CELEX: 51997PC0591
Language: en
Date: 1997-11-13
Title: Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan

11,1». «1 ^ ( F P < H I V " I » , t >l
                                                 COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
                                                                                    Brussels, 13.11.1997
                                                                                    COM(97) 591 final
                                                                     Proposal for a
                                                           COUNCIL REGULATION ŒC)
                                       imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen
                                                         originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan
                                                            (presented by the Commission)
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---                             Explanatory memorandum
Subject: Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping
         duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Egypt, India
         and Pakistan
1.       On 13 September 1996, the Commission announced the initiation of an
         anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of cotton-type bed linen from
         Egypt, India and Pakistan.
2.       The Commission began an investigation and advised parties known to be
         concerned of the initiation. In view of the large numbers of exporting
         producers in the countries concerned and of Community producers
         supporting the complaint, sampling techniques were applied to these two
         groups. Questionnaires were sent to the companies thus sampled and also
         to other parties (notably importers), in order to obtain the information
         which the Commission deemed necessary for its investigation.
3.       The Commission found that imports from all three countries were being
         sold at dumped prices, were undercutting the prices of the sampled
         Community producers and had caused injury to the Community industry.
         The Commission also found that anti-dumping measures were in the
         interest of the Community and imposed provisional anti-dumping duties in
         June 1997.
 ---pagebreak--- 4. Interested parties in the proceeding were given one month to comment on
   the findings on which the provisional measures were based.
5. In the light of all the information obtained and representations made during
   the proceeding, the Commission proposes the imposition of definitive
   measures.     Certain adjustments have been made to the level of the
   provisional duty rates and bed linen of fabrics woven by hand (handloom)
   are excluded from the scope of the definitive measures.
6. The Commission accordingly proposes that the Council adopt the attached
   proposal for a Regulation which imposes definitive anti-dumping duties
   ranging from 2,6% to 24,7% on imports from India, from 0% to 6,7% on
   imports from Pakistan and from 8,7% to 13,5% on imports from Egypt.
 ---pagebreak---                             COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No               191
                                               of....
     imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen
                              originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European
Community1, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2331/96 of 2 December 19962. and
in particular Articles 9(4) and 10(2) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the
Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
1
       O J N o L 5 6 , 6.3.1996, p. 1.
2
      OJNoL317, 6.12.1996, p. 1,
 ---pagebreak---                                A. PROCEDURE
(1)   By Regulation (EC) No 1069/973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the provisional
      Regulation') the Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on
      imports into the Community of cotton-type bed linen falling within CN codes
      6302 21 00, 6302 22 90, 6302 31 10, 6302 31 90 and 6302 32 90 originating
      in Egypt, India and Pakistan.
(2)   Following the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duty, certain
      interested parties submitted comments in writing. Those parties, who so
      requested, were granted an opportunity to be heard by the Commission.
      Parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of
      which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-
      dumping duties and the definitive collection, at the level of these duties, of
      amounts secured by way of provisional duties. They were also granted a
      period within which to make representations subsequent to this disclosure.
(3)   The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were
      analysed and, where deemed appropriate, taken into account for the definitive
      findings.
    OJNoL 156, 13.6.97, p. II.
 ---pagebreak---     B.   PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE PRODUCT
               1.     Requests for exclusion from the proceeding
(4)    Following the disclosure of provisional findings, the Commission received
       various requests for exclusion of certain product types from the proceeding:
       - Certain parties repeated their request for exclusion of "seersucker", a type
          of bed linen produced with the use of chemicals, claiming there to be no
          more production of such items in the Community.
       - Some parties repeated the request for exclusion of bleached bed linen
          which is intended for institutional use (i.e. hospitals, hotels etc.).
          Moreover, one party claimed the exclusion of institutional dyed bed linen.
          In support of their requests, they claimed that the user institutions require
          a special quality of the product in question, namely products made from
          fabric of particularly heavy weaving constructions, which they claimed
          were not produced in the Community.
       - A request was also received to exclude items made from fabric woven on
          looms operated purely by hand or foot ("handloom").
 ---pagebreak--- (5) On "seersucker", since no new arguments were advanced in support of the
    request following the imposition of provisional measures, and despite the
    absence of production of identical products by the Community industry, the
    request could not be accepted . It was therefore concluded that this product
    type is subject to the proceeding as it shares sufficient             physical
    characteristics and uses with other types of bed linen to put them in
    competition with each other..
(6) On the request to exclude certain types of bed linen intended for institutional
    use, and in particular to exclude products of weaving constructions above a
    certain weight threshold, it was found that bed linen of heavier constructions
    was produced in the Community (notably but not exclusively a specific type
    known as flannel). In addition, no clear dividing line could be established
    between bed linen produced and sold in the Community for institutional and
    private use and the imported types:            all shared sufficient physical
    characteristics, functions and uses to be considered like products.
    The request to exclude bed linen for institutional use from the scope of the
    proceeding could not therefore be accepted and the findings of the
    investigation and the conclusions of the Commission as set out in recital (13)
    of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
 ---pagebreak--- (7) As regards the request to exclude handloom products, while the use of
    different production methods is not in itself a reason relevant to the definition
    of the like product, it was found that handloom items had physical
    characteristics different from those of other bed linen, notably through a less
    regular and looser weave. This difference led to a different consumer
    perception of handloom products which was reinforced by the fact that
    handloom products are often sold through particular sales channels such as
    charity shops which are not available to Community producers.
    Consequently it was concluded that handloom products should be excluded
    from the scope, of the proceeding and, therefore, these products should be
    exempted from the payment of the duties if accompanied by a certificate of
    handloom origin (see Annex II of the present Regulation) issued by the
    appropriate authorities of the exporting country.
                             2.     Like product
(8) Following the disclosure of provisional findings, certain parties repeated the
    claim, already made at the provisional stage, that there were such differences
    between all imported bed linen and all Community-produced bed linen that
    they could not be considered like product in the sense of Article 1(4) of
    Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (hereinafter referred to as the Basic
    Regulation). The Commission considered these claims but found that for the
    reasons already set out in recital (14) of the provisional Regulation they
    could not be accepted.
 ---pagebreak---                                3.       Conclusion
(9)  It follows from the conclusions set out in recital (10) of the provisional
     Regulation as modified above with regard to handloom products that the
     product under consideration is bed linen of cotton fibres, pure or mixed with
     man-made fibres or flax, bleached, dyed or printed. It includes but is not
     limited to bed sheets, duvet covers and pillow cases.
     Bed linen of pure man-made fibres and bed linen where flax is the dominant
     fibre is not covered by this proceeding. Bed linen made from handloom
     woven fabric is also not covered by this proceeding.
     Based on the above exclusion and clarifications of the product scope, bed
     linen covered by the present proceeding falls within CN codes ex6302 21 00,
     ex6302 22 90, ex6302 31 10, ex6302 31 90 and ex6302 32 90.
     Subject to the above, and in the absence of any further arguments, the
     conclusions as set out in recitals (10) and (14) of the provisional Regulation
     concerning the product definition and the like product are hereby confirmed.
  C.    EXPORTING PRODUCERS IN THE COUNTRIES CONCERNED
                1. Requests for status of co-operating parties
(10) It was only after the selection of the samples of exporters and, in many cases,
     following the disclosure of the preliminary findings of the investigation to
     co-operating parties, that several exporting producers in the countries
     concerned made themselves known and requested the status of co-operating
     parties.
 ---pagebreak--- (11)     Given that all these exporting producers either did not make themselves
        known or did not provide the information deemed necessary for the
         investigation within the time limits set in the notice of initiation4, it is
        considered that the co-operating status requested should not be granted
        because to do otherwise would constitute a discrimination against other
        parties who had decided to co-operate since the outset of the investigation.
                                  2. New exporters
(12)    Following the adoption of provisional measures, a number of exporters in the
        countries concerned made themselves known, often at a very advanced stage
        of the investigation, and requested new exporter status. Some of them
        showed to the satisfaction of the Commission that they did not export the
        product concerned to the Community during the investigation period, that
        they started to export to the Community after this period or that they have
        entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant
        quantity to the Community, and that they were not related to any of the
        exporting producers in the respective exporting countries which are subject to
        the anti-dumping measures on the product concerned. Consequently, those
        exporting producers were considered to be new exporters and should be
        granted the same treatment, in terms of definitive measures, as the co-
        operating exporting producers not included in the sample, i.e. an anti-
        dumping duty calculated in accordance with Article 9(6) of the basic
        Regulation.
     OJ No C 266 of 13.9.96, p. 2
 ---pagebreak---  (13)     The same treatment should be granted to any new exporting producer which
          following the adoption of definitive measures will show to the satisfaction of
          the Commission that it fulfils the above mentioned criteria.
                                    D.      DUMPING
                                     1. Normal value
 (a) Methodology for the construction of normal value
(14)      Three Egyptian exporting producers argued that if domestic sales were
          considered unrepresentative for assessing profit, they should be considered
          equally unrepresentative for assessing selling, general and administrative
          (SG&A) expenses.
         In this respect, it should be noted that the fact that some or all of the domestic
         sales of the like product appear to be loss-making does not on itself render
         the related SG&A expenses inappropriate to construct normal value if such
         sales were made in sufficient quantities when compared to the sales volume
         of the product under consideration sold for export to the Community.
(b) Cost of production
(15)     As already explained in recital (36) of the provisional Regulation, two
         Pakistani exporting producers claimed that due to exceptional circumstances,
         resulting from civil disorder on a major scale in Karachi during the
         investigation period, costs corresponding to "idle capacity" should not be
         taken into account in constructing normal value. Following the imposition of
         provisional measures these companies repeated their claim and resubmitted
         their quantification of the idle costs concerned.
 ---pagebreak---      In this respect, it should be noted that according to an extract of the
     International Accounting Standard No.2 (IAS-2), which one of the
     companies concerned quoted, although the amount of fixed overheads
     allocated to each unit of production is not to be increased as a consequence of
     low production or idle plant, unallocated overheads are in any event
     recognised as an expense in the period in which they are incurred. In other
     words, all costs incurred within a certain period should be fully absorbed
     within the same period by the total cost of production (manufacturing cost
     and SG&A expenses) irrespective of whether "idle capacity'' costs are
     classified as fixed overheads included in the manufacturing cost or as part of
     the SG&A expenses. Therefore, these claims could not be accepted since the
     total cost of production incorporated in the constructed normal value includes
     both manufacturing cost and SG&A expenses.
(16) One Pakistani exporting producer claimed that the cost of initial material
     (grey cloth) it had reported in the cost of manufacturing included certain
     SG&A expenses. Therefore, when constructing its normal value, the SG&A
     expenses reported should have been deducted from the cost of production in
     order to avoid a double counting of SG&A expenses. The Commission, after
     reviewing the data of the company, accepted the claim and modified the
     dumping calculations accordingly.
 ---pagebreak--- (c) Selling, General and Administrative expenses (SG&A)
(17)      One Egyptian exporting producer contested the inclusion of allegedly
          exceptional high financing expenses in the construction of its normal value.
          It argued that these high financing expenses were incurred by two state
          owned companies on their loss making domestic sales of the like product
          and, therefore, should not be used for calculating constructed normal value
          for a private owned company, but that a "reasonable" amount of SG&A
          expenses should be established for this purpose instead. It was further argued
          that this "reasonable" amount could be based on the SG&A expenses of the
          third state owned company investigated which had profitable domestic sales
          of the like product.
          In that respect, it has to be mentioned that, where all companies are operating
          in free market conditions, the consistent practice of the Community
          Institutions has been to include all costs incurred to produce and sell the
          product concerned on the domestic market, including financing expenses, in
          the construction of normal value irrespective of whether these costs are
          incurred by state or private owned companies. In addition, it is consistent
          practice when constructing normal value for companies without domestic
          sales to use the weighted average SG&A expenses of all investigated
          companies with domestic sales of the like product, as provided in Article
          2(6)(a) of the Basic Regulation. Therefore, for the company in question the
          methodology used and explained in recital (32) of the provisional Regulation
          is confirmed.
                                                                                        12
 ---pagebreak--- (d) Domestic profit margin
(18)    All Indian exporting producers contested the use of the actual profit margin
      . realised by one Indian company on its representative profitable domestic
        sales in the construction of normal value for other Indian companies. They
        argued that this profit margin is exceptionally high because, to a great extent,
        it relates to domestic sales of branded products and that since export sales
        always concerned non-branded products, such domestic sales do not permit a
        proper comparison within the terms of Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.
        Four of these exporting producers also argued that this profit is not calculated
        by reference to. the weighted average profits of other exporters or producers
      . as provided for in Article 2(6)(a) of the Basic Regulation, but corresponds to
        only one exporting producer. It was further claimed in this respect that, in
        order to ensure that the amount for profits used is reasonable, the profits
        realised on sales of products of the same general category in India should in
        any event not be exceeded.
        It should be noted that the profit margin used in constructing normal value
        corresponds to the weighted average profit realised on domestic sales of
       profitable types of branded and non-branded products by the Indian company
        concerned and that, had this claim been accepted, this would have been to the
        disadvantage of the producers, the profit margin used being lower than the
        profit margin realised by the same company solely on its domestic sales of
        non-branded products.
 ---pagebreak---      With regard to the use of the profit margin of only one company, it should be
     recalled that the investigation has been restricted to a sample of exporting
     producers in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation and that the
     vast majority of the co-operating Indian companies are export oriented
     companies with no domestic sales of the like product. The Commission
     selected for the sample five Indian exporting producers two of which had
     declared at the time of the selection that they had made domestic sales of the
     like product. However, as indicated in recital (23) of the provisional
     Regulation, the investigation revealed that only one had representative
     domestic sales of the like product during the investigation period. Moreover,
     the reference in Article 2(6)(a) of the basic Regulation to weighted average
     amount for profits determined for other exporters or producers, does not
     exclude that such amount can be determined by reference to a weighted
     average of transactions and/or product types of a single exporter or producer.
     Consequently, it is not considered justified to establish the amount for profits
     in accordance with Article 2(6)(b) or 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation, as
     claimed by the Indian companies concerned.
(19) One Indian exporting producer argued that its domestic profitability should
     have been assessed only on the basis of those types of the product concerned
     sold both domestically and on the Community market.
                                                                                   14
 ---pagebreak---       It should be noted however, that Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation provides
      that the sales of the like product intended for domestic consumption shall
      normally be used to determine normal value if such sales volume constitutes
      5% or more of the sales volume to the Community of the product under
      consideration. Therefore, all domestic sales of the like product intended for
      domestic consumption were, where appropriate, used to establish the
      domestic profit margin, whether or not particular product types were also
      exported to the Community.
     It follows from the above that the methodology and the findings as set out in
     recitals (23) to (36) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
                                  2. Export price
(20) One Pakistani exporting producer which sold part of its exports to a related
     importer based in the Community, argued that the export price for the
     transactions made through the related importer should not be constructed
     because all prices charged to the related importer were at "arm's length" and
     they are in line with prices charged to unrelated customers in the
     Community. Therefore it was argued that the actual export price charged to
     the related importer should be considered as reliable and that it should be
     used in the dumping calculations.
     It is the consistent practice of the Community Institutions, where it appears
     that the export price is unreliable because of an association or a
     compensatory arrangement between the exporter and the importer, to
     construct it in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation. In this
     particular case the investigation revealed that all subsequent resales by the
                                                                                  15
 ---pagebreak---      related importer to independent buyers were made at a loss. This was
     considered to be an indication that the prices charged by the exporter to its
     related importer are unreliable. Therefore, the methodology used to
     determine the export price as explained in recitals (37) and (38) of the
     provisional Regulation is confirmed.
                                  3. Comparison
(21) One Indian exporting producer contested the Commission's refusal to grant
     an adjustment for level of trade.
     Article 2(10)(d) of the basic Regulation requires that it has to be shown that
     the export price is at a different level of trade from the normal value and that
     the difference has affected price comparability, which is demonstrated by
     consistent and distinct differences in functions and prices of the seller for the
     different levels of trade in the domestic market of the exporting country.
     Therefore, in the absence of any substantiated evidence to this effect, the
     claim was rejected as already explained in recital (40) of the provisional
     Regulation.
(22) The same Indian company also contested the Commission's refusal to grant
     adjustments to normal value for certain selling expenses.
     The request was provisionally rejected because the adjustments requested
     exceeded the expenses incorporated in the constructed normal value.
     The company's renewed request showed the same shortcomings and could
     not, therefore, be accepted either.
 ---pagebreak---      However, it was finally decided to grant an adjustment limited to those
     expenses (e.g. commissions and freight) which could be identified in the
     allocation of SG&A expenses as submitted by the company in its response to
     the Commission's questionnaire and which were verified during the
     investigation and incorporated in the constructed normal value.
(23) This Indian company further challenged the Commission's refusal to grant an
     adjustment to normal value for credit costs.
     As explained in recital (44) of the provisional Regulation, this claim had to
     be rejected given that the delivery of all goods sold in the domestic market
     by the company concerned took place only after payment. Thus, since the
     seller did not pass on to the buyer the use or the possession of the goods in
     question until the time of payment, it cannot be argued that there was any
     credit granted by the seller.
(24) One Pakistani exporting producer also challenged the Commission's refusal
     to grant an adjustment to normal value for credit costs. In order to support its
     argument, it was requested to submit additional information following the
     imposition of provisional measures.
     Since the information submitted did not contradict but satisfactorily
     supplemented the data previously verified by the Commission at the premises
     of the company concerned, the claim for an adjustment concerning credit
     costs was accepted and the calculations were revised accordingly.
                                                                                   17
 ---pagebreak--- (25) All Pakistani exporting producers contested the Commission's calculation of
     the adjustment for import charges and duties borne by the like product and in
     particular by certain materials physically incorporated therein, when intended
     for consumption in Pakistan and refunded on export of the product under
     consideration pursuant to the Pakistani legislation. They argued that the
     amount of the adjustment should be expressed as a percentage of the cost of
     production and that the same percentage should then be deducted from the
     normal value.
     The argument neglects that such a percentage calculated by reference to the
     cost of production should be applied on the appropriate basis and that the
     normal value, being the equivalent of a domestic price, cannot be considered
     as such. Therefore, the argument was not accepted.
(26) One Pakistani company argued that the amount of the adjustment for import
     charges and duties borne by the like product, was underestimated in the
     Commission's dumping calculations for certain types of product.
     The Commission reviewed the calculations and accepted the claim where
     appropriate.
(27) The Pakistani authorities were of the opinion that the duty drawback
     adjustment granted to the co-operating exporting producers was not
     sufficient. They concede that the relevant Pakistani legislation mentions only
     a limited number of imported materials (certain dyes and chemicals) which
     are eligible for refund if the finished product is exported and that the
 ---pagebreak--- Commission has granted an adjustment in this respect. However, they argue
that, upon proof of export performance, Pakistani exporters also receive a
refund for a number of other indirect taxes and duties borne by sales of the
like product in the domestic market and that this refund should also entitle to
an adjustment.
In this respectait should be noted that any adjustment under Article 2(10)(b)
of the basic Regulation requires that it is demonstrated that there is a
difference in factors which affects price comparability. As part of such
demonstration, it has to be shown that the cost concerned, in this case import
charges or indirect taxes, has actually been incurred by the exporting
producer for the product concerned when intended for consumption in the
exporting country and not collected or refunded in respect of the product
exported to the Community. Neither the Pakistani exporting producers nor
the Pakistani authorities could demonstrate a link between any other indirect
taxes and duties paid and the amounts refunded. In addition, the Pakistani
authorities could not specify the indirect taxes or duties for which the
additional refund claimed was allegedly granted. Therefore, the request was
not accepted.
It follows that unless otherwise provided above the conclusions drawn in
recitals (39) to (45) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
 ---pagebreak---                                 4. Dumping margins
(a) General methodology
(28)    The representatives of the Indian and the Egyptian co-operating exporting
        producers, which were not included in the sample and, therefore, were not
        investigated, argued that the dumping margins established for investigated
        state owned companies should not be taken into account when calculating the
        dumping margins to be attributed to private owned companies not
        investigated.
        As already explained above, the Commission cannot treat differently state
        and privately owned companies where all .companies are operating in free
        market conditions. Therefore, the claim cannot be accepted and the
        provisions of recitals (46) to (48) of the provisional Regulation are
        confirmed.
(b) Dumping margins for companies in the sample
(29)    The comparison between the normal value and the export price, in
        accordance with the methodology of the provisional Regulation and after
        revisions, where appropriate, following the arguments made by interested
        parties, showed the existence of dumping in respect of all companies
        investigated. The definitive dumping margins expressed as a percentage of
        the CIF import price at the Community frontier are the following:
                                                                                 20
 ---pagebreak--- India
Anglo French Textiles                        24,7%
The Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co Ltd       7,7%
Nowrosjee Wadia & Sons Ltd                    7,7%
Madhu Industries Ltd                         17,0%
Madhu International                          17,0%
Omkar Exports                                14,2%
Prakash Cotton Mills Ltd                      2,6%
Egypt
Damietta Spinning & Weaving Co               13,5%
El Nasr Wool and Selected Textiles Co (STIA) 13,5%
Orient Linen & Cotton Co                     13.5%
Stephanie Textile                             8,7%
Pakistan
Al-Abid Silk Mills Ltd                        6,7%
AlAbid Export (Pvt) Ltd                       6,7%
Al-Karam Textile Mills Ltd                    1,3% (de minimis)
Fateh Textile Mills Ltd                       6,3%
Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd                   0,1% (de minimis)
Excel Textile Mills Ltd                       0,1% (de minimis)
Mohammad Farooq Textile Mills Ltd             1,8% (de minimis)
                                                             21
 ---pagebreak--- (c) Dumping margin for co-operating companies not in the sample
(30)    Co-operating companies not selected in the sample (see recitals (17) and (21)
        of the provisional Regulation and recitals (12) and (13) above) were
        attributed the average dumping margin of the companies in the sample,
        weighted on the basis of their export turnover to the Community. In
        accordance with Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation, when calculating this
        average dumping margin de minimis margins established have been
        disregarded. Expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the
        Community frontier, these definitive dumping margins are the following:
              India         11,6%
              Egypt         13,5% (for state-owned companies)
              Egypt         13,0% (for other companies)
              Pakistan     6,4%>
       The companies entitled to the reduced rates are set out in an annex to this
       Regulation.
(d) Dumping margin for non-co-operating companies
(31)   For non co-operating companies a dumping margin was determined on the
       basis of the facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic
       Regulation. Since the level of co-operation was high, it was considered
       appropriate to set the dumping margin for non co-operating companies in
       each country concerned at the level of the highest dumping margin
       established for a company in each sample because it would constitute a bonus
       for non-co-operation to assume that the dumping margin attributable to
       exporting producers which did not make themselves known is lower than that
       found for a co-operating exporting producer.
                                                                                  ??
 ---pagebreak---       These definitive dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CI F
      import price at the Community frontier, are the following:
            India           24,7%
            Egypt           13,5%
            Pakistan         6,7%
                      E.      COMMUNITY INDUSTRY
                 1.    . Definition of the Community industry
(32) Exporters from all three exporting countries observed that the complainant
     Community producers taken to be the Community industry made up just
     34% of total Community production. They claimed that this showed that a
     majority of bed linen producers in the Community did not support the
     complaint and should therefore be assumed not to be injured, and that the
     Community industry was not therefore representative of total Community
     production.
     However, in response to the provisional measures only two non-complainant
     Community producers, which originally expressed no opinion to the
     Commission on the complaint, expressed opposition to the duties.       The
     combined production of these two producers was less than one third of the
     total production of the complainants. Throughout the proceeding, therefore,
     the complainants therefore represented considerably more than 50%) of the
     collective output of those producers expressing either support for or
     opposition to the complaint.
                                                                              23
 ---pagebreak---  (33) Pakistani exporters also claimed that the Commission had not used the
      correct test in determining whether Community producers which also import
      bed linen from the countries concerned should be excluded from the
      Community industry (recitals (52) to (55) of the provisional Regulation). By
      way of clarification, it is confirmed that the test used in recital (54) was
      whether bed linen imported from the countries concerned accounted for 10%
      of the turnover in bed linen of the companies in question, rather than 10% of
      total company turnover. Under this test it was found and is hereby confirmed
      that none of the sampled companies retained in the list of 35 complainants
      made sufficient imports of the product concerned by this proceeding from the
      countries in question to be excluded from the definition of the Community
      industry.
                               2.       Conclusion
(34)  In conclusion, the finding that the 35 complainant companies represent a
      major proportion of total Community production within the meaning of
      Article 5(4) of the Basic Regulation and that they therefore constitute the
      Community industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Basic
      Regulation is confirmed.
                                                                                 24
 ---pagebreak---                                    F.       INJURY
     1.         Cumulative assessment of the effects of the dumped imports
(35)    Pakistani exporters argued that imports from Pakistan should not have been
        cumulated with those from India and Egypt for the assessment of injury. In
        support of this they pointed out that imports from Pakistan had grown less
        fast than those from the other two countries, that according to Eurostat the
        average price of the imports from Pakistan was higher and had risen while
       the others had fallen, and that the dumping margins calculated for Pakistan
       were on average about half those for the other two countries concerned.
       These arguments were examined. It was noted that imports from Pakistan,
       while rising less quickly than those from India and Egypt (in particular
       because of quota restraints), had nonetheless risen and remained the highest
       of the three exporting countries. As for the Eurostat data on average prices, it
       should be 'remembered that this data groups together a wide variety of
       different products. It was observed among the sampled Pakistani exporters
       that their product mix included a greater proportion of higher value products
       (e.g. satin and other products from finer cotton yarn) than sampled producers
       in India and Egypt. It was consequently found that the data on average prices
       was highly influenced by differences and changes in product mix and could
       not justify differential treatment in the overall analysis of injury.
       Finally, the size of dumping margins for a given country, provided they are
       more than de minimis, is not a criterion for the decision as to whether or not
       to make a cumulative assessment of the effects of the dumped imports.
                                                                                    os
 ---pagebreak--- (36) The cumulative assessment made in the provisional Regulation is therefore
     confirmed under the terms of Article 3(4) of the Basic Regulation.
                     2.        Prices of the dumped imports
(37) Exporters and importers claimed that the Commission's analysis of the
     degree to which the imports concerned undercut the prices of the sampled
     Community producers, and the consequent calculation of injury margins,
     were flawed, for various reasons:
           firstly because the criteria for selection of the "reference products", on
           which the analysis was based, were claimed not to have been
           explained;
           secondly, because the reference products accounted, they claimed, in
           some cases for only a small proportion of EC sales of the sampled
           exporters in the countries concerned, allegedly indicating a lack of
           competition between imported and Community products and a lack of
           reliability of the analysis;
           thirdly, because it was claimed that in making the price comparisons
           inadequate account had been taken of the differences in sales channels
           between Community producers and exporters from the countries
           concerned;
           fourthly, because there were claimed to be quality differences which
           should be taken into account;
                                                                                   26
 ---pagebreak---            fifthly, because it was claimed that products imported and Community
           products falling within the same reference product definition could not
           be compared, there being other criteria besides size, weaving
           construction and finish by which the products differed or because the
           range of constructions considered to be comparable was too wide.
(38) On the first point, it is confirmed that the reference products were selected,
     for each market studied, following consultation with the relevant national
     producers' association and using also information available to the
     Commission. Furthermore, it is confirmed that the investigation showed that
     the sizes, weaving constructions and finishes chosen as reference products
     were indeed among the most prevalent in the markets concerned. Finally, at
     no time did the exporters or their representatives define other products which
     in their view would have been more appropriate for an analysis of
     undercutting.
     On the second point, it was noted that the wide variety of bed linen products
     limited the proportion of each exporter's sales which could accurately be
     compared with sales by the sampled Community producers. Given the
     Commission's intention to conduct accurate comparisons (comparing prices
     only of products matching in size, weaving construction and finish) and the
     limits to the number of different such products for which accurate price
     information could be collected in the time available, it is unsurprising that the
     proportion of each exporter's sales in the Community which could
     reasonably be compared with the products of the sampled Community
     producers was in some exceptional cases as low as 5%. This was particularly
                                                                                    27
 ---pagebreak--- the case of exporters concentrating on simple, high volume products (a
market segment from which the Community industry is how largely excluded
by import penetration). This invalidated neither the finding that there were
significant market segments where the dumped imports competed with
Community production nor the method adopted for assessing undercutting,
since the quantities overall were in all cases considered           sufficiently
representative and in several cases exceeded 30%. In any event, it should be
noted that low export prices in one market segment, given the high
interchangeability of the product concerned, will also have negative effects
on prices in adjacent segments.
On the third point, the exporters substantiated their claim with evidence that
the total mark-up from the CIF export price to the ultimate retail price was
much greater than the level of trade adjustment made by the Commission.
The Commission considered however that this was not relevant information
since prices were not being compared at the level of sale to the ultimate
consumer but at the level of sale to the first independent customer. The
exporters' claim is therefore rejected.
On the fourth point, the claim for adjustment for quality differences was
based on average weights per square metre of the Community and imported
products. Since however the weight per square metre of fabric is a function
of its weaving construction, and since products were compared only when
they corresponded in terms of this construction, there was no justification for
such an adjustment and the claim is therefore rejected.
                                                                              28
 ---pagebreak---      On the fifth point, the Commission considered the arguments but could not
     accept it. This conclusion was reached bearing in mind the large number of
     reference products allowing a detailed analysis and the fact that remaining
     differences within each reference product definition were compensated by a
     price comparison carried out on an average per kilo basis.
(39) The finding in recital (79) of the provisional regulation that the imported
     products undercut the products of the sampled Community producers, and
     the findings of the level of the undercutting, are therefore confirmed.
                 3.      Situation of the Community industry
(40) Exporters from all the exporting countries claimed that the Commission's
     analysis of injury was defective in that it referred to the significant decline in
     total Community production of bed linen in assessing the situation of the
     Community industry. They claimed in particular that information concerning
     companies not included in the definition of the Community industry or which
     no longer produce bed linen cannot be used to construe a finding of material
     injury.
     These claims were examined carefully. It should however be remarked that
     the principal basis for the finding of material injury was the reduced
     profitability and price suppression of the Community industry as observed
     among the sampled companies.
                                                                                     2()
 ---pagebreak--- (41)  In the assessment of injury pursuant to Article 3 of the Basic Regulation, the
      Community institutions have to assess the economic situation of the
      Community industry. This assessment usually covers the analysis of a time
     period of four to five years as in the present case ("assessment period"). Such
      an assessment is commonly based on an analysis of the complaining industry
     and not necessarily on companies accounting for the totality of Community
     production on the ground that 'the situation of a major proportion of the
     Community production is representative for its totality Such an assessment,
     however, also has to take into account the structure and the nature of the
     industry under consideration. In the present case this industry is characterised
     by a high number of operators, in many cases small and medium sized
     companies, and by the fact that it is a sector with relatively low barriers to
     exit. The latter is mainly due to the fact that machinery can be sold or used
     for other products relatively simply. This has the effect that material injury is
     likely to manifest itself through the exit of economic operators within the
     assessment period.
     Consequently, to limit the assessment of injury only to companies which are
     still operational at the end of the assessment period (i.e. at the time of the
     lodging of the complaint) and thus able actively to support a complaint
     would mean that any injury caused to companies which have closed down
     before this point in time would go unconsidered in the analysis. Furthermore,
     it should be noted that this distortion could even be aggravated as the
     surviving complaining companies of the Community industry may have
     benfited, possibly only temporarily, from the disappearance of other
     companies, causing their positive development to be overestimated.
                                                                                   30
 ---pagebreak---       In the present case, it should be noted that 29 companies of the bed linen
      industry have closed down or ceased production: that is, there has been a
      substantial number of companies that have ceased operation. Furthermore,
      given the substantial price undercutting established, the strong increase in the
      volumes of the imports concerned and their consequent rise in market share,
      any relatively positive development of the complaining producers must be
      seen as threatened in the absence of anti-dumping measures.
                               4.       Conclusion
(42) The finding of material injury, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the
     Basic Regulation, is therefore confirmed.
                            G.      CAUSAL LINK
(43) Exporters from all three countries concerned claimed that any material injury
     could be ascribed to the fall in consumption of 7% between 1992 and the
     investigation period. However, as noted in recital (105) of the provisional
     Regulation, the total fall in sales by all Community producers significantly
     exceeded the total fall in consumption. As to the exporters' argument that
     data concerning the totality of Community production were not relevant to
     the determination of whether the dumped imports caused material injury, this
     suggestion is rejected on the. grounds set out in recitals (40) and (41). The
     finding is therefore confirmed that the fall in consumption does not
     contradict the finding that the dumped imports, taken in isolation, have
 ---pagebreak---      caused material injury to the Community industry. The findings concerning
     the causal link between the dumped imports and the material injury suffered
     by the Community industry as set out in recitals (109) to (111) of the
     provisional Regulation are therefore confirmed.
                     H.       COMMUNITY INTEREST
                        1.       Interests of consumers
(44) Certain importers claimed that the impact on consumers would be greater
     than that assessed in the provisional Regulation. In its provisional findings
     (recital (124) of the provisional Regulation) the Commission had noted that
     the imports concerned by the proceeding were sold to the ultimate consumer
     at prices very much higher than the price at the Community frontier and
     considered that the duty would therefore represent a smaller proportion of the
     ultimate price to the consumer than the ad valorem percentage levied. Since
     subsequent costs (e.g. of transport, storage and retailing) would not be
     increased by the imposition of a duty, the impact on consumers of the
     proposed measures was evaluated as minor.
(45) Certain parties challenged these arguments. Some claimed that retailers set
     prices to the consumer at a set percentage mark-up from their purchase price,
     so that the price to the consumer would rise by the same percentage as the
     duty imposed. Some retailers even claimed that the percentage increase in
     the price to the consumer could be higher than the duty level: they claimed
     that products were sold in particular price brackets and that if the duty
     increased the price of a given product above one bracket, it would be priced
     in the next bracket, an increase which might be as high as 20%.
 ---pagebreak---       The Commission considered that these claims did not constitute a reason to
      depart from the provisional findings. It was concluded that pressure of
      competition between retailers should ensure that price increases to consumers
     would not exceed the cost increase attributable directly to the duty. The view
     reached by the Commission at the provisional stage that this duty would have
     only a minor impact on consumers, especially when compared with other
     factors such as currency fluctuations, is therefore confirmed. It should be
     noted in this context that this conclusion was not subsequently contested or
     commented on by any organisation representing consumers following the
     provisional measures.
                        2.       Interests of other users
(46) Following the imposition of provisional duties, certain parties came forward
     claiming that the duties imposed would have a severe negative effect on their
     businesses. These were, in particular, companies involved in the rental of
     linen to hotels and other institutions. An association representing such users
     had come forward before provisional measures and had been invited by the
     Commission to supply relevant information but had not done so.
     The parties coming forward after the imposition of provisional duties were
     similarly asked to provide relevant information such as the proportion of
     their costs represented by purchases of bed linen but none did so within the
     time limits specified in the provisional Regulation. Some of them sought
     exclusion of certain types of bed linen from the scope of the current
     proceeding (see recitals (4) and (6) above). In doing so they indicated that
 ---pagebreak---      the types of bed linen used were those capable of multiple use and frequent
     industrial washing. The Commission therefore took the view that while these
     businesses would suffer some impact from the imposition of measures, the
     original costs of purchasing the bed linen concerned would be minor when
     compared with the continuing service costs of laundry, collection and
     delivery. The claims therefore gave no compelling reason why measures
     should not be imposed.
                   1.        ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
                            1.       Definitive duties
(47) Injury margins remain above the level of the dumping margins in all cases.
     Therefore a definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed at the level of
     the dumping margins set out in recitals (29) to (31) above, with the exception
     of companies with de minimis dumping margins for which no duty should be
     imposed.
                   2.        Collection of provisional duties
(48) The magnitude of the dumping margins found for the exporting producers
     and the seriousness of injury caused to the Community industry would
     normally justify the definitive collection of the provisional duties up to the
     level of the definitive duties.
 ---pagebreak---         Some exporters and importers concerned argued however that the provisional
        Regulation was not imposed within the period specified in the last sentence
        of Article 7 (1) of the basic Regulation. In the light of the uncertainty which
        has arisen as to whether, when judged by reference to the provisions of
        Regulation (EEC) No 1182/71 determining the rules applicable to periods,
        dates and time limits5, the deadline was met, the Council considers that in
        order to avoid legal uncertainty, the provisional duties should not be
        definitively collected.
                      3.        Certification of handloom items
(49)    In order to benefit from the exemption for handloom products referred to in
        recital (7), a certificate of handloom origin should be required.          The
        certificate should be of the form attached in Annex II and it should be issued
        by the competent authorities of the country of origin.          The certificate
        foreseen in Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 3030/936 on common rules for
        imports of certain textile products from third countries should also be
        regarded as adequate for the granting of the exemption.
(50)    The Commission will monitor closely handloom bed linen imports from the
        countries concerned and if the circumstances so require will take all the
        appropriate measures.
5
     OJ No L 124, 8.6.71, p. 1
6
     OJNoL275, 8.11.93, p. 1
                                                                                     35
 ---pagebreak---                4.      Future requests for new exporter treatment
(51)   Since sampling has been used in the investigation, a new exporters' review
       pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation with the objective of
       determining individual dumping margins cannot be initiated in this
       proceeding. However, as already explained in recitals (12) and (13), in order
       to ensure equal treatment between any genuine new exporting producer and
       the co-operating companies not included in the sample, it is considered that
      provision should be made for the weighted average duty imposed on the
       latter companies to be applied to any new exporting producers which would
      otherwise be entitled to a review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic
      Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
                                    Article 1
1.    A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of bed linen of
      cotton fibres, pure or mixed with man-made fibres or flax (flax not being the
      dominant fibre), bleached, dyed or printed originating in India, Pakistan and
      Egypt, not covered by the provisions of Article 2 and falling within the
      following CN codes:
                    CN code                 Tariccode
                   ex6302 21 00             6302 2100 81
                                            6302 21 00 89
                    ex6302 22 90              6302 22 90 19
                  _ _ _ _ _                 6302 31 10 90
                    ex6302 31 90             6302 3190 90
                    ex6302 32 90              6302 32 90 19
                                                                                 36
 ---pagebreak---  2.      Subject to paragraphs 3 and 4, the rates of the definitive anti-dumping duty
 applicable to the net, free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, shall be as
 follows for products originating in:
                        Country                            Rate of duty    Taric additional
                                                                                  code
Egypt                                                    13,5%             8900
India                                                    24,7 %            8900
Pakistan                                                 6,7 %             8900
3.      Products manufactured and sold for export by the exporting producers listed in
Annex I, shall be subject to the following anti-dumping duty rates:
                    Country                          Rate of duty         Taric additional
                                                                                code
Egypt                                             13%                   8041
India                                             11,6%                 8042
Pakistan                                         6,4%                   8043
4.      Products manufactured and sold for export by the companies listed below shall
be subject to the following anti-dumping duty rates:
                                                                                       37
 ---pagebreak---  Country           Manufacturer                 Rate of duty   Taric additional
                                                                     code
India    Anglo French Textiles             24,7 %            8044
         The     Bombay       Dyeing     & 7,7 %             8045
         Manufacturing Co Ltd
         Nowrqsjee Wadia & Sons Ltd        7,7 %             8045
         Madhu Industries Ltd               17,0 %           8046
         Madhu International               17,0%             8046
         Omkar Exports                     14,2%             8047
         Prakash Cotton Mills Ltd          2,6 %             8048
 Country           Manufacturer                Rate of duty    Taric additional
                                                                     code
Egypt    Stephanie Textile                 8,7 %             8049
 Country           Manufacturer                Rate of duty   Taric additional
                                                                    code
Pakistan Al-Abid Silk Mills Ltd            6,7 %             8050
         Al-Abid Export (Pvt) Ltd          6,7 %             8050
         Al-Karam Textile Mills Ltd        0,0 %             8051
         Fateh Textile Mills Ltd           6,3 %             8052
         Mohammad       Farooq     Textile 0,0 %             8051
         Mills Ltd
         Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd       0,0 %             8051
         Excel Textile Mills Ltd           0,0%              8051
                                                                           38
 ---pagebreak--- 5. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties
   shall apply.
                                   Article 2
   Products classified under the CN codes mentioned in Article 1(1) above and
   made of fabrics woven on looms operated exclusively by hand or foot are
   exempted from the duty imposed in Article 1 of this Regulation (TARIC
   codes 6302 21 00 21; 6302 2100 29; 6302 22 90 11; 6302 31 10 10; 6302
   3190 10; 6302 32 90 11).
   The exemption is granted only to products accompanied on their release for
   free circulation in the Community by either
   (i)    a certificate from the competent authorities of, the country of origin
   which conforms to the model attached as Annex II to this Regulation; or
   (ii)   a certificate issued pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) 3030/93.
   Certificates issued pursuant to paragraph 2(i) shall only be valid if the
   countries of origin have informed the Commission of the names and
   addresses of the governmental authorities situated in their territory which are
   empowered to issue these certificates, together with specimens of stamps
   used by those authorities and the names and addresses of the relevant
   governmental authorities responsible for the control of the certificates. The
   stamps shall be valid as from the date of receipt by the Commission of the
   specimens.
                                                                                39
 ---pagebreak--- 4.      Certificates issued pursuant to paragraph 2 shall only be valid if presented
        with options (a) and (c) in box 11 deleted and if they certify that the products
        concerned fulfil the description in option (b).
 5.     The appropriate provisions implementing the Community Customs Code,
        and notably the provisions concerning administrative cooperation contained
        in Article 93 et seq of Regulation (EEC) 2454/937, as amended in particular
        by Regulation (EC) 12/978, shall apply mutatis mutandis.
                                         Article 3
        Where any new exporting producer from the countries concerned provides
        sufficient evidence to the Commission that
                    - it did not export to the Community the products described in
                    Article 1(1) during the investigation period (1 July 1995 to 30 June
                    1996),
7
    OJ No L 253, 11.10.93, p. 1
8
    O J N o L 9 , 13.1.97, p. 1.
                                                                                      40
 ---pagebreak---           - it is not related to any of the exporters or producers in the
          exporting country which are subject to the anti-dumping measures
          imposed by this Regulation,
          - it has actually exported to the Community the products concerned
          after the investigation period on which the measures are based, or it
         has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a
          significant quantity to the Community,
then the Council, acting by simple majority on a proposal submitted by the
Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee, may amend Article
1 (3) of this Regulation by adding that new exporting producer to the list in
Annex I mentioned in that Article.
                                Article 4
Amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty imposed by
Regulation (EC) 1069/97 shall be released.
                                                                            41
 ---pagebreak---                                        Article 5
        This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in
        the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member
States.
Done at Brussels,
                             For the Council
                                                                                    42
 ---pagebreak---                                       ANNEX I
 EGYPT
 AMC Arab Metals Co., Cairo
 Dantèx Ltd., Cairo
 Egyptex, Cairo
El Naggar Egyptian Co. For Furniture Elmahalla
Nile Tex, Alexandria
Wintex-Wahab International Textiles Ltd., Cairo
Zahret El Mehalla for Weaving, Mehalla El Kubra - El-Seka El-Wosta
INDIA
A. Shashikant & Co., Mumbai (Bombay)
Ajit Impex, Mumbai (Bombay)
Akai Impex Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay)
Alps Industries Ltd., Ghaziabad
Amitara Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay)
Anunay Fab. Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad
B.X. International, Mumbai (Bombay)
Badridass Gauridatt Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay)
Brijmohan Purusottamdas, Mumbai (Bombay)
Bunts Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay)
Chhaganlal Kasturchand & Co. Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay)
                                                                   43
 ---pagebreak---  Classic Connections, Mumbai (Bombay)
 Concepts International India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon
 Cotfab Exports, Mumbai (Bombay)
 Country House, New Delhi
 Deepak Traders, Mumbai (Bombay)
 Dhanalakshmi Weaving Works, Cannanore
 Divya Textiles, Mumbai (Bombay)
 Dyna-Impex Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay)
Elite Exports, Mumbai (Bombay)
Emperor Trading Company, Tirupur
Encore Themes, New Delhi
Govindji Trikamdas & Co., Mumbai (Bombay)
Hindustan Textiles, Cannanore
Ibats, New Delhi
Incotex, Mumbai (Bombay)
Indo Euro Textiles Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi
Indo Export Corporation, New Delhi
International Services, Chennai (Madras)
Intex Exports, Mumbai (Bombay)
Invitation Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay)
Jindal India, Mumbai (Bombay)
Jindal Worldwide Ltd., Ahmedabad
K. Overseas, New Delhi
Kanodia Fabrics (International), Mumbai (Bombay)
Kaushalya Export, Ahmedabad
Kitu Bhandari Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi
                                                 44
 ---pagebreak---  Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd., Chennai (Madras)
 Lakshmi Apparels and Wovens Limited, Coimbatore
 Mahalaxmi Exports, Ahmedabad
Maritex Exports, Mumbai (Bombay)
Marwaha Exports, New Delhi
Milano International (India) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai (Madras)
Minar Exports, Mumbai (Bombay)
Mridul Enterprises, New Delhi
Niaz International, Farrukhabad
P.J. Exports, Mumbai (Bombay)
Patodia Syntex Ltd, Mumbai (Bombay)
Pattex Exports, Mumbai (Bombay)
Prem Textiles. Indore
Punch Exporters, Mumbai (Bombay)
Raghuvir Exim Ltd., Ahmedabad
Rajka Designs Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad
Sanna Inttex, Mumbai (Bombay)
Santex Exports, Mumbai (Bombay)
S. D. Enterprises, Mumbai (Bombay)
Shetty Garments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay)
Shivani Exports, Mumbai (Bombay)
Shorewala Exim Int'l, New Delhi
Shrijee Enterprises, Mumbai (Bombay)
Shruti Designs Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay)
Sohanlal Balkrishna Export, Mumbai (Bombay)
Southern Sales & Services, Bangalore
                                                         45
 ---pagebreak---  Standard Industries Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay)
 Starline Exports, Mumbai (Bombay)
 Sumangalam Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay)
 Sunil Impex, Mumbai (Bombay)
 Sunil Silk Mills, Mumbai (Bombay)
Sunny Made Ups, Mumbai (Bombay)
Suresh & Co., Mumbai (Bombay)
Surya International, Panipat
Syndicate Impex, Ahmedabad
Syntex Corporation Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay)
Tata Exports Limited, Mumbai (Bombay)
Texcellence Overseas, Mumbai (Bombay)
The Hindoostan Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay)
The Ruby Mills Limited, Mumbai (Bombay)
Trend Setters, Mumbai (Bombay)
Trend Setters K.F.T.Z., Mumbai (Bombay)
Vepar Private Limited, Ahmedabad
Vigneshwara Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Bombay)
Wooltop Weaves, Chennai (Madras)
PAKISTAN
Adamjees Impex International, Karachi
Afroze Textile Industries (Private) Ltd., Karachi
Amer Fabrics Limited, Lahore
                                                       46
 ---pagebreak---  Anjum Textile Mills (Private) Ltd., Faisalabad
 Arzoo International (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad
 Arzoo Textile Mills Ltd., Faisalabad
 Asco International (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi
 Aziz Sons, Karachi
 B.I.L. Exporters, Karachi
Be Be Jan Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad
Bêla Textiles Limited, Karachi
Dyer Textile & Printing Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi
Eksons Sales Organisation, Karachi
Elahi Enterprises Ltd., Lahore
Elasta Amtex Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi
Fairdeal Textiles (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi
Faisal Industries, Karachi
Fashion Knit Industries, Karachi
Gohar Enterprises, Faisalabad
Gohar International (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad
H.A. Industries (Private) Ltd., Faisalabad
Home Furnishings Ltd., Karachi
Kam International, Karachi
Kausar Textile Industries (Pty) Ltd., Faisalabad
Kohinoor Textile Mills Ltd., Rawalpindi
Latif Int'l (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad
Liberty Mills Limited, Karachi
Linex International (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi
Lotus Textile Industries Limited. Karachi
                                                   47
 ---pagebreak---  Lucky Impex, Karachi
 Lucky Tex, Karachi
 Lucky Textile Mills, Karachi
 M.F.M.Y. Industries Ltd., Karachi
 M.R. Export (Private) Ltd., Lahore
 Mukaty Corporation, Karachi
Nadia Textile International (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore
Nakshbandi Industries Limited, Karachi
Nash Garments (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi
Nina Industries Ltd., Karachi
Nishat Mills Limited, Karachi
Nishitex Enterprises, Karachi
Nu-tex (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi
Parsons Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi
S.P.R.L. Rehman Brothers, Lahore
Sas Texexport (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi
Shabbir Associates, Karachi
Sharif Textile Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad
Sitara Textile Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad
Syncotex Sa Agencies, Karachi
The Crescent Textile Mills Limited, Faisalabad
Today's Sportswear Inc., Karachi
Towellers Limited, Karachi
Unibro Industries Limited, Karachi
Union Exports (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi
ZN Textiles (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad
                                                  48
 ---pagebreak---                                                                            ANNEXII
 1    Exporter (name, full address, country)
                                                                                         ORIGINAL                          2   N<
      Exportateur {nom, adresse complète, pays)
                                                                                       CERTIFICATE in regard to HANDLOOMS, TEXTILE HANDICRAFTS and
                                                                                          TRADITIONAL TEXTILE PRODUCTS, of the COTTAGE INDUSTRY,
                                                                                       issued in conformity with and under the conditions regulating trade in
                                                                                                   textile products with the European Community
     Consignee (name, full address, country)
                                                                                        CERTIFICAT relatif aux TISSUS TISSSES SUR METIERS A MAIN, aux
     Destinataire (nom, adresse complète, pays)
                                                                                        PRODUITS TEXTILES FAITS A LA MAIN, et aux PRODUITS TEXTILES
                                                                                        RELEVANT DU FOLKLORE TRADITIONNEL, DE FABRICATION ARTI-
                                                                                       SANALE, délivré en conformité avec et sous les conditions régissant
                                                                                        les échanges de produits textiles avec la Communauté Européenne
                                                                                Country of origin                         5    Country of destination
                                                                                Pays d'origine                                 Pays de destination
     Place and date of shipment - Means of transport                        7 Supplementary details
     Lieu et date d'embarquement - Moyen de transport                           Données supplémentaires
    Marks and numbers - Number and kind of packages - DESCRIPTION OF GOODS                                                9   Quantity       10 FOB Value (1)
    Marques et numéros - Nombre et nature des colis - DESIGNATION DES MARCHANDISES                                            Quantité             Valeur FOB (1)
11 CERTIFICATION BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY - VISA DE L'AUTORITE COMPETENTE
   I, the undersigned, certify that the consignment described above includes only the following textile products of the cottage industry of the country
   shown in box N ° 4 :
   a) fabrics woven on looms operated solely by hand of foot (handlooms) (2)
   b) garments or other textile articles obtained manually from the fabrics described under a) and sewn solely be hand without the aid of any machine
   (handicrafts) (2)
   c) traditional folklore handicraft textile products made by hand, as defined in the list agreed between the European Community and the country shown
   in box N° 4.
   Je soussigné certifie que l'envoi décrit ci-dessus contient exclusivement les produits textiles suivants relevant de la fabrication artisanale du pays
   figurant dans la case 4 :
   a) tissus tisssés sur des métiers actionnés à la main ou au pied (handlooms) (2)
   b) vêtements ou autres articles textiles obtenus manuellement à partir de tissus décrits sous a) et cousus uniquement à la main sans l'aide d'une
   machine (handicrafts) (2)
   c) produits textiles relevant du folklore traditionnel fabriqués à la main, comme définis dans la liste convenue entre la Communauté européenne et le
   pays indiqué dans la case 4.
12 Competent authority (name, full address, country)
   Autorité compétente (nom, adresse complète, pays)                                       A t - A.                                On - le
                                                                                            Signature                                         Stamp - Cachet
 ---pagebreak---                                                                    ISSN 0254-1475
                                                            COM(97) 591 final
                                              DOCUMENTS
EN                                                                     02 11
                                    Catalogue number : CB-CO-97-605-EN-C
                                                             ISBN 92-78-27451-8
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
L-2985 Luxembourg
                                            JTCo