CELEX: 31995R1006
Language: en
Date: 1995-05-03 00:00:00
Title: Council Regulation (EC) No 1006/95 of 3 May 1995 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3433/91 in so far as it imposes a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters originating in the People's Republic of China

Avis juridique important

|

31995R1006

Council Regulation (EC) No 1006/95 of 3 May 1995 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3433/91 in so far as it imposes a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters originating in the People's Republic of China  

Official Journal L 101 , 04/05/1995 P. 0038 - 0048

COUNCIL REGULATION  (EC) No 1006/95 of 3 May 1995 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3433/91 in so far as it imposes a  definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters  originating in the People's Republic of ChinaTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped  or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community  (1), and in  particular Article 14 thereof, Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consultations within the Advisory  Committee, Whereas: A.  PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS (1)  By Regulation (EEC) No 3433/91  (2), the Council imposed a  definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters  falling within CN code ex 9613  10  00 and originating, inter alia, in the People's Republic of  China. The rate applicable to products originating in that country was set at 16,9  %. (2)  By a notice published in March 1992  (3) the Commission initiated a review of Regulation (EEC)  No 3433/91 in so far as it concerned certain Chinese companies which alleged, in particular, that  they did not export the product concerned during the period covered by the original investigation  (a so-called newcomer review). By Decision 93/377/EEC  (4), the Commission terminated the above  review investigation without any changes to the measures in force. B.  CURRENT REVIEW INVESTIGATION (3)  In November 1993, the Commission received a request for a  review of the above Regulation in so far as it concerns imports originating in the People's  Republic of China. The request was lodged by the European Federation of Lighter Manufacturers,  acting on behalf of Community producers together representing a major proportion of the Community  production of the product in question. The request alleged changed circumstances since the  conclusion of the original investigation in that there had been an increase in the dumping margin  for exports to the Community from the People's Republic of China and, consequently, further injury.  It was considered that the review request contained sufficient evidence to justify the opening of  an investigation. (4)  In December 1993 the Commission announced by a notice  (5) the initiation of a review of  Regulation (EEC) No 3433/91 in respect of imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint  lighters originating in the People's Republic of China, in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation  (EEC) No 2423/88 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Basic Regulation`). (5)  The Commission officially advised the exporters and importers known to be concerned, the  representatives of the exporting country and the complainants and gave the parties concerned the  opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing. (6)  One importer, two exporters and one producer of the People's Republic of China made their  views known in writing. Four Community producers, Bic SA, Swedish Match SA, Tokai Seiki GmbH and  Flamagas SA also submitted their views in writing. Several of the abovementioned companies  requested and were granted hearings. (7)  The Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for the purpose of  its investigation and carried out investigations at the premises of the following companies: Community producers (factories and/or sales offices): -  Bic Deutschland GmbH, Ettlingen, Germany -  Bic SA, Clichy, France -  Bic SA, Redon, France -  Biro Bic Ltd, London, United Kingdom -  Bryant & May, High Wycombe, United Kingdom -  Flamagas SA, Barcelona, Spain -  Laforest Bic SA, Tarragona, Spain -  Swedish Match, Visselhoevede, Germany -  Swedish Match SA, Rillieux-la-Pape, France -  Tokai Seiki GmbH, Moenchengladbach, Germany -  Tokai Vesta Hispania SA, Alcalá de Henares, Spain Exporters: -  Capital Line Industries Ltd, Hong Kong -  Gladstrong Investments Ltd, Hong Kong Unrelated importer: -  Troeber GmbH, Hamburg, Germany. (8)  The Commission also sought information from producers in the Philippines which was used as the  analogue country for the establishment of normal value (see recitals 19 to 27). Detailed and  complete information was provided by and verified at Swedish Match Philippines Inc., Manila,  Philippines. (9)  The exporters and the sole importer which cooperated, requested and were informed of the  essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the amendment  of the definitive anti-dumping duty in force on imports of the product concerned originating in the  People's Republic of China. The Commission took into account, where appropriate, the submissions of  the parties concerned. (10)  The investigation of dumping covered the period 1 January to 30 September 1993 (hereinafter  referred to as the 'investigation period`). C.  PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION, LIKE PRODUCT AND COMMUNITY INDUSTRY (i)  Product under  consideration (11)  The product subject to the definitive anti-dumping duty referred to in recital 1 is  gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters (hereinafter referred to as 'disposable flint  lighters`). It should be recalled in this respect that there are other disposable lighters on the market (piezo  lighters) the technical characteristics of which are quite different to the abovementioned product.  Therefore they were not considered to be identical to the product concerned in the original  investigation, were not covered by the original investigation and were excluded from the scope of  the measures. (12)  The importer which cooperated claimed that, in addition to the already existing separation  between flint and piezo disposable lighters, a new distinction should be made amongst disposable  flint lighters, between plastic body and nylon body lighters. This importer claimed that two  markets for disposable flint lighters existed, one offering luxury nylon-based lighters and the  other so-called standard plastic body lighters. Alleging that all Chinese disposable flint lighters  had a plastic body, this importer requested that the product under consideration be restricted to  such products. (13)  In the course of the investigation carried out by the Commission, it was found that such a  narrow definition of the product under consideration would not be justified, notably because the  alleged divisibility of the disposable flint lighters market into segments, which is based on  differences in physical characteristics and consumers' perception of the product, is not confirmed  by facts. The product in question is indeed manufactured in different sizes and models and different  materials may be used in the composition of the lighter body. However, all these disposable flint  lighters have the same basic technical characteristics, the same basic application and perform the  same function. In contrast to this, it has to be noted that the distinction between flint and piezo  disposable lighters was based on differences in technical characteristics which are clearly  established. In addition, it is also clear that the difference between flint and piezo lighters is perceptible  to consumers, while the difference between disposable flint lighters with a body made of either  plastic or nylon, is not. Indeed, the product concerned is a disposable one and the statement that  consumers would be aware of the abovementioned difference is not evidenced, among other things, by  the existence of clearly separate channels of sales. On the contrary, all disposable flint lighters  are sold without distinction in the same kind of shops to customers having the same expectations  and nothing is done to make consumers aware of the alleged differences between plastic body and  nylon body lighters. In particular, it should be noted that plastic body and nylon body lighters  are not easily distinguishable since they are both available in translucent and opaque forms. (14)  Therefore, the whole range of models of disposable flint lighters is to be considered as  forming one single category of product, irrespective of the material used to manufacture the body,  which represents, in any case, only a minor difference in physical characteristics, as well as in  cost terms (see recital 36). The findings of the original investigation in respect of the product under consideration, as  recalled in recital 11, are therefore confirmed. (ii)  Like product (15)  The importer which cooperated claimed that the findings of the original investigation in  respect of the like product definition should be considered, in order to take account of the fact  that a Community producer, newly involved in the proceeding, was manufacturing plastic body  lighters, allegedly 'identical` to those imported from the People's Republic of China, while other  Community producers, as well as the cooperating producer in the analogue country, were producing  nylon body lighters which should be considered according to this importer as, at most, 'similar` to  Chinese lighters. It should be stressed again in this respect that a minor physical difference, such as the material  used for the manufacture of the lighter body, which has no impact on the basic technical  characteristics, basic application and function of the product and which is not perceptible to  consumers, is insufficient to justify a distinction being made between allegedly 'identical` and  'similar` disposable flint lighters. This conclusion applies to the comparison of disposable flint  lighters imported from the People's Republic of China with, respectively, all those produced and  sold in the Community and those produced and sold by the cooperating producer in the analogue  country. (16)  The same importer also made representations regarding various physical differences said to  have an impact on the like product definition. However, these allegations, in general already  addressed during the original investigation, were not supported by decisive new evidence that would  justify their being taken into account in the like product definition, notably as regards the  consumers' perception of the product. (17)  In these circumstances, it is confirmed that the disposable flint lighters produced and sold  by the Community industry and those imported from the People's Republic of China possess  sufficiently similar basic physical and technical characteristics for them to be considered a like  product. While there may be some minor differences between the imported product from the People's  Republic of China and the Community production, these differences are not such as to warrant a  finding that they should not be regarded as like products. The findings of the original  investigation in respect of the like product definition are therefore confirmed. As explained under recitals 26 and 36, the above conclusion is equally valid for the disposable  flint lighters produced and sold by the cooperating producer in the analogue country. (iii)  Community industry (18)  In the light of the above, the claim that the Community industry should be redefined as  comprising only the Community producer manufacturing plastic body lighters was rejected. On this  basis, it was found that during the investigation period, the Community producers on behalf of  which the request for a review was lodged, represented more than 70  % of total Community  production of the like product. Accordingly, it is concluded that the producers in question  constitute the 'Community industry` within the meaning of Article 4 (5) of the Basic Regulation. D.  DUMPING (a)  Normal value (i)  Analogue country (19)  Since the People's Republic of China is not a market economy country, normal value had to be  determined on the basis of information obtained in a market economy country (so-called analogue  country) in accordance with Article 2 (5) of the Basic Regulation. For this purpose, the complaint  suggested that Thailand be used as the analogue country as in the original investigation and  contact was made with the two Thai producers that had cooperated with the said investigation. On  this occasion, the Thai producers did not cooperate. (20)  Thus, contact was also made for this purpose with one Korean producer and two producers in  the Philippines. Only the producers in the Philippines indicated that they were willing to  cooperate with the Commission and submitted replies to the Commission's questionnaire. However, in  the case of one producer in the Philippines, the reply was too limited and more details were  requested. Subsequently, the producer concerned informed the Commission that it was not willing to  supply more detailed information. Consequently, this producer was considered as uncooperative, with  the result that only one company remained as a possible source of information concerning the  Philippines. Following disclosure of the essential findings of the investigation, the importer which cooperated  claimed that a Hong Kong Company, Cli-Claque Ltd, allegedly manufacturing flint disposable lighters  in the Philippines, should also have been contacted. The existence of this alleged producer in the  Philippines was only brought to the attention of the Commission at an extremely late stage of the  investigation and could not, therefore, be considered without significantly impeding the  investigation. (21)  Since no other possibility existed for determining normal value, a change in the analogue  country could not, therefore, be avoided. In the light of the recent jurisprudence of the Court of  Justice regarding the criteria applicable to the choice of analogue countries, the following were  verified to assess the appropriateness of the Philippines for this purpose; -  representativeness of the market concerned: the size of its domestic market makes the Philippines a representative country for the  establishment of normal value for the People's Republic of China (total domestic sales of the  cooperating producer in the Philippines amount to more than 5  % of Chinese exports to the  Community); -  openness of the market: the Filipino market is open to competition: the local production of disposable lighters is facing  price competition mainly due to substantial imports. The structure of demand also favours  competition since many operators, such as supermarkets and medium or small-sized retailers are  present on the market; -  access to basic materials: finally, it does not appear that significant differences exist between China and the Philippines  regarding the ease of access to basic materials. It is true that some parts and components are  imported in the Philippines but Chinese producers also import from suppliers located outside China  some of the most sensitive parts of lighters, such as the flint. Overall, the availability of parts  of lighters appears to be at least as good in the Philippines as it is in the People's Republic of  China. (22)  However, given that the company which cooperated in the Philippines is part of a group of  companies of which a complainant is also part, the Commission also considered it necessary to  analyse the implications of the existence of such links, with a view to determining whether this  situation had any distorting effect on the data submitted and, accordingly, whether this  information could or could not be used in the framework of the current review investigation. (23)  An in-depth examination of the costs of production supplied by the Filipino producer  concerned showed that due to the fact that certain parts used in the manufacture of disposable  flint lighters were bought from related parties, additional costs were incurred. Therefore, for the  purpose of making a reasonable and appropriate profitability test, the additional costs in question  were deducted. After such adjustment, it was found that the prices practised by the cooperating  Filipino producer for sales of the like product on the domestic market in the ordinary course of  trade permitted the recovery of all costs incurred in the ordinary course of trade plus a normal  profit margin. In these circumstances, it was concluded that normal value could be based, in accordance with  Article 2 (5) (a) (i) of the Basic Regulation, on the prices at which disposable flint lighters  were actually sold for consumption on the domestic market in the Philippines. (24)  This, together with the abovementioned elements concerning the standing of the Philippines as  analogue country, led the Commission to consider that the Philippines was an appropriate and not  unreasonable choice. Interested parties were informed in due time of this proposed course of  action. The main comments they have made in this respect are discussed below, as well as under  recitals 28 to 31. (25)  The exporters concerned either agreed or did not react to the proposal to use the Philippines  as the analogue country. (26)  Within the time limit granted for comments regarding the choice of the analogue country, the  importer having cooperated indicated that the Philippines would only constitute an appropriate  choice if the data used would concern a Filipino producer manufacturing plastic body lighters and  having no links with the Community industry. As concerns the alleged physical differences between plastic body and nylon body lighters, it has  to be noted that the arguments put forward are identical to those raised in respect of the  disposable flint lighters produced and sold by the Community industry in the context of the  determination of the product under consideration and of the like product definition. As explained  under recitals 12 to 17, the Commission considered that all disposable flint lighters form one  single category of product and that plastic body and nylon body disposable flint lighters have to  be considered as like products. This conclusion is also valid in the context of the choice of the  analogue country. With regard to the possible influence of existing links, the Commission  considered that the examination set out in recital 23 had provided ample evidence that, provided  that normal value is based on domestic selling prices, the concern expressed was without  foundation. This importer also suggested that Mexico be chosen as the analogue country. However, this proposal  was made only in September 1994, i.e. more than five months after the deadline set for comments on  the issue and could not, therefore, be considered without significantly impeding the  investigation. (27)  The conclusion that the Philippines constitutes an appropriate and not unreasonable choice  for the purpose of establishing normal value for the People's Republic of China in accordance with  Article 2 (5) of the Basic Regulation is, therefore, confirmed. (ii)  Claims for an application of Article 2 (6) of the Basic Regulation (28)  Some interested parties claimed that normal value should have been established on the basis  of Article 2 (6) of the Basic Regulation, i.e. in accordance with the provisions applicable when a  product is not imported directly from the country of origin but exported to the Community from an  intermediate country, and that, in this context, normal value should have been established in the  exporting country, i.e. Hong Kong. (29)  It should be noted that only a limited number of Chinese exporters and one unrelated importer  cooperated with the Commission. It so happens that the cooperating companies either exported to or  imported into the Community the Chinese lighters via Hong Kong. These companies represent around 53   % of total exports to the European Community. As concerns the cooperating exporters located in  Hong Kong, which represent around 13  % of total exports of Chinese lighters to the European  Community, the Commission has established that they also sell Chinese lighters on their domestic  market. However, for the other companies (i.e. non-cooperating exporters whose importers did not  cooperate), the 'exporting route` was not known. (30)  In this context, the Commission is of the opinion that, as a general rule, the provisions of  Article 2 (6) are not applicable to imports originating in a non-market economy country. However,  in the present case, it is likely that the vast majority of Chinese disposable flint lighters were  simply transhipped in Hong Kong. Concerning the existence of production in the country of export,  it would appear, according to information made available to the Commission, that there was no  production of finished disposable flint lighters in Hong Kong during the investigation period.  Finally, as far as sales prices in the country of export are concerned, since the lighters  concerned are either manufactured in China under sub-contracting agreements or the parties involved  are related, the Commission cannot be satisfied that these sales were made in the ordinary course  of trade. (31)  In view of the above, it is concluded that, even if Article 2 (6) were to be considered  applicable to imports originating in a non-market economy country, it would not be appropriate in  the context of the current investigation to establish normal value on the basis of the prices on  the domestic market of the country of export, since there was no production of finished disposable  flint lighters in Hong Kong and, additionally, no reliable comparable price would exist for these  products in that territory. The normal value would thus have to be based on the prices on the  domestic market of the country of origin. However, since the People's Republic of China is a  non-market economy country, normal value must be established in accordance with Article 2 (5) of  the Basic Regulation. (iii)  Domestic sales price on the Filipino market (32)  The Commission considered whether normal value could be established on the basis of the  prices at which the product is actually sold for consumption on the Filipino market. In this  respect, it was noted that the cooperating Filipino company sold its disposable flint lighters to  several big customers, one of these customers being an independent distributor which resold the  lighters to both retailers and wholesalers, another being a big tobacco company. The Commission  also established that the sales prices allowed for a profit on sales (see recital 23). It is therefore concluded that the domestic sales prices of the cooperating producer on the  Filipino market constitute an appropriate basis for the establishment of normal value. (b)  Export price (33)  The Commission sent questionnaires to all exporters known from the two previous  investigations concerning this product. Only the two exporters and one importer mentioned under  recital 7, as well as one Chinese producer (namely Dong Guan Lighter Factory, Dong Guan City,  People's Republic of China) submitted completed replies. The total quantities reported by the cooperating exporters and the cooperating importer represent  53  % of the total imports. For the remaining exports and in accordance with Article 7 (7) (b) of  the Basic Regulation, since Eurostat statistics contain price information based on a mix of  different lighters (from the point of view of presentation, shape, size, etc.) and, therefore, not  suitable for the purpose of establishing the export price and given the level of cooperation, the  export price for the non-cooperating exporters was based on the average price of the cooperating  company with the lowest average price. At the same time, it was assumed that the lighters delivered  by non-cooperating exporters were 'naked` lighters sold in 50 unit packs (so-called 'bulk`). (34)  The cooperating exporters requested individual treatment (i.e. the establishment of separate  export prices and thus of individual dumping margins). Although individual treatment may be given  to certain exporters in non-market economy countries, in particular where they have demonstrated  their independence from the State in the conduct of their export policy and in the fixing of their  export prices, it was considered that the utmost prudence was required in this matter. In this respect, it has to be recalled that the newcomer review investigation referred to in  recital 2 concluded that no individual treatment could be granted to any of the four Chinese  companies involved in the said investigation. Since that conclusion concerned, among others, the  two companies having cooperated in the current investigation and given that the companies in  question did not submit any new substantiated evidence with regard to their claimed independence,  the granting of individual treatment to the applicants was considered neither appropriate nor  consistent with the Community Institutions' established approach. (c)  Comparison (35)  Although all disposable flint lighters can be considered as one single product, they are sold  in different forms, i.e. naked, printed, sleeved, etc. The exports from China reported by  cooperating companies consisted, by about 80  %, of naked lighters in 'bulk`. Only small quantities  exported concerned one or two side printed disposable lighters. For the purposes of the dumping  calculation, only the normal value and the export price of naked lighters in bulk packing were  compared. This approach was considered reasonable since naked lighters in bulk constituted the  great majority of the exported quantities as reported by cooperating companies. (36)  The importer having cooperated claimed that the lighters manufactured by the cooperating  Filipino company were not comparable with the Chinese lighters because they were made out of  different material, i.e. the body of the Filipino lighter is made of nylon and the body of the  Chinese lighter of plastic. With regard to the other parts, the same importer also claimed that  differences existed and should be taken into account in the form of a price adjustment of 100  %.  This importer claimed that these physical differences resulted in a higher cost of production and  thus have an impact on the selling price for the Filipino lighter when compared to the Chinese  lighter. As concerns the material used for the manufacture of the body, the information available to the  Commission showed that the type of raw material used by Chinese producers is indeed less costly per  kilogram than the one used by the Filipino producer. However, the technical characteristics of the  plastic body lighter indicate that the walls of the body are up to 2,5 times thicker than the walls  of the nylon body lighter, and therefore that more material is used. In addition, the processing  cycle is longer in the case of the plastic body lighter due to the longer period required for  cooling. On balance, the difference in cost is thus negligible. The Commission accepts that the parts used by the Chinese and the Filipino producers are not  absolutely identical and that consequently the assembly process is not strictly identical. However,  on the basis of the information made available to the Commission, an allegedly more sophisticated  part and/or a slightly different part was not systematically more costly to produce than the  corresponding allegedly less sophisticated one. Furthermore, no information was available to  suggest that the alleged physical differences, which only negligibly affect costs, have an impact  on sales prices. In these circumstances, it is concluded that no price adjustment is warranted to take account of  alleged physical and/or qualitative differences. (37)  For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison, an adjustment to normal value was granted in  respect of the domestic sales tax on the Filipino market. As far as the export price is concerned  and where available, the actual freight, insurance and other costs were deducted to arrive at fob  level, otherwise a percentage corresponding to the latter deductions was taken. No further  adjustment was claimed or considered necessary. Domestic sales prices in the Philippines and Chinese export prices were compared at the same level  of sales, i.e. fob national border. (d)  Dumping margin (38)  The dumping margin expressed as a percentage of the cif Community frontier value of the  imports was found to be 80,3  %. E.  INJURY (a)  General remarks (39)  It should be stressed that the present review investigation was carried out further to a  request from the Community industry alleging that dumping of Chinese disposable flint lighters had  dramatically increased since the conclusion of the original investigation and claiming that the  measures in force should be amended in order to remove further injury caused to the Community  industry. Taking into account the provisions of Article 13 (3) of the Basic Regulation, it was necessary to  investigate the level of injury. In the original investigation, the injurious effects of Chinese  dumped imports had been assessed and established cumulatively with imports from three other third  countries. Accordingly, an injury investigation was also conducted with a view to establishing  whether the increased dumping by the Chinese exporters had led to further injury which would  warrant a modification of the measures in place in respect of the People's Republic of China. (b)  Total Community consumption (40)  In calculating total consumption of the product in question on the Community market, the  Commission added Community producers' sales in the Community of disposable flint lighters to the  total imports of these products into the Community, as declared falling within CN code 9613  10   00. On this basis, the total consumption has grown between 1989 (i.e. the investigation period of  the original investigation) and 1993 by 15  %. It is known, however, that the imports falling within CN code 9613  10  00 do not only cover  disposable flint lighters but also disposable piezo lighters. The quantity of imported piezo  lighters is not exactly known and, therefore, it is not possible to assess the consumption increase  due to the imports of this type of disposable lighter. The Commission made an attempt to  differentiate flint and piezo lighters in global import statistics on the basis of Taric statistics  supposed to differentiate these two types of disposable lighters but no reliable historical data  could be established on this basis. Nevertheless, as far as the People's Republic of China is concerned, it should be noted that the  information available to the Commission showed that no piezo lighters were imported from that  country up to and during the current investigation period. This means, as far as the People's  Republic of China is concerned, that no over-estimation of its market share for disposable flint  lighters could occur since all imports from China falling within that CN code related to imports of  the product under investigation. (c)  Factors relating to the dumped imports (i)  Volume and market share (41)  Between 1989 and the end of the investigation period, imports from China increased  substantially when compared with 1989. Imported quantities were indeed 9,6 million units in 1989,  then 69,3 in 1990, 78,1 in 1991, 45,5 in 1992 and 71,6 million units in 1993 (investigation period  adjusted to 12 months). After a relative decrease in 1992 due to the imposition of measures in 1991, the imports increased  by a much higher rate than consumption. Consequently, the market share of Chinese imports increased  substantially, i.e. from 1,5  % in 1989 to 11  % in 1991, then from 7  % in 1992 to 10  % in 1993  (investigation period adjusted to 12 months). (ii)  Prices (42)  In the context of this review investigation, it is extremely important to note that the  export price of the Chinese lighters dropped by around 23  % in the current investigation period  when compared to the original investigation period (1989). In this respect, it should also be noted  that this trend was established on the basis of figures reported by the cooperating exporters and  the cooperating importer since, for the reasons stated in recital 33, Eurostat statistics were not  suitable for the purpose of establishing export prices. (43)  The prices of Chinese lighters were also compared with those of lighters produced in the  Community and sold by the Community industry. As in the original investigation, the Commission  considered that only those lighters with an equal or almost equal amount of gas, and therefore a  similar quantity of ignitions, should be taken as a basis for this price comparison exercise, which  was made on the basis of a representative percentage of sales, at the level of sales to wholesalers  and large retailers. For the reasons stated in recital 36, which are also relevant in this context,  no adjustment was applied to take account of other alleged physical and/or qualitative  differences. (44)  The sales price of the imported Chinese disposable lighters was, during the investigation  period, significantly below the average sales price of the comparable disposable lighters produced  by the Community producers. The weighted average margin of price undercutting was found to amount  to 26  % (expressed on the basis of the Community sales price). (d)  Situation of the Community industry (i)  General (45)  The lighter market is very price sensitive. In order to be able to sell or to keep market  share, the numerous producers and buyers on the market tend to adjust their prices to the lowest  level possible. Faced with low priced dumped imports from the People's Republic of China, the  Community industry was forced to lower its prices in order to try to maintain market share,  production level and capacity utilization. (ii)  Production, sales and market share (46)  Production and sales of the Community industry remained stable between the original  investigation period and the current investigation period, despite a certain improvement noticeable  in 1990 and 1991. However, over the same period, in a growing market, its market share decreased by  9 percentage points, while the market share held by Chinese imports grew by 8,5 percentage points. (iii)  Prices, profitability and employment (47)  Prices of the Community industry have, on average, dropped when comparing the original  investigation period with the current investigation period. A decrease in price was indeed the only  means to keep the loss of market share to a minimum. Despite this decrease, the Community industry  did not achieve this result. (48)  Since the original investigation period the financial situation of the Community industry as  a whole - after a certain improvement in 1991 - deteriorated up to the end of the current  investigation period. The continued price fall could not be offset by reductions in costs. In 1993  the average sales price was below the average cost, including selling, general and administrative  expenses. (49)  The Community industry has made considerable efforts to cope with the continuous decrease of  prices, notably by reducing the number of its employees between the original investigation period  and the current investigation period by 13  % but, at the same time, maintaining production and  sales in order to remain viable. (e)  Conclusion on injury (50)  In these circumstances, it is concluded that the injury suffered by the Community industry  has considerably worsened. In a growing market, the Community producers concerned have lost market  share and their profitability has deteriorated in spite of severe cost reductions, including  reduction of jobs. F.  CAUSATION OF INJURY (51)  The Commission examined whether the additional injury suffered by  the Community industry was caused by the Chinese exporters' increased dumping and whether other  factors may have caused or contributed to that injury. (a)  Effect to the dumped imports (52)  In examining the effects of the dumped imports, it was found that the increasing volume of  the low priced dumped imports from the People's Republic of China coincided with the loss of market  share, the price decreases and the deterioration in the financial situation of the Community  industry. (53)  Indeed, between the original investigation period and the current investigation period the  market share held by Chinese imports has considerably increased, namely from 1,5  % to 10  %, i.e.  8,5  % of total consumption, while the Community industry's market share decreased by 9  % of total  Community consumption. During the same period, the level of undercutting by Chinese exports also  increased from around 20  % before the imposition of the measures to 26  % in the current  investigation period. Given that the market in question is highly price sensitive, as already explained in recital 45, it  is clear that this substantial and increasing price undercutting by Chinese dumped imports, with  consequentially increased market share, has significantly affected the Community industry, both in  respect of volumes sold by this industry on a market that was experiencing growth and on its  selling prices, with the consequent impact on unit costs and profit. Given, in addition, that the dumping margin of Chinese imports has substantially increased during  the same period, it is concluded that such heavily dumped imports have caused further injury to the  Community industry concerned. (b)  Effect of other factors (54)  The Commission examined whether factors other than the dumped imports had caused or  contributed to the material injury suffered by the Community industry, such as falling exports to  third countries by the Community industry or an increase of imports from countries other than the  People's Republic of China. (55)  Between the original investigation period and 1993, exports to third countries by the  Community industry showed an overall stable trend (in volume, index basis 1989 = 100, 1990 amounted  to 106, 1991 to 105, 1992 to 95 and 1993 to 100). This evolution cannot therefore be considered as  a factor having adversely affected the Community industry. (56)  Imports from countries other than the People's Republic of China showed between 1989 and the  investigation period a stable market share at around 25  % of total consumption. A more detailed  analysis showed that certain countries have taken over traditional suppliers now subject to  anti-dumping measures (other than the Chinese) and may have entered the market due to an aggressive  pricing policy, which may have had an impact on the situation of the Community industry. This is confirmed by the recent lodging of a complaint and initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding  concerning imports of disposable flint lighters originating in certain third countries which were  not involved in the original proceeding  (1). However, the hypothetical existence of dumped imports  from other third countries does not detract from the fact that Chinese imports, having dramatically  increased their market share by increased undercutting and dumping, should be considered, in  isolation, as a cause of further material injury to the Community industry. (57)  One importer claimed that the introduction of new products such as the piezo disposable  lighter and the flameless refillable lighter had adversely affected the Community industry by  contracting demand and depressing prices for disposable flint lighters. However, these allegations  were not supported by evidence indicating that purchases of these new products by Community  consumers were replacing those of disposable flint lighters. In fact, it appears that the product  concerned remained attractive, given the increased imports and consumption. (58)  The same importer also claimed that the economic recession was one of the main reasons for  the injury suffered by the Community industry. As a result, consumers were allegedly looking for  the lowest priced lighter available. Prices have therefore dropped, it was argued, and the Chinese  lighters become more attractive to consumers. While it is clear that Chinese dumped prices severely undercut the Community industry's prices and  thus affrected its pricing policy and profitability, no substantiated evidence of the alleged  impact of the economic recession on the Community lighter market as a whole, and on the Community  industry's situation in particular, has been provided. Indeed, while such impact, if any, would  also be noticeable on the overall Community market, it should be stressed that the consumption of  disposable flint lighters in the Community has increased (see recital 40). In these circumstances,  the argument that the economic recession would be responsible for the injury suffered by the  Community industry cannot be accepted. (59)  The same importer claimed that the difficult situation of the Community industry also related  to the fact that, compared with refillable lighters, the disposable flint lighters it was producing  were environmentally unfriendly products and that the increasing environmental awareness of  consumers in the Community made it more difficult to sell such disposable products, on which  governments were moreover considering the imposition of so-called 'Eco taxes`. In this context, it is worth noting that although imported lighters are equally environmentally  unfriendly, they remain the subject of intense trading. The consumption of disposable lighters in  general also continues to increase. In addition, the above argument based on the increasing  environmental awareness of consumers was not supported by any clear evidence that a significant  proportion of the Community consumers was now showing a marked preference for refillable lighters. (60)  Finally, this importer also claimed that any injury to the Community industry should be  significantly diminished because the increase in imports from the People's Republic of China,  noticeable in 1993, was due to developments on the Italian and UK markets, namely the abolition of  excise taxes on disposable lighters which, until the end of 1992, were limiting the consumption of  these products. This argument cannot be accepted. Indeed, nothing explains why the abolition of excise taxes in the  said Member States should result in an increase in imports which was significant with regard to  products of Chinese origin only. In the absence of unfair trading practices, any competitive  suppliers would have been able to enter, and compete on, the expanding Italian and UK markets. The  fact that Chinese dumped imports gained a substantial share of the market in Italy and the United  Kingdom underlines the specific impact of the Chinese dumped imports, which resulted in the Chinese  achieving a larger market share by lower prices. These circumstances do not therefore warrant a  modification to the findings regarding the causation of injury. (c)  Conclusion on causation (61)  In view of the above, it is evident that Chinese dumped imports have put a considerable  downward pressure on disposable flint lighter prices in the Community market. The effect of other factors, such as imports from other third countries, on the injury sustained by  the Community industry cannot be totally set aside. However, given the various elements set out  above and especially the significant increase in quantities imported at dumped prices from the  People's Republic of China, combined with the greater level of price undercutting by Chinese  exporters, it is concluded that the dumped imports from the People's Republic of China have, taken  in isolation, caused further injury to the Community industry, and that this injury was material. G.  COMMUNITY INTEREST (62)  In the previous investigations, the adoption of measures was  considered to be in the interest of the Community. Since no new arguments have been made which  could lead to a reconsideration of this position, the findings of Regulation (EEC) No 3433/91 in  this respect are confirmed. H.  DUTY (a)  Injury elimination level (63)  In the original investigation, for the purpose of establishing the injury elimination level,  it was considered that any measure should allow the Community industry to cover its costs of  production and to achieve a reasonable profit, namely 15  % on sales turnover. This profit margin  was considered as the minimum necessary to finance new investments in manufacturing facilities and  research and development. It was also considered that the comparison should be restricted to those  models with an equal or almost equal amount of gas, and therefore a similar quantity of ignitions. In the absence of any new substantiated argument in respect of the profit that the Community  industry should be allowed to achieve, it was considered appropriate to follow the same approach in  the current investigation as in the original investigation. For the reasons stated in recital 36,  which are also relevant in this context, it was considered that alleged physical differences, other  than the amount of gas, should not be taken into account for the purpose of determining comparable  models. On the above basis, the comparison showed that, in order to eliminate injury, Chinese cif prices  would have to increase by 96,6  %. (64)  Since the injury elimination level is higher than the dumping margin, the duty should be  based on the dumping margin found. (b)  Form of the duty (65)  Since prices of the Chinese imported disposable flint lighters steadily decreased after the  imposition of the measures in 1991, it is highly foreseeable that an increased ad valorem duty  would again lose its effectiveness within a relatively short time. Therefore, a simple amendment to  the current ad valorem duty does not appear to be appropriate. The number of different types of  lighters, i.e. naked, printed one side, printed two sides, one colour, multiple colours, etc.,  makes it virtually impossible to fix a minimum price level for disposable lighters. It is therefore considered appropriate to amend the measure in force by imposing a specific duty  per lighter (namely ECU 0,065 per piece). In this respect, it has to be noted that by applying such  a duty which stays within the limits of the dumping margin, the additional value of special  features will not be penalized. In other words, no duty will be applied to the added value  concerning printing or other special items which are at present very exceptional in the case of  Chinese imports. I.  PERIOD OF VALIDITY OF THE REGULATION (66)  This Regulation should be considered as an  amendment to Regulation (EEC) No 3433/91 within the meaning of Article 15 (1) of Regulation (EEC)  No 2423/88 only in so far as the People's Republic of China is concerned. The measure imposed on  imports from the People's Republic of China should, therefore, lapse after a period of five years  starting from the date on which this Regulation enters into force, subject to the provisions of  Regulation (EC) No 3283/94  (1), HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 Regulation (EEC) No 3433/91 is hereby amended as follows: 1.  the first phrase of Article 1 (2) shall be replaced by the following: '2.  The rate of the duty, applicable to the net, free-at-Community frontier price before duty, or  the amount of duty per lighter, shall be set as follows:`; 2.  paragraph (b) of Article 1 (2) shall be replaced by the following: '(b)  ECU 0,065 per lighter for the products originating in the People's Republic of China;`. Article 2 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, 2 May 1995. For the Council The President A. JUPPÉ (1)    (2)  OJ No L 326, 28. 11. 1991, p. 1.  (3)  OJ No C 62, 11. 3. 1992, p. 2.  (4)  OJ No L 158, 30. 6. 1993, p. 43.  (5)  OJ No C 343, 21. 12. 1993, p. 10.  (1)  OJ No C 67, 18. 3. 1995, p. 3.  (1)  OJ No L 349, 31. 12. 1994, p. 1.  (1)  OJ No C 67, 18. 3. 1995, p. 3.  (1)  OJ No L 349, 31. 12. 1994, p. 1.