 

General  Court  judgment  of  18  September  2012  in  case  T-156/11,  Since  Hardware  (Guangzhou)  Co., 
Ltd v.Council, paragraph 167 (not yet published) and General Court judgment of 10 October 2012 in 
case T-150/09 Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co., Ltd v. Council, paragraph 53 (not yet published) 
Regulation  (EU)  1168/2012  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  amending  Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of 
the European Community, OJ L 344, 14.12.2012, p. 1. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

                                                 
investigations, including the present one. The determinations were made within eight 
months from the date of the initiation.  

(105)  In  view  of  the  above,  the  claim  relating  to  breach  of  the  three  month  deadline  is 

herewith rejected. 

1.3. 

Request of parties  

(106)  One party requested that Market Economy Treatment ('MET') claims of producers in 
the PRC which stopped exporting to the Union should also be analysed. It was alleged 
that  those  producers  only  stopped  exporting  to  the  Union  due  to  the  anti-dumping 
duties in place since 2005.  

(107)  In  this  regard  it  is  highlighted  that  the  findings  with  regard  to  dumping  and  injury 
relate  to  the  review  investigation  period  ('RIP')  fixed  in  accordance  with  the  Article 
6(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  This  means  that  data  collected  from  the  exporting 
producers in view of establishing normal value and the export price also strictly relate 
only  to  that  period.  The  MET  analysis  is  carried  out  in  the  context  of  determining 
normal value of exporting producers in the PRC which is then compared to the export 
price  during  the  same  period.  If  a  producer  did  not  export  the  product  concerned 
during  the  RIP,  no  export  price  can  be  established  and  no  dumping  margin  can  be 
calculated. Therefore, there is no reason to examine MET for a producer which did not 
export  the  product  concerned  during  the  RIP.  Nevertheless,  it  is  recalled  that  all 
exporting  producers  have  the  possibility  to  request  an  "interim  review"  to  have  their 
situation  revised  pursuant  to  Article  11.3  of  the  basic  Regulation  or,  those  exporting 
producers  who  have  not  exported  the  product  concerned  during  the  period  of 
investigation on which the measures were based, have the possibility to request a "new 
exporter review" pursuant to Article 11.4 of the same Regulation. 

(108)  Moreover,  in  its  request,  the  party  also  mentioned  the  Brosmann  Judgement30  of  the 
Court of Justice of the European Communities and seemed to imply that on that basis, 
producers in the PRC should be allowed to submit MET claim forms even if they did 
not export the product concerned to the Union during the current investigation period. 
It  is  noted  that  the  judgement  does  not  address  the  situation  of  MET  claims  by 
exporting  producers  who  did  not  export  during  the  investigation  period  and  is 
therefore not relevant in the present context.  

(109)  Consequently, the request was rejected. 

(110)  It was also argued that export prices for the companies without exports to the Union in 
the RIP should be determined on the basis of Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, i.e. 
on any other reasonable basis. 

(111)  In this regard it is noted that Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation does not positively 
imply that an export price shall be constructed for producers of the concerned country 
in the case that they did not export any quantity to the Union. To the contrary, Article 
2(9)  of  the  basic  Regulation  refers  to  the  re-sales  price  of  the  imported  product  as  a 
basis to construct the export price, and to adjustments for all costs incurred between 
importation and resale, which implies that imports to the Union were in fact made. The 
"any  other  reasonable  basis"  in  the  first  sentence  of  this  provision  refers  to  specific 
cases where the preceding methodologies mentioned therein cannot be applied. It does 
not detract from the fact that the Article implies that imports into the Union have taken 
place during the RIP. 

30 

Case C-249/10 P 

EN 

19 

   EN 

                                                 
1.4. 

Conclusion 

(112)  On the basis of the above, none of the Chinese groups that had requested MET could 
show that they fulfilled the criteria set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. It 
was therefore considered that MET should be rejected for all these groups.  

Individual Treatment 

2. 
(113)  By Regulation (EU) No 765/201231, which entered into force on 6th September 2012, 
the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  amended  Article  9(5)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 765/2012 stipulated that the amendment 
shall only apply to investigations initiated following its entry into force. Consequently, 
as  the  current  investigation  was  initiated  on  9th  March  2012,  the  amendment  did  not 
apply to the current investigation. 

(114)  Pursuant  to  Article  2(7)(a)  of  the  basic  Regulation  a  country-wide  duty,  if  any,  is 
established for countries falling under Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, except in 
those cases where companies are able to demonstrate, in accordance with Article 9(5) 
of the basic Regulation, that their export prices and quantities as well as the conditions 
and  terms  of  the  sales  are  freely  determined,  that  exchange  rates  are  carried  out  at 
market rates, and that any State interference is not such as to permit circumvention of 
measures if exporters are given different rates of duty.  

(115)  The three cooperating exporting groups which requested MET also claimed individual 
treatment in the event they would not be granted MET. On the basis of the information 
available, it is established that all three groups in the PRC meet all the requirements 
for individual treatment. 

3. 

Normal Value 

3.1. 

Analogue country 

(116)  According  to  Article  2(7)(a)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  normal  value  for  the  exporting 
producers not granted MET has to be established on the basis of the domestic prices or 
constructed normal value in an analogue country. 

(117)  For this purpose, in the Notice of initiation the Commission suggested Mexico, which 

was also the analogue country used in the previous investigation concerning the PRC. 

(118)  All  interested  parties  were  given  the  opportunity  to  comment  on  the  choice  of 

analogue country envisaged.  

(119)  One party argued that Mexico did not represent the best choice of analogue country, 
but that Taiwan was a better option due to the fact that Taiwan is a major producer of 
bicycles, had greater commonality with the PRC than Mexico and is likely to result in 
a more reliable normal value.  

(120)  The  Commission  tried  to  obtain  cooperation  from  15  countries,  namely  Bangladesh, 
Canada,  Cambodia,  India,  Indonesia,  Malaysia,  Mexico,  Norway,  Philippines,  Sri 
Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey and USA.  

(121)  The  Commission  received  replies  to  the  questionnaire  only  from  three  Mexican 
producers  of  bicycles  which  also  accepted  a  verification  of  their  response  at  their 
premises.  No  other  companies  from  any  contacted  countries  cooperated.  These  three 
producers  had  domestic  sales  representing  more  than  30%  of  the  Mexican  market, 
which was estimated at about 1.7 million units in 2011. More than 14 producers and 

31 

OJ L 237, 3.9.2012, p.1 

EN 

20 

   EN 

                                                 
several importers were found to operate in a competitive environment. The imports of 
bicycles in 2011 were originating principally in the PRC (more than 60%) and Taiwan 
(20%).  These  imports  represented  some  5%  of  the  domestic  market  (source:  annual 
report of ANAFABI, the Mexican association of bicycle manufacturers). 

(122)  The Mexican market profile for the product concerned, number of operators, domestic 
competition and the features of production process confirmed that Mexico was still an 
appropriate  analogue  country.  In  view  of  the  above,  the  Mexican  market  could  be 
considered  to  be  representative  and  competitive.  It  was  therefore  concluded  that 
Mexico was an appropriate analogue country. 

3.2. 

Determination of normal value in the analogue country 

(123)  Pursuant  to  Article  2(7)(a)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  normal  value  was  established  on 
the basis of verified information received from the producers in the analogue country 
as set out below. 

(124)  The  investigation  showed  that  the  product  concerned  was  sold  in  representative 

quantities on the Mexican domestic market. 

(125)  Furthermore,  it  was  analysed  whether  it  could  be  considered  as  being  sold  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  trade  pursuant  to  Article  2(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  This  was 
done  by  establishing  for  each  product  type  the  proportion  of  profitable  sales  to 
independent customers on the domestic market during the RIP.  

(126)  Where  sales  volume  of  a  product  type,  sold  at  net  sales  price  equal  to  or  above  the 
calculated cost of production, represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume of 
that type, and where the weighted average price of that type was equal to or above the 
cost  of  production,  normal  value  was  based  on  the  actual  domestic  price.  This  price 
was  calculated  as  a  weighted  average  of  the  prices  of  all  domestic  sales  of  that  type 
made during the RIP, irrespective of whether the sales were profitable or not. 

(127)  Where the volume of profitable sales of a product type represent 80 % or less of the 
total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was 
below  the  cost  of  production,  normal  value  was  based  on  the  actual  domestic  price, 
calculated as a weighted average of profitable sales of that type only. 

(128)  Moreover, the investigation did not reveal any product type where no profitable sales 

were made. 

4. 

Export price 

(129)  In all cases where the product concerned was exported to independent customers in the 
Union,  the  export  price  was  established  in  accordance  with  Article  2(8)  of  the  basic 
Regulation, namely, on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable. 

(130)  In cases where sales were made via a related importer or trader, the export prices were 
constructed in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation on the basis of the 
resale  prices  of  that  related  importer  to  first  independent  customers  in  the  Union. 
Adjustments  were  made  for  all  costs  incurred  between  importation  and  resale 
including sales, general and administrative expenses and profit. With respect to profit 
margin,  the  profit  realised  by  an  unrelated  importer/trader  of  the  product  concerned 
was  used  since  the  actual  profit  of  the  related  importer/trader  was  not  considered 
reliable  because  of  the  relationship  between  the  exporting  producers  and  the  related 
importer/trader. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

(131)  As  stated  in  recitals  (63)  and  (64)  above,  Giant  China  refused  to  provide  the 
Commission's  services  with  the  necessary  information  on  the  structure  of  the  group 
and essential information concerning production, export sales volume and prices of the 
product  concerned  to  the  Union  in  the  RIP  of  the  companies  part  of  Jinshan 
Development and Construction Ltd group ('Jinshan Group') involved in the production 
and sale of the product concerned in the PRC and consequently, Article 18(1) of the 
basic Regulation was applied concerning the export price. 

(132)  Giant China challenged the application of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation both in 
respect  of  refusal  of  MET  and  application  of  facts  available  to  the  export  price 
calculations.  It  argued  that  the  information  requested  by  the  Commission  was  not 
necessary  for  the  calculation  of  the  dumping  margin.  In  this  regard,  Giant  China 
argued that the information requested from Jinshan Group located in the PRC was not 
pertinent  for  the  MET  assessment  or  export  price  calculations  as  it  was  only  very 
indirectly related to Giant China and its related companies ('Giant Group').  

(133)  However,  the  investigation  has  confirmed  that  one  of  Giant  Group's  subsidiaries, 
actively  producing  and  exporting  the  product  concerned  to  the  Union  during  part  of 
the  RIP,  namely  Shanghai  Giant  &  Phoenix Bicycles  Co  Ltd  ('GP'),  was  related,  via 
common shareholding, structural and management links to Jinshan Group and that this 
group  was  involved  in  the  production  and  sales  of  the  product  concerned.  In  the 
absence  of  a  reply  to  the  MET  claim  form  and  the  anti-dumping  questionnaire  from 
the companies part of Jinshan Group that were involved in the production and sales of 
the  product  concerned  in  the  PRC,  it  could  not  be  assessed  to  what  extent  the 
production and sales of the product concerned of Jinshan Group had an impact on the 
export price determination with regard to GP and as a consequence for the Giant as a 
whole  group.  It  could  further  not  be  investigated  whether  the  conditions  of  Article 
2(7)(c ) of the basic Regulation were met. In the absence of cooperation in this respect, 
Giant China’s claims had to be rejected.  

(134)  Furthermore,  Giant  China  argued  that  there  is  no  need  to  take  into  account  price 
information  relating  to  other  exporting  producers  when  calculating  the  individual 
margin of an exporting producer unless Giant Group and Jinshan Group form a single 
entity in view of the existing close financial, commercial and management links. 

(135)  The  evidence  on  the  file  supports  the  finding  that  GP  and  Jinshan  Group  are  related 
and  have  close  shareholding,  structural  and  management  links.  In  the  absence  of 
complete information on all parties related to GP, in particular on the Chinese bicycle 
exporting producers that are subsidiaries of Jinshan Group, it is impossible to perform 
complete  and  reliable  calculations  on  the  export  price  and  therefore  to  obtain  an 
individual margin determination for GP and as a consequence for the Giant Group as a 
whole.  

(136)  It was also claimed that the information requested placed an unreasonable burden on 
Giant China and that it acted to the best of its ability in the investigation. In this regard 
it  should  be  noted  that  no  evidence  was  submitted,  until  comments  to  definitive 
disclosure,  showing  that  Giant  China  made  any  efforts  to  collect  the  information 
required in the MET claim form and the anti-dumping questionnaire for the companies 
part of Jinshan Group, involved in the production and sale of the product concerned. 
During  the  investigation  Giant  China  claimed  that  it  was  unnecessary  to  provide  the 
information  requested  but  did  not  claim  that  obtaining  such  information  was 
unreasonable  burdensome.  Giant  China  submitted  evidence  of  alleged  efforts  only 

EN 

22 

   EN 

after  final  disclosure,  at  a  stage  where  such  information  was  unverifiable.  It  could 
therefore not be taken into account anymore. 

(137)  Giant  China  claimed  that  there  was  in  any  event  no  risk  of  circumvention  of  any 
potential anti-dumping measures by, for example, shifting production between the two 
groups  as  GP,  the  only  link  between  the  two  groups,  has  ceased  all  operations  in 
September  2011.  In  this  regards,  it  should  be  noted  that  at  the  end  of  RIP,  GP  still 
existed  as  an  entity  as  also  confirmed  by  Giant  China.  Therefore,  the  production 
activity could have resumed at any moment in the future and the fact the GP allegedly 
ceased  all  operations  in  September  2011  is  not  relevant.  In  addition,  Giant  China 
argued that the risk of circumvention could have been addressed in a different manner 
i.e. the monitoring clause mentioned in recitals (276) and (277) below. In this regard, 
it should be noted that the monitoring clause only applies to unrelated companies, so 
the risks involved are not of similar nature and the same remedies could not have been 
applied. 

(138)  Moreover, Giant China argued that an on-spot verification at GP's premises in the PRC 
should  have  taken  place  in  order  to  check  the  production  and  sales  activities  of  GP 
after  September  2011.  In  this  regard,  it  should  be  noted  that  it  was  not  considered 
relevant  whether  GP  ceased  its  activities  after  September  2011.  Indeed,  even  if  this 
would  have  been  the  case,  GP  could  have  resumed  its  bicycles  production  and  sales 
activities anytime and an on-spot verification would not have decreased such risk. 

(139)  Furthermore, Giant China submitted some evidence showing that Giant Group's shares 
in  GP  have  been  sold  on  30  March  2013.  However,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  this 
transaction occurred after the RIP and in conjunction with the advanced stage of the 
investigation, this information cannot be verified nor is pertinent in the framework of 
this  investigation.  In  this  regard,  should  Giant  request  a  review  of  their  situation 
following  the  sale  of  the  shares,  this  can  be  considered  in  due  time  in  line  with  the 
provisions of the basic Regulation. 

(140)  In the same submissions Giant China provided other clarifications to the Commission 
assessment warranting application of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation. However, 
they were not as such as to change the Commission's initial assessment.  

(141)  Therefore, the findings concerning application of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation 

in relation to Giant Group are confirmed.  

5. 

Comparison 

(142)  The  normal  value  and  export  price  were  compared  on  an  ex-works  basis.  For  the 
purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, 
due  allowance  in  the  form  of  adjustments  was  made  for  differences  affecting  prices 
and  price  comparability  in  accordance  with  Article  2(10)  of  the  basic  Regulation. 
Adjustments  were  made,  where  appropriate,  in  respect  of  indirect  taxes,  discounts, 
level of trade, transport, insurance, handling and ancillary costs, packing, credit, bank 
charges  and  commissions  in  all  cases  where  they  were  found  to  be  reasonable, 
accurate and supported by evidence. 

6. 

Dumping margin 

6.1. 

For the cooperating exporting producers 

(143)  For the three cooperating companies, dumping margins were established by comparing 
the weighted average normal value established for the co-operating Mexican producers 

EN 

23 

   EN 

with  each  company's  weighted  average  export  price  to  the  Union,  as  provided  for  in 
Article 2(11) and 2(12) of the basic Regulation. 

(144)  The dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty 

unpaid, are: 

Company 

Dumping margin 

Zhejiang  Baoguilai  Vehicle  Co. 
Ltd. 

Oyama  Bicycles  (Taicang)  Co. 
Ltd. 

19.2% 

20.9% 

 Ideal (Dongguan) Bike Co., Ltd. 

0% 

6.2. 

For all other exporting producers 

(145)  Given that cooperation from the PRC was very low as stated in recitals (22) and (24) 
above,  the  findings  for  the  cooperating  companies  cannot  be  considered  to  be 
representative for the country. Therefore, the country-wide dumping margin applicable 
to all other exporting producers in the PRC cannot be revised.  

(146)  Therefore,  the  country-wide  dumping  margin  is  hereby  maintained  unchanged  as 

established by Council Regulation (EC) No 1095/2005, i.e. 48.5%. 

D. DEFINITION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY 

1. 

Union production and Union industry 

(147)  The like product is estimated to be manufactured by around 380 known producers in 
the Union. Furthermore, six national associations of Union producers made themselves 
known. 

(148)  All available information, including data collected from Union producers and national 
associations, as well as production statistics available to the Commission were used in 
order  to  establish  total  Union  production,  which  amounted  to  around  11  million 
bicycles in RIP.  

(149)  The Union producers accounting for the total Union production constitute the Union 
industry within the meaning of Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of the basic Regulation and will 
be hereafter referred to as the ‘Union industry’. 

(150)  As indicated above, given the high number of cooperating Union producers a sample 
of  eight  Union  producers  was  selected,  representing  around  25%  of  the  total 
production and sales of the Union industry of the like product in the RIP. All sampled 
Union producers were benefiting from the exemption scheme described in recital (1) 
above.  

E. SITUATION ON THE UNION MARKET 

1. 

Union consumption  

(151)  The Union industry’s sales were assessed on the basis of data collected from producers 
in  the  reply  to  the  sampling  forms  and  data  collected  from  various  associations  of 
bicycle producers in the Union. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(152)  The Union consumption was established on the basis of the sales of all Union industry 
on the Union market, as estimated in recital (151), plus imports from all countries as 
reported by Eurostat. 

(153)  Total Union consumption declined from 22,459,062 units in 2008 to 20,116,602 units 
in the RIP, i.e. by 10% over the period considered. This is mainly a result of a drop of 
8% between 2008 and 2009, while consumption remained stable afterwards and only 
slightly decreased in the RIP (by 2%). In 2009, the market was in particular influenced 
by  the  impact  of  the  economic  crisis  and  it  has  not  recovered  since.  Further  drop  in 
2011 was mainly caused by the continued cautious consumer spending at the current 
economic climate.  

Table 1 
Consumption 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

10,017,616 

8,974,906 

9,734,143  

8,840,362 

12,441,446 
22,459,062 
100

11,604,072 
20,578,978 
92

10,946,875  
20,681,018  
92 

11,276,240 
20,116,602 
90

Volume (units) 
+ Total imports 
+ Union production sold on 
the Union market 
= Consumption 
Index (2008=100) 
Source: Eurostat, questionnaire replies 

2. 

Imports from the PRC  

2.1. 

Volumes of dumped imports and market share of bicycles originating in the PRC 

(154)  The  volume  of  imports  of  the  product  concerned  originating  in  the  PRC  was 
established on the basis of statistical information provided by Eurostat. The volume of 
imports from the PRC declined sharply between 2008 and 2009 from 941,522 units to 
597,339  units  respectively,  i.e.  by  37%.  In  2010  imports  were  increasing,  but  in  the 
RIP  decreasing  again  where  they  reached  581,459  units.  The  significant  decrease  in 
Chinese imports coincided with the economic crisis and did not recover since. Overall, 
Chinese imports decreased by 38% during the period considered.  

(155)  The  Chinese  market  share  decreased  accordingly  from  4.2%  in  2008  to  2.9%  in  the 
RIP.  The  decline  in  market  share  was  partly  offset  by  the  reduction  of  the  Union 
consumption. 

(156)  However, it is to be emphasised that the relatively low and decreasing market share of 
Chinese  imports  must  be  seen  in  the  context  of  the  findings  in  the  parallel  on-going 
anti-circumvention investigation mentioned in recital (14) and (15) above (see recitals 
(223) and (224) below).  

Table 2 
Imports from the PRC 
2009 

2008 

2010 

RIP 

941,522
100
4.2%

597,339
63
2.9%

627,120 
67 
3.0% 

581,459
62
2.9% 

Volume of imports from the 
country concerned (units) 
Index (2008=100) 

Market share of imports from 
the country concerned 
Source: Eurostat 

3. 

Prices of the imports concerned 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
Evolution of prices 

3.1. 
(157)  As  it  was  established  in  the  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1095/200532,  Eurostat  data 
could  only  be  used  to  a  limited  extent  for  establishing  the  price  trends  of  dumped 
imports for the period between 2008 and the RIP for the following reasons:  

(158)  The import prices based on Eurostat data do not take into account the various product 
types  and  the  substantial  price  differences  among  the  various  types  of  the  product 
concerned. The average prices per country are strongly influenced by the product mix 
of  each  country.  Moreover,  when  comparing  model  by  model  of  imports  from  the 
cooperating exporters that even within the same product types and models there exist 
substantial price differences depending on the components of the bicycles. Therefore, 
the  prices  found  in  Eurostat  continue  to  be  inconclusive  for  the  purpose  of  this 
investigation. The import prices of Eurostat for the PRC, hereafter indicated by index, 
can only serve as an indicator of price trends, but are not useful when comparing sales 
prices between various countries and the Union. 

(159)  According to Eurostat data, the weighted average import prices, hereafter indicated by 
index, from the PRC increased significantly during the period considered as showed in 
Table 3. However, without knowing the type of the bicycles that were imported from 
the PRC and whether there was any shift in the product mix from one year to the other, 
no conclusion can be drawn. 

Table 3 
Imports price from the PRC 
2008 

2009 

2010 

RIP 

100

173

217 

214

Import Price from the PRC 
Index (2008=100) 
Source: Eurostat 

3.2. 

Price undercutting 

(160)  Price  undercutting  of  the  cooperating  exporting  producers  for  which  dumping  was 
found  was  calculated  on  the  basis  of  their  actual  verified  export  price  (CIF  Union 
frontier) both with and without the anti-dumping duty. The relevant sales prices of the 
Union  industry  were  those  to  independent  customers  in  the  Union  adjusted,  when 
necessary, to ex-works level. During the RIP, based on different product types defined 
in the questionnaire, undercutting was only found for one of the exporting producers 
which  amounted  to  61%  without  the  anti-dumping  duty  and  44%  with  the  anti-
dumping duty.  

(161)  Given that the cooperation from the Chinese exporting producers was very low and the 
findings  for  the  cooperating  companies  could  not  be  considered  to  be  representative 
for  the  country  as  well  as  the  fact  that  the  average  price  in  Eurostat  could  not  be 
considered  as  conclusive,  it  was  considered  that  undercutting  levels  as  established 
during  the  last  expiry  review  concluded  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1095/2005 
mentioned in recital (3) should be taken as a reference when establishing the country-
wide  undercutting  for  the  PRC,  as  no  other  more  reliable  information  was  available, 
i.e. 53% after deduction of the anti-dumping duty and of 39% with the duty .  

4. 

Economic situation of the Union industry  

32 

OJ L183, 14.07.2005, p.1 

EN 

26 

   EN 

  
 
                                                 
(162)  As  indicated  in  recitals  (8),  (9)  and  (10)  above,  the  present  investigation  analysed 
whether there was a change in the situation of the Union industry justifying a need to 
reassess  the  injury  findings  of  the  amending  interim  review.  The  investigation  has 
confirmed that: (i) Following the global trend, the production of bicycles in the Union 
consists  mainly  of  labour  intensive  assembly  of  bicycle  parts  that  are  designed 
according  to  the  customers’  specifications  and  sourced  from  various  origins.  (ii)  In 
order  to  cut  the  cost  of  production  the  investigation  has  shown  a  continued  effort  of 
the Union industry to automatize and to streamline the assembly process. In addition, 
some Union producers benefitted from the comparatively lower labour costs in Central 
and Eastern Europe as compared to the investigation period of the amending interim 
review. The production statistics available to the Commission confirm this trend. (iii) 
The  investigation  confirmed  the  preference  for  aluminium  alloy  as  a  raw  material, 
while  the  steel  remained  the  main  raw  material  for  lower  end  models  and  children's' 
bicycles.  In  light  of  these  changes  the  economic  situation  of  the  Union  industry  was 
examined as described below. 

(163)  Pursuant  to  Article  3(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  Commission  examined  all 
relevant  economic  factors  and  indices  having  a  bearing  on  the  state  of  the  Union 
industry.  

(164)  For the purpose  of  the  injury  analysis, the injury indicators have been established as 

follows: 

• 

• 

indicators 

macroeconomic 
(production,  production  capacity,  capacity 
utilisation,  sales  volume,  market  share,  employment,  productivity,  growth, 
magnitude of dumping margins and recovery from the effects of past dumping) 
were  assessed  at  the  level  of  the  whole  Union  production  for  all  Union 
producers,  on  the  basis  of  the  information  collected  from  the  national 
associations of Union producers and individual Union producers. These factors 
were cross-checked, where possible, with the overall information provided by 
the relevant official statistics.  

microeconomic  indicators  (stocks,  unit  sales  price,  cost  of  production,  cash 
flow,  profitability,  return  on  investments,  ability  to  raise  capital,  investments 
and wages) were assessed for the sampled Union producers on the basis of the 
information they submitted.  

Macro-economic indicators 

(a)  Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation  

(165)  During the period considered, the Union industry’s production decreased continuously 
and  at  a  faster  pace  than  the  Union  consumption  as  shown  above  in  table  1  under 
recital (153). Thus, production decreased from 13,541,244 units in 2008 to 11,026,646 
units in the RIP, which reflected a 19% decline.  

Table 4 
Total Union production 

2008 

2009 

2010 

RIP 

Volume (units) 
Production 
Index (2008=100) 
Source: Questionnaire replies, relevant official statistics  

 13,541,244 
100

 12,778,305 
94

 11,682,329  
86 

 11,026,646 
81

EN 

27 

   EN 

  
 
 
 
 
(166)  Production  capacity  was  reduced  by  5%  between  2008  and  the  RIP,  which  partly 
offset the impact of the 19% decline of production on the capacity utilisation rate. The 
later dropped by 14% points over the same period, reaching 74% in the RIP.  

Table 5 
Production capacity and capacity utilisation 

2008 

2009 

2010 

RIP 

Volume (units) 
Production capacity 
Index (2008=100) 
Capacity utilisation 
Index (2008=100) 
Source: Questionnaire replies, relevant official statistics 

 15,804,000 
100
86%
100

 15,660,000 
99
82%
95

 15,150,000  
96 
77% 
90 

 15,000,000 
95
74%
86

(b)  Sales volume  

(167)  Overall,  the  sales  volume  of  the  Union  industry  on  the  Union  market  declined  in  a 
similar  way  as  the  Union  consumption,  showing  a  decrease  of  9%  over  the  period 
considered,  from  12,441,446  units  in  2008  to  11,276,240  units  in  the  RIP.  Between 
2009 and 2010 however, sales continue to decrease while consumption had remained 
stable, which is reflected in the loss of market share of the Union industry in 2010 as 
shown  below  in  table  7  under  recital  (168)  below.  In  RIP  the  volumes  of  sales 
increased again but have not reached their 2008 level. 

Table 6 
Sales of the Union industry in the Union 
2008 
 12,441,446 
100

2009 
 11,604,072 
93

2010 
 10,946,875  
88 

Volume (units) 
Index (2008=100) 
Source: Questionnaire replies, relevant official statistics 

RIP 
 11,276,240 
91

(c)  Market share 

(168)  The market share held by the Union industry increased from 55.4% in 2008 to 56.1% 
in  the  RIP,  i.e.  an  increase  of  0.7  percentage  points  during  the  RIP.  This  slight 
improvement  of  0.7  percentage  points  over  the  period  considered  included  a 
significant drop from 56.4% in 2009 to 52.9% in 2010. The overall increase of market 
share  of  the  Union  industry,  against  the  background  of  falling  volumes  of  sales  (see 
recital (167) above), can be explained by the overall drop in consumption (see recital 
(153) above).  

Table 7 
Union industry market share 

2008 

2009 

2010 

RIP 

Union market share 
Index (2008=100) 
Source: Questionnaire replies, relevant official statistics 

55.4%
100

56.4%
102

52.9% 
96 

56.1%
101

(d)  Employment and productivity  

(169)  Direct  employment  decreased  by  17%,  from  14  197  employees  in  2008  to  11  783 
during the RIP. This decline followed the reduction of the production volume.  

EN 

28 

   EN 

  
 
 
 
 
  
  
(170)  Overall, the productivity decreased by 2% over the period considered. The decline of 
production  between  2008  and  2009  combined  with  constant  employment  over  the 
same period caused a drop in productivity between 2008 and 2009. This was followed 
by an increase of productivity between 2009 and 2010, which can be explained by the 
restructuring of the industry and investments into more efficient production processes 
over the same period. Further decline in production volume in RIP coupled with less 
sharp decline in employment resulted in another decrease of productivity in RIP. 

Table 8  
Total Union employment and productivity 

2008 

2009 

2010 

RIP 

 14,197 

Number of employees 
Index (2008=100) 
Productivity (units/year) 
Index (2008=100) 
Source: Questionnaire replies, relevant official statistics 

100 
954
 100 

 14,147 

 12,067  

 11,783 

100 
903
95

85  
968 
102 

83 
936
98

(e)  Growth  

(171)  Over the period considered the consumption decreased by 10%. The market share of 
the  Union  industry  remained  relatively  constant  (increasing  only  slightly,  i.e.  by 
+0.7percentage points over the period considered as outlined in recital  (168) above). 
The declining Union market indicates that the Union producers have not opportunity 
to benefit from any growth.  

(f)  Magnitude of dumping margin 

(172)  Dumping  from  the  PRC  continued  during  the  RIP  as  explained  in  recitals  (143)  to 
(145) above. Given the large spare capacity in the PRC (see recital (203) below) and 
the  established  circumvention  (see  recital  (223)  and  (224)  below),  the  impact  on  the 
Union  industry  of  the  actual  margins  of  dumping  cannot  be  considered  to  be 
negligible.  

(g)  Recovery from past dumping 

(173)  It  was  analysed  whether  the  Union  industry  recovered  from  the  effects  of  past 
dumping. It was concluded that the expected recovery of the Union industry from the 
effects of past dumping has not happened as shown, in particular, by the persistently 
low profitability and a decrease in the capacity utilisation. The recovery of the Union 
industry  has  also  been  hampered  by  established  circumvention  practices  (see  recital 
(223) and (224) below).  

Micro-economic indicators 

(h)  Stocks  

(174)  The stocks of bicycles for the Union producers stood at 517,977 units by the end of the 
RIP,  broadly  stable  in  relation  to  their  level  in  2008  despite  a  25%  decline  between 
2008 and 2009. 

(175)  Some  of  the  Union  producers  had  very  limited  levels  of  stocks  because  they  were 
selling  their  entire  production  to  related  companies  within  their  respective  group.  In 
addition, the Union producers were found to produce mostly on customer orders. The 
development  of  stocks  over  the  period  considered  was  distorted  by  all  these  factors 
and, therefore, this indicator cannot be regarded as meaningful.  

EN 

29 

   EN 

  
Table 9 
Stocks 

2009 

2008 

2010 

RIP 

 519,832 
100

 390,398 
75

 522,779  
101 

 517,977 
100

Volume (units) 
Closing stocks 
Index (2008=100) 
Source: Questionnaire replies 

(i) 

Sales prices and costs 

(176)  The  average  ex-works  sales  price  in  the  Union  remained  stable  over  the  period 
considered  despite  an  increase  of  3%  between  2008  and  2009.  Sale  price  in  the  RIP 
dropped again to the level of 2008.  

Table 10 
Unit sales price in the Union  

2008 

2009 

2010 

RIP 

144

100

149

103

146 

102 

144

100

Unit sales price in the EU 
(EUR) 
Index (2008=100) 
Source: Questionnaire replies 

(177)  The cost of production was calculated on the basis of the weighted average of all types 
of the like product produced by the Union producers. The cost of production increased 
slightly by 2% over the period considered as showed in Table 11 below.  

Table 11 
Unit cost of production  

2008 

2009 

2010 

RIP 

141

100

147

104

146 

103 

145

102

Unit cost of production 
(EUR per unit) 
Index (2008=100) 
Source: Questionnaire replies 

(j)  Profitability 

(178)  The  profitability  levels  were  established  on  the  basis  of  the  sales  to  unrelated 
customers.  The  Union  industry  was  close  to  break-even  between  2010  and  RIP. 
Overall,  profitability  deteriorated  during  the  period  considered,  showing  a  decrease 
from 1.9% in 2008 to -0.1% in RIP.  

Table 12 
Profitability 
2009 

1.6%

100

2008 

1.9%

100

2010 

RIP 

0.3% 

98 

-0.1%

98

Profitability Union sales 
Index (2008=100) 
Source: Questionnaire replies 

(k) 

Investments and return on investment 

(179)  Investments  significantly  increased  by  16%  over  the  period  considered  from  EUR 
7,952,150  in  2008  to  EUR  9,263,184  during  the  RIP.  This  reflects  the  continued 

EN 

30 

   EN 

  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
efforts  of  the  Union  industry  to  increase  the  efficiency  of  the  manufacturing  process 
and to remain competitive.  

(180)  Return  on  investment  followed  a  similar  trend  as  profitability.  In  2008  the  return  on 

investment was positive (14%) but decreased to a - 1 % during the RIP. 

Table 13 
Investments and Return on Investment 

2008 
 7,952,150 
100
14%

2009 
 9,421,745 
118
11%

2010 
 19,288,284  
243 
2% 

RIP 
 9,263,184 
116
-1%

Investments (EUR '000) 
Index (2008=100) 
Return on investment 
Source: Questionnaire replies 

(l)  Cash flow and ability to raise capital 

(181)  The  cash  flow  followed  a  similar  development  as  profitability  but  remained  positive 
throughout the period considered. It is expressed in the table 14 below as a percentage 
of turnover.  

(182)  Only  Union  producers  that  were  part  of  larger  groups  did  not  report  any  particular 
problems to raise capital. Union producers that were not part of larger groups reported 
increased  pressure  on  their  cash  situation  linked  to  the  low  profitability  and  the 
deterioration  of  the  business  terms  with  both  suppliers  and  customers.  The  ability  to 
raise capital was further compromised by the reluctance of banks to finance the bicycle 
market in the current economic climate.  

Table 14 
Cash flow  

2008 

2009 

2010 

RIP 

3.2%
100

3.1%
97

1.8% 
99 

1.3%
98

Cash flow  
Index (2008=100) 
Source: Questionnaire replies 

(m)  Wages 

(183)  During the period considered, the wage cost per employee remained broadly stable, an 
increase only showing in 2009. This is mainly due the impact of the reduction of staff 
on  companies’  salary  scales  while  retaining  trained  employees  in  order  to  maintain 
efficiency and quality.  

Table 15 
Wages 
2009 

2008 

2010 

RIP 

Wage cost per 
employee (in 
EUR) 
Index (2008=100) 
Source: Questionnaire replies 

15,747 
100 

17,393 
110 

17,383  
110  

16,581 
105 

5. 

Conclusion on injury  

(184)  Despite  the  measures  in  place,  the  majority  of  the  injury  indicators  relating  to  the 
performance  of  the  Union  industry  deteriorated  during  the  period  considered.  In 
particular,  the  macroeconomic  indicators  such  as  production  volumes  (-19%), 

EN 

31 

   EN 

  
  
  
production  capacity  (-5%),  capacity  utilization  rate  (-14%)  and  employment  (-17%) 
decreased  considerably.  Moreover,  the  profit  related  microeconomic  indicators 
declined over the period considered, with a profitability of -0.1% in the RIP. 

(185)  The above shows that the Union industry remains in a fragile situation, with declining 
profits  and  close  to  breaking  even  situation  in  2010  and  RIP.  In  addition,  any 
possibility  for  further  growth  and  profits  has  been  undermined  by  the  pressure  of 
dumped imports from the PRC and by circumventing imports (see recitals (223) and 
(224) below).  

(186)  Notwithstanding, the Union industry managed to maintain and even slightly increase 
its  market  share  in  a  shrinking  market.  The  increased  investments  over  the  period 
considered (+16%) show the efforts of the Union industry to remain competitive. This 
together  with  the  latest  innovations  of  the  Union  industry  described  in  recital  (248) 
below shows its underlying vitality and economic viability. 

(187)  On  this  basis,  it  is  concluded  that  the  Union  Industry  continued  to  suffer  material 
injury  within  the  meaning  of  Article  3  of  the  basic  Regulation  and  remained  in  a 
vulnerable state. 

(188)  After  disclosure,  parties  argued,  by  referring  to  the  Preserved  Mandarins33  case,  that 
the  Commission  was  obliged  to  take  any  steps  to  remedy  the  lack  of  certain 
information caused by the low cooperation of the Chinese exporting producers and in 
failing  to  do  so  the  Commission  has  breached  its  procedural  obligations  under  the 
basic  Regulation.  Furthermore,  the  parties  suggested  to  use  the  Chinese  export 
statistics,  which  break  down  the  major  types  of  bicycles  exported  to  the  EU  market 
unlike Eurostat, or to request the national customs authorities of the largest importing 
Member  States  pursuant  to  Article  6(3)  or  (4)  of  the  basic  Regulation  to  carry  an 
analysis of the different types imported from the PRC. 

(189)  As  mentioned  in  recitals  (19)  and  (21)  above  the  Commission  officially  notified  the 
known exporting producers in the PRC, an association of Chinese producers, and the 
representatives  of  the  country  concerned  of  the  initiation  of  the  investigation.  The 
Commission contacted about 70 Chinese companies already known to the Commission 
services  from  the  previous  investigation  and  at  a  later  stage,  when  the  anti-subsidy 
investigation mentioned in recital (16) above was initiated, the Commission identified 
around 300 additional Chinese exporting producers that were contacted in the context 
of this interim review as well. Moreover, the representatives of the country concerned 
were notified at the initiation of the investigation that in case sufficient cooperation on 
the  part  of  exporting  producers  is  not  forthcoming,  the  Commission  may  base  its 
findings  on  the  facts  available,  in  accordance  with  Article  18  of  basic  Regulation.  It 
was  stressed  that  a  finding  based  on  facts  available  may  be  less  advantageous  to  the 
party concerned. 

(190)  In the Preserved Mandarins case the element analysed by the Court was the degree of 
the  efforts  the  Commission  should  have  made  in  obtaining  pertinent  information 
concerning  the  calculation  of  normal  value  based  on  the  price  or  constructed  value 
from  domestic  producers  in  a  market  economy  third  country  by  seeking  cooperation 
from identified potential analogue markets.  

(191)  In  the  present  investigation,  the  lack  of  information  is  due  to  the  extensive  non-
cooperation of the parties that are actually subject to the investigation. As mentioned 
in recital 186 above the parties were repeatedly invited to cooperate but failed to do so. 

33 

Case C-338/10 of 22 March 2012 

EN 

32 

   EN 

                                                 
Thus unlike in the Preserved Mandarins case the Commission actively and repeatedly 
sought  the  cooperation  from  the  parties  concerned.  The  parallel  between  Preserved 
Mandarins case and the current investigation is therefore not substantiated. 

(192)  The  Commission  assessed  the  usefulness  of  other  sources,  including  the  Chinese 
export statistics. It was concluded that the alternative sources were not appropriate for 
this investigation due to the fact that the level of details was not sufficient to allow for 
calculation  of  new  margins.  In  addition,  the  Chinese  statistics  were  also  found 
inconsistent  with  the  Eurostat  statistics  showing,  for  example,  significantly  higher 
level  of  imports  than  those  reported  in  Eurostat.  The  proposed  alternative  sources 
therefore could not be used. Some parties also suggested for the Commission to seek a 
cooperation  from  the  national  customs  authorities  of  the  largest  importing  Member 
States  to  carry  out  an  analysis  of  the  different  product  categories  imported  from  the 
PRC.  In  response  to  this  claim  it  is  considered  that  apart  from  the  practical 
impossibility,  even  if  such  data  was  collected,  it  could  have  not  supplemented  the 
information gap caused by the non-cooperation. This is because, in particular, the level 
of  analysis  required  could  not  have  been  simply  based  on  invoices,  lacking  relevant 
product  type  description  at  the  level  of  detail  necessary  for  meaningful  product  type 
comparability.  

(193)  Several  parties  also  argued  that  the  Commission  had  not  carried  out  a  product  mix 
analysis  of  the  imports  from  the  PRC,  in  order  to  achieve  a  fair  comparison  of  the 
imports with bicycles produced in the Union for purposes of making an objective and 
fair comparison in its injury and the price undercutting determination. In addition the 
parties  argued  that  the  Commission  referred  to  the  price  undercutting  figure 
determined  in  the  previous  investigation  mentioned  in  recital  (5)  above  which  was 
calculated with reference to average prices from Eurostat, without knowing the actual 
composition  of  the  imports.  Furthermore  it  was  argued  that  the  Commission  did  not 
make any effort to determine whether the imported products were actually comparable 
to  the  Union-produced  bicycles  and,  therefore,  the  Commission’s  price  undercutting 
analysis with respect to non-cooperating producers is defective. For these reasons, the 
partied argued that it must also be concluded that the Commission has failed to make 
an objective assessment and adequate explanation of its determination that the Union 
industry continues to suffer material injury. 

(194)  In  this  regard,  it  should  be  noted  that  as  mentioned  in  recital  (160)  above  the  price 
undercutting  of  the  cooperating  exporting  producers  for  which  dumping  was  found 
was  calculated  on  the  basis  of  their  actual  verified  export  price  (CIF  Union  frontier) 
both with  and without the anti-dumping duty  taking into account the product  mix of 
their  exports  during  the  RIP.  However,  as  cooperation  of  the  Chinese  exporting 
producers  was  very  low  and,  consequently,  the  findings  of  the  cooperating  Chinese 
exporting producers could not be considered representatives for the PRC as a whole as 
mentioned recital (145) above, the undercutting levels as established in the amending 
interim review mentioned in recital (3) above could not be modified.  

(195)  In face of extensive non-cooperation the Commission had to rely on facts available for 
the  determination  of  the  country-wide  dumping,  undercutting  and  injury  elimination 
levels.  In  this  context  the  Commission  considered  alternative  sources  of  information 
that for the reasons stated in recitals (192) to (194) above could not be used. Therefore, 
in the absence of contradicting findings, the country-wide dumping, undercutting and 
injury  elimination  levels  established  in  the  amending  interim  review  mentioned  in 
recital (3) above were taken as a reference for the purpose of this investigation.  

EN 

33 

   EN 

(196)  It is confirmed that contrary to the claim of the parties the reference levels used were 
those established during the expiry review concluded by Council Regulation (EC) No 
1095/2005  mentioned  in  recital  (3)  above  and  not  those  established  in  the  expiry 
review concluded by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 mentioned in recital 
(5) above.  

(197)  In addition, it was argued that the Commission failed to analyse the claimed national 
customs  errors  preventing  a  fair  comparison  of  Chinese  import  prices.  It  is  recalled 
that  no  meaningful  price  comparison  could  have  been  carried  out  in  the  present 
these 
the  extensive  non-cooperation, 
investigation  due 
circumstances the claim was considered irrelevant. 

therefore,  under 

to 

F. LASTING NATURE OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES AND LIKELIHOOD OF 
CONTINUATION OF DUMPING AND INJURY  

1. 

Dumping 

(198)  It was analysed in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, whether the 
circumstances  with  regard  to  dumping  and  injury  have  changed  significantly,  and  if 
this change could reasonably be said to be of a lasting nature. 

(199)  The three co-operating Chinese exporting producers were subject to the residual duty 
rate  in  the  previous  investigation  while  in  the  current  investigation  individual  duty 
rates  were  calculated  for  them.  As  mentioned  above  in  recitals  (113)  and  (115),  all 
three  exporting  producers  in  the  PRC  meet  all  the  requirements  for  individual 
treatment.  There  was  no  information  in  the  file  which  would  have  shown  that  the 
situation  of  the  cooperating  exporting  producers  concerned  could  change  in  the 
foreseeable future.  

(200)  Moreover,  the  investigation  has  shown  that  the  Chinese  export  quota  system 
applicable during the amending interim review, was abolished by the Government of 
the PRC and is not likely to be re-installed, in particular also given the export oriented 
government  policies  for  the  bicycle  sector  addressed  below  in  recital  (203). 
Furthermore,  the  investigation  did  not  reveal  any  evidence  that  the  export  price 
behaviour of these three companies will significantly change in the foreseeable future.  

(201)  Therefore, it is considered that the changed circumstances which lead to the dumping 
margins  calculated  for  the  three  co-operating  Chinese  exporting  producers  are  of  a 
lasting nature. 

(202)  Regarding  the  country-wide  duty  for  the  PRC,  the  investigation  did  not  reveal  any 
changed  circumstances  and  it  is  proposed  to  maintain  the  same  duty  level  as 
established during the amending interim review.  

(203)  It  was  also  examined  whether  the  continued  imposition  of  the  measure  is  no  longer 
necessary  to  offset  dumping.  According  to  the  Chinese  Bicycles  Association,  total 
bicycle  output  in  the  PRC  amounted  to  83.45  million  units  in  2011,  showing  an 
increase  of  2.3%  as  compared  to  2010.  Moreover,  the  Chinese  bicycle  industry 
continues  to  be  export  oriented.  Thus  in  2011,  the  PRC  exported  55.72  million 
bicycles or 67% of the total production, a decrease of 4.2% from 2010. Domestic sales 
were  approximately  23.73  million  units  in  2011.  The  most  important  production 
region  in  the  PRC  is  Tianjin  which  produced  about  half  of  the  total  output  in  2011. 
According to Tianjin Municipal Light Industry and Textile Industry Development Plan 
for  the  12th  Five-Year  Plan,  new  industrial  parks  specialised  in  the  production  of 
bicycles  are  being  developed  in  this  area.  It  follows  that  by  2015  the  production 
capacity  of  bicycle  in  Tianjin  area  is  estimated  to  reach  55  million  bicycles,  an 

EN 

34 

   EN 

increase of 44% as compared to 2011 while about half of the output will be for export 
(more than the total consumption of bicycles in the Union in the RIP).  

(204)  Furthermore,  the  three  cooperating  companies  reported  a  capacity  utilization  rate 
between 72% and 81% during the RIP. Extrapolating, we can estimate a spare capacity 
of the Chinese industry of more than 25 million bicycles, which is more than double 
the  Union  industry’s  total  production  during  the  RIP  and  24%  higher  than  the  total 
Union  consumption.  In  addition,  as  the  production  of  bicycles  is  labour  intensive,  it 
seems  that  due  to  the  significant  cheap  labour  force  available  in  the  PRC,  Chinese 
producers are able build up new capacity rather quickly. 

(205)  Moreover, in volume terms, the Union market is the second largest world-wide, after 
the  Chinese  market  which  makes  the  Union  very  attractive  in  terms  of  potential 
demand. 

(206)  The findings in the anti-circumvention investigation (see recital (14) above) confirms 
that  the  Union  market  continues  to  be  an  attractive  market  for  Chinese  exporting 
producers  and  that  in  the  absence  of  any  measures  they  would  very  likely  re-direct 
significant volumes to the Union. 

(207)  Moreover,  other  potential  important  export  markets  for  the  PRC  have  anti-dumping 
measures  in  place  (Canada34) which is reducing the potential third countries markets 
available for the Chinese exports without duties. 

(208)  It is recalled that US used to have a domestic production of bicycles in the past and 
had  anti-dumping  duties  in  place  against  the  PRC.  However,  after  the  anti-dumping 
duties  were  repealed  at  the  end  of  the  '90s,  Chinese  imports  entered  the  US  market 
massively. Domestic production almost disappeared in the following years. In 2011 it 
was estimated that 99% of the bicycles sold in the US were imported; 93% from the 
PRC and 6% from Taiwan. Domestic production of bicycles in the US is estimated at 
approximately 56,000 units per year with an annual consumption of about 16 million 
bicycles.  The  total  US  bicycles  market  (including  sales  of  related  parts  and 
accessories) was valued at USD 6 billion in 2011. 

(209)  In  conclusion,  the  Chinese  bicycles  industry  is  an  export  oriented  industry  with  a 
precedence of unfair pricing behaviour in several markets world-wide. Moreover, the 
findings in the anti-circumvention investigation confirmed the continued interest of the 
Chinese exporters in the Union market. Moreover, this behaviour suggests that if the 
measures were repealed, the Union market would be very likely targeted by low priced 
Chinese imports with a view of taking over the domestic market. Therefore it can be 
concluded that the continued imposition of the measures is still necessary to offset the 
dumping.  

(210)  Following  the  disclosure  it  was  argued  that  the  analysis  overlooked  the  fact  that  the 
production  growth  in  the  PRC  is  being  restricted  by  labour  availability  and  that  the 
PRC is losing its labour cost advantage to other south-Asian countries operating under 
preferential  trade  agreements.  In  face  of  non-cooperation  the  claim  was  unverifiable 
and was therefore disregarded. 

2. 

Injury  

(211)  As  regards  the  grounds  for  opening  the  ex  officio  interim  review,  the  investigation 
examined the following changes in the structure of the EU bicycle industry: (i) switch 
from the complete cycle of production to (partial) assembly operations using imported 

34 

SIMA – Notice of Conclusion of re-investigation – Bicycles - 2011 

EN 

35 

   EN 

                                                 
parts; (ii) change in the cost level due to the enlargement and relocation and setting up 
of new production facilities in Central and Eastern Europe; (iii) increasing change in 
the use of raw material from steel to alloy following consumer trends. As a result of 
the findings spelt out in recital (162) above, all the above-mentioned developments are 
on-going and of global nature and are therefore not likely to change in the foreseeable 
future. 

(212)  As  regards  the  assessment  of  the  likelihood  of  continuation  of  the  injury,  given  the 
already fragile situation of the Union industry, described in recitals (184) to (187), it is 
also likely that the Union producers will not be able to resist the further price pressure 
that would be exerted by the Chinese dumped imports and, as a consequence, will be 
forced  to  exit  the  Union  market  with  the  consequence  of  a  loss  of  employment  and 
investments,  technology  and  know-how  (see  recitals  (247)  and  (248)  below). 
Therefore it can be concluded that there is a likelihood of continuation of injury should 
the measures be repealed in this case.  

Comments of the parties 

(213)  Some parties argued that the Union industry is not suffering material injury as publicly 
available information suggests that its financial situation is good. It is to be noted that 
the  financial  situation  of  the  Union  industry  is  assessed  based  on  the  information 
gathered and verified during the investigation from a representative sample of Union 
producers.  This  assessment  cannot  be  substituted  by  publicly  available  information 
related to some Union producers even if their production and sales value is allegedly 
large.  Therefore,  the  findings  of  the  investigation  analysed  in  recitals  (162)  to  (187) 
above  contradict  the  information  submitted  by  these  parties.  Therefore,  their 
arguments were considered unfounded.  

(214)  It was also argued that the continuation of the anti-dumping measures against the PRC 
would  be  discriminatory  as  imports  from  other  third  countries  are  allegedly  dumped 
and causing injury in particular from Sri Lanka while no anti-dumping measures are in 
force  on  imports  from  these  countries.  As  a  result  of  the  anti-circumvention 
investigation,  the  anti-dumping  measures  have  been  extended  to  imports  of  bicycles 
inter  alia  from  Sri  Lanka.  In  addition,  no  evidence  was  submitted  showing  that  the 
genuine  producers  in  the  country  concerned  would  be  dumping.  Therefore,  the 
argument from the party was considered unfounded and it was rejected.  

1. 

Introduction 

G. CAUSATION  

(215)  In  accordance  with  Article  3(6)  and  (7)  of  the  basic  Regulation  it  was  examined 
whether  the  material  injury  suffered  by  the  Union  industry  had  been  caused  by  the 
dumped  imports  concerned.  Known  factors  other  than  the  dumped  imports,  which 
could at the same time have injured the Union industry, were also examined to ensure 
that  the  possible  injury  caused  by  these  factors  was  not  attributed  to  the  dumped 
imports. In particular the results of the anti-circumvention investigation were analysed.  

2. 

Effect of the dumped Chinese imports 

(216)  The Chinese imports declined over the period considered, representing 2.9% of market 
share in the RIP. This relatively low and decreasing market share is to be seen in the 
context of the circumventing imports from, Indonesia, Malaysia Sri Lanka and Tunisia 
(see recital (223) and (224) below) 

EN 

36 

   EN 

(217)  As  mentioned  in  recital  (160)  above,  it  was  concluded  that  imports  from  the  PRC 
continued  to  significantly  undercut  the  Union  industry's  sales  price  on  the  Union 
market, thus exerting a significant pressure on the price level on the Union market.  

(218)  At the same time, most of the injury indicators showed a decreasing trend, in particular 
the production (-19%) and sales volume (-9%), capacity (-5%) and capacity utilisation 
(-14%). 

(219)  The profitability of the Union industry declined throughout the period considered with 
the Union industry close to breaking even due to the Chinese price pressure. Because 
of this the Union industry was not able to raise the prices to profitable levels without 
losing significant market share. 

(220)  It is therefore concluded that the pressure exerted by the imports of bicycles at dumped 
prices had a decisive impact on the current vulnerable economic situation of the Union 
industry. 

(221)  Following  the  disclosure  it  was  argued  that  the  relevance  of  declining  production 
levels and capacity utilisation was not adequately reasoned, in particular, in the light 
of  the  fact  that  the  decline  in  production  was  considered  to  have  no  impact  on 
profitability. It is noted that all the injury elements are relevant for the assessment of 
the economic situation of the Union industry whether or not they have an impact on 
the  profitability  levels  in  the  particular  case.  As  explained  in  recital  (237)  below  the 
decline  in  profitability  and  of  other  profit  related  indicators  was  not  caused  by  the 
shrinking  market  but  can  be  attributed  to  the  continued  pressure  of  dumped  Chinese 
imports. The argument is therefore rejected.  

(222)  The same party also argued that the market share evolution of the Chinese imports was 
not adequately analysed as the analysis failed to address the sharp decline of imports 
over the period considered. Also it was argued that the causality analysis failed to take 
into account the increasing price trends of these exports. In response to this argument 
it is recalled that the declining volume of Chinese imports must be seen in the context 
of  the  findings  of  the  parallel  anti-circumvention  investigation  (see  recital  (216) 
above). The price trend of the Chinese imports established on the basis of Eurostat is 
not meaningful as it does not take into account the price development of the imports of 
the Chinese bicycles via the circumventing countries. On these grounds, the argument 
was therefore rejected.  

3. 

Effect of circumventing imports 

(223)  As  mentioned  in  recital  (15)  above,  the  anti-circumvention  investigation  established 
circumvention  of  the  measures  in  force  against  the  PRC  by  assembly  operation  and 
transhipment via Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia. Based on these findings 
the difference between the volumes of imports from the countries in question reported 
in  Eurostat  and  the  volumes  exported  by  known  genuine  producers  i.e.  those  that 
qualified  for  exemption  from  the  extended  measures  for  the  reasons  set  out  in 
Regulation (EU) No XX/2013 were considered as imports circumventing the measures 
in force ('circumventing imports'). 

(224)  In  the  context  of  the  causality  analysis, these  imports  were  considered  as  effectively 
coming  from  China  and  should  therefore  be  considered  together  with  the  direct 
imports  from  China.  On  this  basis  the  volume  of  Chinese  imports  thus  established 
reached  1,904,761  units  in  the  RIP.  In  2008,  imports  reached  2,321,240  units.  They 
were  declining  in  2009  to  1,802,101  units,  i.e.  by  22%  and  increasing  in  2010  to 
almost  the  same  levels  than  in  2008,  reaching  10.6%  of  the  market  share.  Finally, 

EN 

37 

   EN 

imports decreased again in the RIP by 13%, reaching a market share of 9.5%. Over the 
period considered, import volumes decreased by 18%. In the context of the shrinking 
market  (see  recital  (153)  above)  the  described  decrease  of  import  volumes  did  not 
result in a significant loss in market share as the latter has declined by only 0.8% over 
the  period  considered.  Since  the  product  mix  of  the  imports  from  the  PRC  and  the 
circumventing  imports  is  unknown,  it  is  not  meaningful  to  compare  prices  of  these 
imports with those of the Union industry on the Union market.  

Table 16 

Imports from the PRC together with circumventing imports from, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and 
Tunisia  

Volume of imports (units) 

2,321,240

1,802,101

2,194,354 

1,904,761

2008 

2009 

2010 

RIP 

Index (2008=100) 

Market share  

Source: Eurostat 

100

10.3%

78

8.8%

95 

10.6% 

82

9.5%

(225)  Following  the  disclosure  some  parties  argued  that  the  analysis  of  the  impact  of  the 
circumventing  imports  was  deficient  as  solely  based  on  the  volume  effects  and  thus 
lacking any price comparison based on a product mix analysis. It was alleged that this 
lack  of  analysis  was  a  result  of  procedural  failure  as  the  product  mix  analysis  was 
omitted  despite  cooperation  of  exporting  producers  from  the  countries  concerned.  In 
addition, it was alleged that the imports from these countries into the Union concern 
low-cost children or other bicycles that do not compete with the bicycles produced in 
the Union. In response to this argument it is noted that the product mix analysis could 
not  have  been  carried  out  for  the  reasons  explained  in  recital  (192)  above.  Also,  the 
majority  of  the  circumventing  imports  were  transhipments  in  cases  of  which  no 
information  on  the  product  mix  was  available.  Finally,  it  is  noted  that  the  Union 
producers  were  found  to  produce  all  product  segments;  therefore,  the  argument  on 
alleged  non-competing  imports  of  the  children  and  low  end  bicycles  was  found 
unsubstantiated.  

4. 

Effect of other factors 

4.1. 

Imports from other countries 

(226)  Total imports from other third countries amounted to 6,931,333 units during the RIP. 
This level of imports reflected a small increase of 1% over the period considered. 

(227)  Given the contraction of the Union consumption, the market share of the imports from 

other third countries remained broadly stable, reaching 34% in the RIP.  

(228)  Taiwan remained the main exporting country to the Union with a relatively constant 
market  share  over  the  period  considered  and  representing  14%  of  the  Union 
consumption during the RIP. 

(229)  Thailand  is  the  second  largest  exporting  country  into  the  Union.  Its  market  share 
decreased by 2 percentage points during the period considered, i.e. form 7% in 2008 to 
5% in the RIP.  

(230)  As stated in recital (157) above, the prices in Eurostat do not take into consideration 
the  various  product  mixes  from  each  country  and  therefore  only  indexes  are  used  to 
indicate  the  price  trends.  Since  the  product  mix  of  the  imports  from  other  third 

EN 

38 

   EN 

  
countries  is  unknown,  it  is  not  meaningful  to  compare  prices  of  these  imports  with 
those from the Union industry on the Union market.  

(231)  However, it should be noted that only the imports from Taiwan exceed the volume of 
the  Chinese  imports  (circumventing  imports  included).  In  this  regard,  it  should  be 
noted  that  the  imports  of  bicycles  from  Taiwan  are  usually  aimed  for  the  high-end 
market and no evidence was submitted otherwise. Therefore it is concluded that these 
imports cannot be considered as a cause of injury to the Union industry.  

(232)  Several  parties  claimed  that  imports  from  other  third  countries  were  made  at  lower 
prices than the Chinese imports and therefore the Chinese imports have not caused the 
material injury suffered by the Union industry. This argument could not be accepted 
because the average import prices could not be determined on the basis of Eurostat for 
the  reasons  explained  in  recital  (157)  above  and  therefore  no  conclusion  could  be 
drawn on this basis.  

(233)  Another party claimed that imports from third countries subject to General System of 
Preferences (GSP) from 1 January 2011 onwards are expected to increases (Cambodia 
and Bangladesh). However, the impact on import prices and quantities and the effect 
on  the  Union  market  cannot  be  evaluated  a  priori.  In  addition,  no  information  was 
available as to the ability of these countries to increase the production capacity and the 
sales volume to the Union market. Therefore, no firm conclusion can be drawn on this 
basis and this claim had to be rejected. 

(234)  Following  the  disclosure  the  parties  claimed  that  the  analysis  of  the  impact  of  the 
imports from the third countries with preferential trade agreements was not adequately 
addressed  as  the  imports  from  these  counties  were  claimed  to  be  significant  in 
volumes  as  compared  to  the  Chinese  imports  and  some  of  them  also  significantly 
lower prices. In this context it is recalled that the PRC is the second largest importer 
into  the  Union.  The  imports  from  other  third  countries  were  all  below  the  import 
volumes  of  the  Chinese  bicycles.  Also,  no  allegations  of  dumping  were  brought 
forward  against  these  countries.  Therefore,  it  was  concluded  that  the  imports  from 
these  countries  could  not  have  an  impact  so  as  to  break  the  established  causal  link 
between  the  large  volumes  of  dumped  imports  from  China  that  coincided  with  the 
continuation of material injury of the Union industry. On these grounds, the argument 
was rejected. 

EN 

39 

   EN 

Table 17 

Imports from other third countries* 

2008 

Marke
t share 

Units 

2009 

2010 

RIP 

Price 
EUR/unit 

Units 

Market 
share 

Price 
EUR/unit 

Units 

Market 
share 

Price 
EUR/unit 

Units 

Market 
share 

Price 
EUR/unit 

3,428,043 

15% 

2,949,433 

14%

3,458,448 

17%

2,864,114 

14%

100

100

2,746,124

100

100 

7% 

100 

12% 

100 

100

100

86

1,384,410 

91

66

2,838,962

100

103

7,696,376

34% 

99

7,172,805

100

100 

100

93

94

7%

99

14%

113

35%

102

126

118

101

1,234,123 

81

73

2,847,164

111

116

118

104

7,539,735

98

110

6%

88

14%

113

36%

106

125

114

84

993,952 

65

80

3,077,535

112

93

5%

73

15%

125

6,935,601

34%

90

101

122

122

124

151 

113 

80 

121 

132 

134 

Thailand 

1,522,209 

Taiwan 

Indexed 

Indexed 

Others 

Indexed 

Total 

Indexed 

*Circumventing imports from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia excluded  

Source: Eurostat 

EN 

40 

EN 

 
  
  
 
 
 
4.2. 

Development of consumption  

(235)  As mentioned in recital (153) above, from 2008 to the RIP the consumption decreased 
by  10%.  However,  the  Union  industry  maintained  and  even  slightly  increased  its 
market share (see recital (168) above). Therefore, shrinking market cannot be a source 
of injury. 

4.3. 

Economic crisis and climatic conditions 

(236)  Some  parties  claimed  that  the  prevailing  negative  economic  conditions  in  the  Union 
had  an  impact  on  the  consumers'  purchase  behaviour  over  the  period  considered.  It 
was  also  claimed  that  the  poor  weather  conditions  in  the  Union  in  2011  had  at  least 
partly an effect on the situation of the Union industry. These factors allegedly resulted 
in the overall decrease of consumption of bicycles in the Union. 

(237)  Indeed  the  investigation  revealed  a  decrease  of  the  Union  consumption  during  the 
period considered. However, as mentioned above in recital (234), the shrinking of the 
market cannot be considered a source of injury. 

(238)  These parties also claimed that production and employment only decreased to follow 
the  consumption  trend  and  not  because  of  the  dumped  imports.  However,  as  the 
bicycle industry does not have high fixed costs, the decline in production did not have 
an impact on the profitability of the Union bicycles industry. As far as employment in 
concerned this is due to the restructuring process undertaken by the Union industry. In 
any  event  this  development  does  not  explain  the  negative  trends  for  other  injury 
indicators.  

4.4. 

Non-dumped imports 

(239)  The  non-dumped  imports  from  one  co-operating  exporting  producer  represented 
negligible quantities, i.e. close to 0% of the total imports from the PRC and therefore 
they could not have a discernible effect on the situation on the Union industry. 

4.5. 

Electric bicycles 

(240)  It  was  argued  that  the  injury  suffered  by  the  Union  industry  was  caused  by  the 
development  of  electric  bicycles  which  allegedly  were  replacing  the  product 
concerned.  However,  the  development  of  the  electric  bicycles  is  very  recent  and 
represented  only  marginal  sales  volumes  during  the  RIP.  Therefore,  they  could  have 
not had an impact on the situation of the Union industry. 

4.6. 

Effect of the structural changes 

(241)  Following the disclosure one party argued that the Commission failed to analyse the 
impact of the recognised structural changes of the market and of the Union industry in 
its injury and causation analysis. As an example it was claimed that Commission failed 
to address the impact of the shift of production towards the eastern European countries 
in its production cost analysis. In response to this claim, it is noted that the analysis of 
the  lasting  nature  of  the  changes  has  been  carried  out  (see  recital  (162))  and  it  was 
concluded  that  the  changes  were  of  lasting  nature  (see  recital  (211)  above).  For  this 
reason, new injury analysis was carried out based on a sample of the Union producers 
chosen to reflect the structural changes. Therefore, it is considered that the impact of 
such  changes  was  duly  taken  into  account  in  the  injury  and  causation  analysis.  The 
argument is therefore rejected.  

4.7. 

Conclusion 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
(242)  Despite 

the  shrinking  Union  consumption,  substantial  volumes  of  direct  or 
circumventing  dumped  imports  of  Chinese  bicycles  were  found  entering  the  Union 
market. The rather stable and significant market share of these imports over the period 
considered coincided with a period of continued economic vulnerability of the Union 
industry  (see  recitals  (184)  to (187) above). It is concluded, therefore, that there is a 
causal  link  between  the  imports  from  the  PRC  (direct  and  circumventing)  and  the 
material injury suffered by the Union industry. 

(243)  Other  factors  were  considered  such  as  impact  of  imports  from  other  third  countries, 
development  of  consumption,  economic  crisis  and  the  climatic  conditions,  the  non-
dumped imports, the development of the electronic bicycles. None of these factors was 
found  significant  enough  to  break  the  causal  link  established  between  the  dumped 
Chinese imports and the material injury suffered. 

(244)  Based  on  the  above  analysis,  which  has  properly  distinguished  and  separated  the 
effects of all known factors on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious 
effects  of  the  dumped  exports,  it  was  concluded  that  the  dumped  imports  from  the 
PRC together with the circumventing imports have caused material injury to the Union 
industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation. 

1. 

Introduction 

H. UNION INTEREST 

(245)  In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it has been examined whether, 
despite  the  conclusion  on  injurious  dumping,  compelling  reasons  existed  for  clearly 
concluding  that  it  would  not  be  in  the  Union  interest  to  impose  the  anti-dumping 
measures against imports from the PRC at the rates set out below (see recital (279)).  

(246)  It should be recalled that, in the previous investigations, the adoption of measures was 
considered  not  to  be  against  the  interest  of  the  Union.  Furthermore,  the  fact  that  the 
present  investigation  is  an  interim  review  pursuant  to  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  thus  analysing  a  situation  in  which  anti-dumping  measures  have  already 
been  in  place,  allows  the  assessment  of  any  undue  negative  impact  on  the  parties 
concerned by the current anti-dumping measures.  

(247)  The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of the various 
interests  involved,  i.e.  those  of  the  Union  industry,  producers  of  bicycle  parts, 
unrelated importers and users.  

2. 

Interest of the Union industry  

(248)  The  investigation  showed  that  the  industry  is  still  in  a  fragile  situation.  Given  the 
substantial volume of dumped imports from the PRC and likelihood of continuation of 
dumping  and  injury,  there  is  a  strong  likelihood  that  Union  production  would 
disappear should measures be repealed. 

(249)  The Union industry contributes significantly to technological innovation and spin offs, 
such  as  the  recently  developed  EPACs  (Electronically  Power  Assisted  Cycles)  and 
electronic  bicycles  that  would  not  be  economically  viable  without  having  a  bicycle 
industry in the Union. Moreover, the Union industry contributes to the environmental 
goals such as greening of transport and decarbonisation. 

(250)  The Union industry is also a driving force for related industries, such as production of 
bicycle  parts,  bicycle  accessories  and  related  services.  In  total  the  Union  industry 
generates directly and indirectly between 60 000 and 70 000 jobs in the Union market. 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
(251)  The  Union  industry  had  undertaken  efforts  to  restructure  and  invested  in  innovation 
which  would  be  lost  should  the  Union  industry  disappear.  To  the  contrary,  with  the 
measures  in  place,  the  Union  industry  would  be  able  to  maintain  and  even  increase 
sales volume and thereby generating the necessary return on investments which would 
enable it to continue to reinvest in new technology and innovation. 

(252)  In view of the conclusions on the situation of the Union industry as set out at recitals 
(184) to (187) above, it can be expected that without measures the financial situation 
of  the  Union  industry  would  likely  deteriorate  significantly  and  ultimately  risk  the 
closure of production. Therefore, the anti-dumping measures are in the interest on the 
Union industry. 

3. 

Interest of producers of bicycle parts 

(253)  The  Association  of  the  Bicycles  Parts  Producers  (COLIPED)  made  itself  known 
during  the  investigation.  COLIPED  provided  information  that  there  are  about  370 
companies in the Union, which are supplying components to the bicycle producers and 
employ about 16,000 people. The suppliers industry is depending on the continuation 
of the bicycles production in the Union.  

(254)  53  producers  of  bicycle  parts  came  forward  in  favour  of  the  measures,  representing 
39%  of  the  estimated  1.2  billion  EUR  of  total  turnover  of  the  bicycle  part  industry. 
The  bicycles  parts  producers  are  benefiting  from  the  extension  of  the  existing 
measures  to  essential  bicycle  parts  (see  recital  (1)  above).  The  existing  exemption 
scheme  (see  recital  (1)  above)  encourages  local  production  of  bicycle  parts  by 
restricting the Chinese content of bicycle parts used to less than 60% of the total value. 
Due to the measures in place the Union industry was able to develop and invest in new 
projects aiming to resume production of certain essential parts in the Union.  

(255)  In  this  respect,  it  was  found  that  without  the  measures  and  the  expected  closure  of 
bicycles  production  in  the  Union,  the  bicycle  parts  industry  in  the  Union  will  also 
suffer  negative  consequences  as  they  will  lose  their  customers.  It  is  therefore 
concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping measures would be in the interest of the 
bicycle parts industry. 

4. 

Interest of users/ consumers 

(256)  The  European  Cyclists'  Federation  (ECF),  an  umbrella  federation  of  the  national 
cyclists'  associations  in  Europe  supported  the  continuation  of  the  anti-dumping 
measures  in  force.  The  ECF  argued  that  local  production  is  in  the  interest  of  the 
consumers as it ensures quality and safety as well as specialised customer services.  

(257)  The  ECF  argued  that  an  increase  of  imports  from  the  PRC  would  have  a  negative 
impact  on  the  high  quality  and  safety  standards  in  the  Union  at  the  expense  of  the 
consumer.  

(258)  The  impact  of  the  anti-dumping  duties  on  the  consumer  price  is  estimated  not  to  be 
significant as the majority of Union producers of bicycles operate under the exemption 
scheme whereas the essential bicycle parts can be imported from the PRC without any 
duty up to 60% of the total value of the parts used.  

(259)  It  is  recalled  that,  in  the  previous  investigations,  it  was  found  that  the  impact  of 
measures  would  not  be  significant  for  the  users/consumers.  Despite  the  existence  of 
measures,  the  supply  of  bicycles  from  the  PRC,  as  well  as  countries  without  any 
measures is available. It is therefore concluded that the anti-dumping measures do not 
have a significant negative impact on users in the Union. 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
(260)  Following the disclosure one party argued that the analysis failed to take into account 
the negative impact of the measures on the users in form of additional costs brought by 
the  measures.  It  is  noted  that  the  ECF  representing  the  consumers  came  forward  in 
support  of  the  measures  for  the  quality  and  safety  reasons  (see  recital  (255)above). 
Also,  thanks  to  exemptions  scheme  the  consumers  already  benefit  from  the  reduced 
price  of  certain  bicycle  parts  (see  recital  (257)  above).  Therefore,  the  argument  was 
found unsubstantiated. 

5. 

Interest of unrelated importers  

(261)  None of the unrelated importers co-operated in the investigation. Therefore, it was not 
possible to make an assessment of the impact of the measures during the RIP. It should 
also  be  recalled  that  the  purpose  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  is  not  to  prevent 
imports,  but  to  restore  fair  trade  and  ensure  that  imports  are  not  made  at  injuriously 
dumped prices. 

(262)  It  is  recalled  that  there  are  other  sources  of  imports  and  around  45%  of  the 

consumption of bicycles are in fact imported bicycles.  

(263)  As  fairly-priced  imports  from  the  PRC  would  still  be  allowed  to  enter  the  Union 
market,  and  as  imports  from  third  countries would  also  continue, it  is  likely  that  the 
traditional  business  of  the  importers  would  continue  even  if  the  anti-dumping 
measures  with  regard  to  the  PRC  were  maintained.  The  amended  anti-dumping 
measures  for  the  three  cooperating  exporting  producers  would  increase  the  import 
possibilities  from  the  PRC  at  0%  or  reduced  rate.  Therefore,  it  is  concluded  that  the 
anti-dumping measures do not have a significant impact on unrelated importers in the 
Union. 

6. 

Effectiveness of the measures 

(264)  One party argued that measures would not be effective given that the Union industry is 
still  suffering  injury  after  the  anti-dumping  measures  being  in  force  for  almost  20 
years. It is noted that despite the measures in force, it has been confirmed that Chinese 
exporting producers were circumventing the measures via other third countries which 
explained at least partly the situation of the Union industry during the RIP. Therefore, 
the argument was rejected.  

(265)  Following  the  disclosure  some  parties  argued  that  the  measures  existing  for  over 
twenty-three years are not justified on either legal or trade policy grounds. In response 
to this claim it is noted that no time limits restrict the duration of the measures as long 
as the conditions for their imposition or maintenance are met. Also, in the case at hand 
the  measures  are  justified  as  the  findings  confirmed  existence  of  injurious  dumping. 
Furthermore,  the  situation  of  the  Union  industry  is  further  undermined  by 
circumvention. Therefore, the argument is rejected. 

7. 

Conclusion  

(266)  The  continuation  of  measures  on  imports  of  bicycles  originating  in  the  PRC  would 
clearly  be  in  the  interest  of  the  Union  industry  and  the  Union  suppliers  of  bicycle 
parts. It will allow the Union industry to grow and improve its situation caused by the 
dumped imports. Furthermore, the importers would not be substantially affected since 
fairly priced bicycles would still be available on the market from the PRC and other 
third counties. Also, due to the extensive use of the existing exemption scheme by the 
Union  industry,  it  was  concluded  that  the  existing  measures  had  no  significant 
negative impact on the users/consumers. In contrast, if measures were repealed, Union 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
bicycles producers will likely close production, thus also threatening the existence of 
Union bicycle parts producers. 

(267)  In  view  of  the  above,  it  is  concluded  that  based  on  the  information  available 
concerning  the  Union  interest,  there  are  no  compelling  reasons  against  imposing  the 
measures  at  the  rates  indicated  below  (279)  on  imports  of  the  product  concerned 
originating in the PRC.  

1. 

Injury elimination level 

I. PROPOSED DUTIES 

(268)  In view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, resulting injury and Union 
interest, the existing measures, as imposed by Council Regulation (EU) No 990/2011, 
should be maintained except as provided herein below. 

(269)  For the purpose of determining the level of these measures, account was taken of the 
dumping  margins  found  and  the  amount  of  duty  necessary  to  eliminate  the  injury 
sustained by the Union producers. 

(270)  The measures should be imposed at a level sufficient to eliminate the injury caused by 
the  imports  in  question  without  exceeding  the  dumping  margin  found.  When 
calculating  the  amount  of  duty  necessary  to  remove  the  effects  of  the  injurious 
dumping,  it  was  considered  that  any  measures  should  allow  the  Union  industry  to 
cover  its  costs  of  production  and  to  obtain  overall  a  profit  before  tax  that  could  be 
reasonable achieved by an industry of this type in the sector under normal conditions 
of competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports, on the sales of the like product 
in the Union. The pre-tax profit margin used for this calculation was 8% of turnover of 
the sales of bicycles. It is the same as in the previous investigation since there was no 
indication found that this rate should be changed.  

(271)  Given that cooperation from the PRC was very low as stated in recitals (22) and (24) 
above,  the  findings  for  the  cooperating  companies  cannot  be  considered  to  be 
representative for the country. Consequently, the country-wide injury margin is hereby 
maintained unchanged as established by Council Regulation (EC) No 1095/200535. 

(272)  For the two cooperating exporters, for which dumping was found, the injury margins 
were established on the basis of their own export prices compared, at the same level of 
trade, to the non-injurious prices of the Union industry for the corresponding product 
type. No injury margin was calculated for the third company, for which no dumping 
was found. For Oyama Bicycles (Taicang) Co. Ltd., no injury margin was identified. 
However, a substantial injury margin higher than the dumping margin was found for 
Zhejiang Baoguilai Vehicle Co. Ltd.  

(273)  Following  the  disclosure  one  party  argued  that  the  8%  target  profit  was  fixed  at  the 
market conditions that do not correspond to the current situation and the Commission 
failed to provide adequate reasoning to justify why the target profit determined in the 
previous investigation mentioned in recital (5) above is still justified. It is noted that 
there was no indication found under the current review that the rate of the target profit 
should be changed. The party in question did not submit any substantiated calculation 
of an alternative target profit level to be used. Therefore, the argument was rejected.  

2. 

Definitive measures 

35 

OJ L183, 14.7.2005, p. 1. 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(274)  As  regards  the  three  co-operating  Chinese  exporting  groups,  the  individual  company 
anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of 
the  findings  of  the  present  investigation.  Therefore,  they  reflect  the  situation  found 
during that investigation with respect to these groups. These duty rates (as opposed to 
the  country-wide  duty  applicable  to  ‘all  other  companies’)  are  thus  exclusively 
applicable  to  imports  of  products  originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of  China  and 
produced by these groups and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported 
products produced by any other group not specifically mentioned in the operative part 
of  this  Regulation  including  entities  related  to  those  specifically  mentioned,  cannot 
benefit  from  these  rates  and  shall  be  subject  to  the  duty  rate  applicable  to  ‘all  other 
companies’. 

(275)  Any claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty 
rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of 
new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission36 forthwith 
with  all  relevant  information,  in  particular  any  modification  in  the  company’s 
activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, 
that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the 
Regulation will accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting 
from individual duty rates. 

(276)  In order to ensure a proper enforcement of the anti- dumping duty, the residual duty 
level  should  not  only  apply  to  the  non-cooperating  exporting  producers  but  also  to 
those producers which did not have any exports to the Union during the RIP. 

(277)  In order to minimise the risks of circumvention due to the high difference in the duty 
rates, it is considered that special measures are needed in this case to ensure the proper 
application of the anti-dumping duties. These special measures include the following: 
The  presentation  to  the  Customs  authorities  of  the  Member  States  of  a  valid 
commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex to 
this Regulation. Imports not accompanied by such an invoice shall be made subject to 
the residual anti-dumping duty applicable to all other exporting producers.  

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

(279)  In  accordance  with  Article  7(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  duty  rates  for  the 
cooperating exporters are established at the level adequate to remove the injury to the 
Union  industry.  For  Zhejiang  Baoguilai  Vehicle  Co.  Ltd  and  Ideal  (Dongguan)  Bike 
Co., Ltd the duty rates are based on dumping margins established by the investigation 
since they were lower than the injury margins. For Oyama Bicycles (Taicang) Co. Ltd. 
the  injury  margin  was  lower  than  the  dumping  margin,  therefore,  the  duty  is 
established at the injury margin level. 

(280)  The individual duty rates calculated for the RIP should be as follows: 

36 

European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, Directorate H, 1049 Brussels, Belgium 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Company 

Definitive duty 

Zhejiang  Baoguilai  Vehicle  Co. 
Ltd. 

Oyama  Bicycles  (Taicang)  Co. 
Ltd. 

 Ideal (Dongguan) Bike Co., Ltd. 

All other companies 

19.2% 

0% 

0% 

48.5% 

(281)  It is noted that pursuant to Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 71/97, the anti-
dumping duty of 48,5% imposed to all other companies by this Regulation (see recital 
(279) above) applies also to imports of essential bicycle parts, as defined in Article 1 
of Council Regulation (EC) No 71/97, originating in the PRC,  

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of bicycles and other cycles 
(including delivery tricycles, but excluding unicycles), not motorised, falling within CN codes 
8712 00 30 and ex 8712 00 70 (TARIC codes 8712 00 70 91 and 8712 00 70 99), originating 
in the Peoples' Republic of China.  

2.  The  rate  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  the  net,  free-at-Union-frontier 
price,  before  duty,  of  the  products  described  in  paragraph  1  and  manufactured  by  the 
companies listed below shall be as follows:  

Company 

Definitive duty 

TARIC 
Code 

Additional 

Zhejiang Baoguilai Vehicle Co. Ltd. 

19.2% 

Oyama Bicycles (Taicang) Co. Ltd. 

 Ideal (Dongguan) Bike Co., Ltd. 

All other companies 

0% 

0% 

48.5% 

B772 

B773 

B774 

B999 

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

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

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Article 2 

The  extension  of  the  antidumping  duty  imposed  on  imports  of  bicycles  originating  in  the 
People’s  Republic  of  China  to  imports  of  certain  bicycle  parts  originating  in  the  People’s 
Republic of China by Regulation (EC) No 71/97, is hereby maintained. 

The definitive anti-dumping duty referred to in Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 71/97 shall 
be the "all other companies" anti-dumping duty imposed by Article 1(2) herein above. 

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

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

Done at Brussels, xxx 2013. 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

48 

   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(3): 

(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  bicycles  sold  for  export  to  the  European 
Union  covered  by  this  invoice  was  manufactured  by  (company  name  and  registered  seat) 
(TARIC  additional  code)  in  (country  concerned).  I  declare  that  the  information  provided  in 
this invoice is complete and correct. 

Date and signature’. 

EN 

49 

   EN