CELEX: 52001PC0367
Language: en
Date: 2001-07-04
Title: Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People's Republic of China

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
                                              Brussels, 04.07.2001
                                              COM(2001) 367 final
                               Proposal for a
                       &281&,/5(*8/$7,21
 LPSRVLQJDGHILQLWLYHDQWLGXPSLQJGXW\DQGFROOHFWLQJGHILQLWLYHO\WKH
 SURYLVLRQDOGXW\LPSRVHGRQLPSRUWVRILQWHJUDWHGHOHFWURQLFFRPSDFW
IOXRUHVFHQWODPSV &)/L RULJLQDWLQJLQWKH3HRSOH¶V5HSXEOLFRI&KLQD
                      (presented by the Commission)
 ---pagebreak---                           (;3/$1$725<0(025$1'80
On 17 May 2000, the Commission opened an anti-dumping investigation with regard
to imports into the Community of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps
originating in the People’s Republic of China.
The investigation revealed the existence of injurious dumping and consequently the
Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 255/20011, imposed provisional anti-dumping
duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps originating in the
People’s Republic of China.
The attached proposal for a Council Regulation is based on the definitive findings on
dumping, injury, causation and Community interest which basically confirmed the
provisional findings.
It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation
which should be published in the Official Journal no later than 8 August 2001.
1
  OJ L 38, 8.2.2001, p.8.
                                               2
 ---pagebreak---                                           Proposal for a
                                   &281&,/5(*8/$7,21
        LPSRVLQJDGHILQLWLYHDQWLGXPSLQJGXW\DQGFROOHFWLQJGHILQLWLYHO\WKH
         SURYLVLRQDOGXW\LPSRVHGRQLPSRUWVRILQWHJUDWHGHOHFWURQLFFRPSDFW
       IOXRUHVFHQWODPSV &)/L RULJLQDWLQJLQWKH3HRSOH¶V5HSXEOLFRI&KLQD
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
Community 1, and in particular Article 9 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the
Advisory Committee,
WHEREAS :
                               $3529,6,21$/0($685(6
(1)       The Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 255/20012 (“provisional
          Regulation”), imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of
          integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps ("CFL-i") falling within CN
          code ex 8539 31 90 originating in the People’s Republic of China ("PRC").
                              %68%6(48(17352&('85(
(2)       Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the
          basis of which it was decided to impose provisional measures on imports of
          CFL-i originating in the PRC and following the publication of the provisional
          Regulation, several interested parties submitted comments in writing. The
          parties who so requested were also granted an opportunity to be heard orally.
(3)       The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed
          necessary for its definitive findings.
1
  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2238/2000, OJ L 257, 11.10.2000,
  p.2.
2
  OJ L 38, 8.2.2001, page 8.
                                                      3
 ---pagebreak--- (4)  All 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 of amounts secured by way of
     provisional duties. They were also granted a period within which they could
     make representations subsequent to this disclosure.
(5)  The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were considered, and,
     where appropriate, the provisional findings have been modified accordingly.
                &7+(,1,7,$7,212)7+(352&((',1*
(6)  Some interested parties claimed that certain third countries, namely Poland
     and Hungary, should have been included in the anti-dumping proceeding as a
     non-inclusion of these countries would be discriminatory.
(7)  In this respect, it is confirmed that no parallel proceeding could be initiated
     against Poland and Hungary since, on the basis of the information available at
     the stage of initiation, no evidence of injurious dumping by these imports was
     available to the Commission. This claim was therefore rejected.
             '352'8&7&21&(51('$1'/,.(352'8&7
(8)  Some exporting producers submitted that CFL-i produced in the PRC were not
     comparable with those produced in the Community, as Chinese producers
     exported only CFL-i with a lifetime of less than 6000 hours, which were not
     produced by the Community industry.
(9)  In this respect, the investigation has shown that both Chinese and Community
     producers manufacture CFL-i with a lifetime of less than 6000 hours, as well
     as CFL-i with a lifetime of more than 6000 hours. In addition, it is confirmed
     that comparisons made for the purpose of calculating injury and undercutting
     margins were based on CFL-i with comparable lifetimes. The claim was
     therefore rejected.
                                   ('803,1*
                                  1RUPDO9DOXH
(10) Various interested parties objected to the choice of Mexico as an appropriate
     market economy third country for the purpose of establishing normal value for
     the PRC.
(11) Some interested parties proposed the use of the normal values determined on
     the basis of the domestic sales made by the two Chinese exporting producers
     which had been granted market economy treatment, instead of determining
     normal value on the basis of a market economy third country. Article 2(7) of
     Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (“Basic Regulation”) provides that in the
     case of imports from countries like the PRC, the normal values be established
     on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third
     country unless an exporting producer meets the criteria set out in subparagraph
     (c) of the aforementioned provision. Therefore, it was not possible to comply
     with this request.
                                              4
 ---pagebreak--- (12) As a consequence, and as no new arguments were put forward regarding the
     choice of Mexico as an analogue country, the findings set out in recital 32 of
     the provisional Regulation concerning the selection of Mexico are confirmed.
(13) It is thus confirmed that normal values for each product type exported to the
     Community by the Chinese exporting producers were established on the basis
     of information supplied by the co-operating producer in the analogue country
(14) In the absence of any new evidence, under this heading, the provisional
     findings, as set out in recitals 14 to 34 of the provisional regulation, are
     confirmed.
                                    ([SRUW3ULFH
(15) One exporting producer claimed that one product type had been incorrectly
     coded and provided proof of this mistake. The claim was verified and accepted
     and a correction was consequently made.
(16) One exporting producer claimed that there was a clerical mistake with regard
     to the reporting of some CIF prices of some of its Community sales. The claim
     was verified and accepted and the prices were consequently revised.
(17) In the absence of any other comments under this heading, the provisional
     findings, as set out in recitals 35 to 38 of the provisional Regulation, are
     confirmed.
                                    &RPSDULVRQ
(18) In the absence of any comments under this heading, the provisional findings,
     as set out in recitals 39 to 41 of the provisional Regulation, are confirmed.
                                 'XPSLQJPDUJLQ
(19) The dumping calculations have been reviewed, in order to determine whether
     there was a pattern of export prices which differed significantly among
     different purchasers, regions or time periods and whether a comparison of the
     weighted average normal value and weighted average export price (hereafter
     referred to as "the average-to-average method") reflected the full degree of
     dumping being practised. A detailed analysis of the Community export
     transactions has revealed with regard to one Chinese exporting producer a
     pattern of export prices that differed significantly among purchasers and
     regions, as well as time periods. In particular it was found that export prices by
     this exporting producer to Denmark, to a specific importer, and at the end of
     the investigation period were substantially lower. Moreover, the average-to-
     average method would not have reflected the full degree of dumping being
     practised by this exporting producer. The calculation of the margin of dumping
     for this exporting producer has consequently been based on a weighted
     average normal value compared to all individual export transactions to the
     Community. For all other exporting producers the calculation of dumping was
     based on the average-to-average method.
                                               5
 ---pagebreak--- (20)   As a result of these changes, the individual dumping margins are:
        Changzhou Hailong Electronics & Light Fixtures Co. Ltd.,                  59.5%
        Changzhou
        City Bright Lighting (Shenzhen) Ltd., Shenzhen                            17.1%
        Deluxe Well Enterprises Ltd., Shenzhen                                    37.1%
        Lisheng Electronic & Lighting (Xiamen) Co. Ltd., Xiamen              GHPLQLPLV
        Philips & Yaming Lighting Co. Ltd., Shanghai                              61.8%
        Sanex Electronics Co. Ltd., Suzhou                                        20.2%
        Shenzhen Zuoming Electronic Co. Ltd., Shenzhen                              8.4%
        Zhejiang Yankon Group Co., Ltd. (previously known as                      35.3%
        Zhejiang Sunlight Group Co., Ltd.), Shangyu
(21)   The country-wide dumping margin for the PRC established on this basis is
       66.1%.
                                       ),1-85<
                                3UHOLPLQDU\UHPDUNV
(22)   It was examined whether the exclusion of the imports attributable to the
       exporting producer found not to have dumped would have had any significant
       impact on the analysis of the injury and causation aspects. It has been found
       that, even if such imports were to be excluded from the analysis, the
       conclusions as to the existence of material injury caused by dumped imports
       would remain unchanged, notably in view of the considerable price
       undercutting and the substantial increase in volume and market shares as well
       as the decrease in the sales prices, which would be even more significant.
                       'HILQLWLRQRIWKH&RPPXQLW\LQGXVWU\
(23)   The European Lighting Companies Federation ("thecomplainant) claimed that
       data relating to Philips Lighting B.V. ("Philips") should have been taken into
       account in the injury analysis, as this company had also suffered injury. It
       referred to the WTO Panel report on bed linen from India3, arguing that the
       Panel found that the EC had wrongly based its injury analysis on different
       groups of Community producers.
(24)   It is to be noted that the Panel report is not relevant in this respect. Indeed, the
       Panel report ruled on a case where sampling methodology was applied. In this
3
  World Trade Organisation, EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON
  IMPORTS OF COTTON-TYPE BED LINEN FROM INDIA, Report of the Panel, WT/DS141/R,
  30 October 2000
                                                 6
 ---pagebreak---       context, contrary to what the complainant claims, the Panel report concluded
      that producers which are not part of the Community industry should not be
      taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing the situation of the
      domestic industry of the importing country. Considering that Philips withdrew
      from the complaint after the initiation of the proceeding and that it stopped
      manufacturing CFL-i in the Community shortly after the IP, it could no longer
      be considered as part of the Community industry in accordance with Art. 4(1)
      and 5(4) of the Basic Regulation. Therefore, the claim had to be rejected.
(25)  Several interested parties reiterated the argument that companies constituting
      the Community industry were themselves importing the product concerned
      from the PRC and should therefore not be part of the Community industry. It
      was also alleged that imports of CFL-i by the complainants accounted for at
      least 10% of total imports into the Community from the PRC during the IP.
(26)  The further investigation confirmed that, during the IP, on average 14.6% of
      the total sales of CFL-i by the Community producers originated in the country
      concerned. However, these trading activities did not affect their status as
      Community producers since the primary activity of the latter producers
      remained in the Community and their trading activity is explained by the need
      to complete the product range so as to be able to satisfy demand, as well as by
      the attempt to defend themselves against low priced imports due to dumping.
      As to the claim that during the IP the complainants accounted for at least 10%
      of total imports into the Community from the PRC, it should be noted that,
      firstly, the claim was not substantiated and, secondly, that the investigation
      showed in fact that these imports accounted for a much lower percentage. The
      claims were therefore rejected and the findings set out in recitals 51 to 53 of
      the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
                               ,PSRUWVIURPWKH35&
8QGHUFXWWLQJ
(27)  As regards the price undercutting margins, some exporting producers claimed
      that the Community industry prices used for the calculations were inconsistent
      because, in some cases, Community prices for CFL-i with a certain wattage
      were higher than the prices for CFL-i with a higher wattage, while they should
      have been lower.
(28)  In this respect, it is confirmed that in some cases the Community industry sold
      CFL-i with a certain wattage at prices which were higher than the ones of
      CFL-i having a higher wattage. However, the same holds true for CFL-i
      produced by the exporting producers that submitted this argument. Obviously,
      prices do not only depend on the wattage but also on other factors such as, for
      instance, the unit production costs that can widely vary, depending, LQWHUDOLD,
      on the number of pieces produced per type of CFL-i, or the quantity sold.
(29)  One interested party submitted that retail prices in the Community remained
      almost stable between 1996 and the IP while, in the same period, import prices
      decreased. It was alleged that, as a consequence, the price undercutting margin
                                                7
 ---pagebreak---      calculations were misleading since they were based on the import prices which
     do not reflect the situation of the market.
(30) In this respect it should be recalled that price undercutting margins are usually
     established by comparing the exporting producers’ prices, adjusted to a CIF
     level, and the actual ex-works Community industry’s prices to the first
     independent customer, at the same level of trade. In the current case, since
     both the exporting producers and the Community industry sold to the same
     categories of customers during the IP, no adjustments were needed to compare
     those prices at the same level of trade. In addition, a comparison based on
     actually charged retail prices would not have reflected the pricing behaviour of
     the exporting producers in relation to that of the Community industry, but
     rather that of distributors and retailers of CFL-i of all origins in the
     Community.
(31) Before the above background, price undercutting margins were reviewed and
     amended on the basis of the revised export prices, as explained above, and of
     the correction of an error that occurred in the currency used for one exporting
     producer. The revised weighted average price undercutting margins expressed
     as a percentage of the Community industry’s prices are as follows:
                       &RXQWU\35&                           3ULFH8QGHUFXWWLQJ
      Undercutting margins of co-operating                Between 13.7% and 45.1%
      exporting producers
                     6LWXDWLRQRIWKH&RPPXQLW\LQGXVWU\
(32) In the absence of new evidence, the provisional findings as set out in recitals
     64 to 83 of the provisional Regulation, i.e. that the Community industry has
     suffered material injury during the IP, are confirmed.
                                     &DXVDWLRQ
(33) One interested party claimed that, contrary to what is stated in recital 90 of the
     provisional Regulation, the prices of products originating in Poland were at the
     same level or were even lower than the prices of imports originating in the
     PRC, during the IP.
(34) In this respect, the prices of the imports originating in Poland were established
     on the basis of Eurostat data in terms of import prices per unit, as it has been
     done for imports originating in the PRC, and not, as done by the party
     submitting the claim, in terms of import prices per tonne. The claim was
     therefore rejected.
(35) In the absence of any new evidence, the findings on causation set out in
     recitals 84 to 99 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed, i.e. that the
     dumped imports caused the material injury suffered by the Community
     industry.
                               &RPPXQLW\LQWHUHVW
                                              8
 ---pagebreak--- (36) Some interested parties argued that anti-dumping measures would increase
     import prices from the country concerned, with a significant impact on the
     financial situation of importers of CFL-i in the Community.
(37) As to the increase of the import prices in the Community market, it appears
     unlikely that average prices will increase significantly, in view of the low level
     of duties for certain Chinese exporting producers and in particular the fact that
     for the largest known exporter, in terms of export volume, no duty is imposed.
     Nevertheless, even with possible import price increases, measures are still
     justified, as they will re-establish fair competition in the Community market.
     In addition, it is unlikely that imports will decrease significantly, given that
     even if cost increases are passed on to consumers, the latter still have a strong
     economic incentive to purchase energy saving lamps. As to the effect of the
     imposition of anti-dumping duties on the importers’ financial situation, it is
     confirmed, in the absence of new evidence, that, although a negative impact
     cannot be excluded for those importers whose business is very much
     dominated by CFL-i, the financial situation of importers dealing with a wide
     range of other products or trading exclusively with an exporting producer for
     whom no duties are imposed, will not be significantly affected by the duties.
     The provisional findings summarised in recitals 106 to 109 of the provisional
     Regulation are thus confirmed.
(38) Some interested parties argued that the duties would substantially increase
     retail prices, thus having a negative impact on consumers.
(39) In this respect, any possible increase will indeed depend on several factors,
     e.g. the market behaviour of the Chinese exporting producers, the ability of
     importers to pass on any increases in import prices to retailers or consumers
     and the extent to which the import trade pattern changes due to the fact that
     there are some Chinese exporting producers with low duties or with no duty at
     all.
(40) One importer claimed that national users’ and consumers' associations should
     have been contacted by the Commission in order to evaluate the Community
     interest in the measures.
(41) In this respect it should be recalled that, according to Article 21(2) of the Basic
     Regulation, it is for the interested parties to make themselves known and to
     provide their submissions to the Commission. Nevertheless, in the current case
     the Commission had contacted the European consumers' organisation (BEUC)
     which is the representative of 32 independent national consumer organisations
     in Europe. Following publication of the provisional Regulation, the European
     Property Federation (EPF), which represents the industry managing, LQWHUDOLD,
     the lighting in residential and commercial buildings, came forward and
     submitted that the price is the main criterion for users when choosing their
     source of supply of CFL-i. However, no specific information was provided by
     EPF as to how the duties would influence retail prices and consequently the
     users’ and consumers’ behaviour.
(42) Several interested parties submitted that anti-dumping duties are contrary to
     Community energy saving policies, as they would result in the increase of the
                                               9
 ---pagebreak---      retail prices for consumers and thus reduce the sales of energy saving lamps
     (CFL-i).
(43) In this respect, the Community industry cannot be expected to bear the costs of
     the Community energy saving policies through suffering from unfair trade
     practices. In addition, it should be considered that, on average, CFL-i, as
     compared to incandescent lamps, consume 20% of the energy and last 5 times
     longer as compared to an incandescent lamp, which consequently gives CFL-i
     a considerable cost advantage. Thus, even in the event of moderate price
     increases there will still be a strong economic incentive for consumers to buy
     CFL-i.
(44) Some interested parties argued that the imposition of anti-dumping measures
     would be against the Community interest on the grounds that competition was
     impeded due to an exchange of information on price. This anti-competitive
     effect would be exacerbated by the disappearance of Chinese CFL-i from the
     Community market.
(45) The investigation showed that, while there was a decision by a national
     competition authority relating to the exchange of price information between
     Community producers, this decision did not relate to the product concerned.
     As to the product concerned, no evidence of illegal competitive practices
     between Community producers was found. Furthermore, the Commission is
     not aware of any competition problems pertaining to the product concerned on
     the Community market. Finally, given the level of the duties for certain
     Chinese exporting producers, it is likely that a significant number of Chinese
     competitors will remain active on the Community market and alternative
     sources of supply from the Community producers and other third countries
     with no duties, particularly Poland and Hungary with a market share of around
     15% in the IP, will remain available.
(46) On the basis of the above, the findings set out in recitals 100 to 118 of the
     provisional Regulation are confirmed, i.e. there are no compelling reasons on
     the grounds of Community interest against the imposition of anti-dumping
     duties.
                        )$17,'803,1*0($685(6
                            ,QMXU\HOLPLQDWLRQOHYHO
(47) In accordance with Article 9(4) of the Basic Regulation, the anti-dumping duty
     should correspond to the dumping margin unless the injury margin is lower.
     For the purposes of establishing the level of measures to be definitively
     imposed, an injury elimination level has been established.
(48) One exporting producer claimed that the profit margin of 8% used to calculate
     the non-injurious Community industry price was too high, as a decline of the
     profit margins was normal, in view of the conditions of a market which
     becomes more mature
                                             10
 ---pagebreak--- (49) It should be noted, firstly, that the market of CFL-i is expanding, consumption
     having increased by 117% between 1996 and the IP, and therefore a declining
     profit does not appear to be justified in such circumstances. It should also be
     recalled that the Community industry reached a profitability level of around
     8% in 1997, the year after which the situation of the Community industry
     started to deteriorate, coinciding with the increase of the import volumes and
     the decrease of the import prices from the PRC. Secondly, as stated in recital
     105 of the provisional Regulation, CFL-i are high-tech products which
     necessitate important R&D efforts. In order to stay competitive, it is necessary
     to develop new, more sophisticated models on a continuous basis. Taking into
     account the aforementioned factors, a profit margin of 8% appears to be one
     that could reasonably be reached in the absence of injurious dumping.
(50) Given the above, the methodology used for establishing the injury elimination
     level as described in recitals 121 and 122 of the provisional Regulation is
     confirmed.
(51) As mentioned above in relation to price undercutting margins, injury margins
     were also reviewed and amended.
                     )RUPDQGOHYHORIGHILQLWLYHPHDVXUHV
(52) In the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in accordance with Article
     9(4) of the Basic Regulation, a definitive anti-dumping duty should be
     imposed at the level of the injury margin found for Philips & Yaming and at
     the level of the dumping margins found for the remaining exporting producers.
(53) The individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation
     were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation.
     Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that investigation with
     respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the country-wide
     duty applicable to ‘all other companies’) are thus exclusively applicable to
     imports of products originating in the country concerned and produced by the
     companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products
     produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative
     part of this Regulation with its name and address, including entities related to
     those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be
     subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’.
(54) Any claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-
     dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or
     following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be
     addressed to the Commission4 forthwith with all relevant information, in
4
     European Commission
     Directorate-General for Trade
     Directorate B
     TERV 0/10
                                              11
 ---pagebreak---       particular any modification in the company’s activities linked to production,
      domestic and export sales associated with e.g. that name change or that change
      in the production and sales entities. The Commission, if appropriate, will, after
      consultation of the Advisory Committee, amend the Regulation accordingly by
      updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.
                            &ROOHFWLRQRISURYLVLRQDOGXWLHV
(55)  In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and in the light of the
      level of the injury caused to the Community industry, it is considered
      necessary that the amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping
      duty, imposed by the provisional Regulation, i.e. Regulation (EC) No
      255/2001, should be definitively collected at the rate of the duty definitively
      imposed. In cases where the rate of the definitive duty imposed is higher than
      the rate of the provisional duty, only the amounts secured at the level of the
      provisional duty should be definitively collected.
 0RGLILFDWLRQRIWKHQDPHRIDFRPSDQ\VXEMHFWWRDQLQGLYLGXDODQWLGXPSLQJ
                                             GXW\UDWH
(56)  The provisional Regulation, i.e. Regulation (EC) No 255/2001, imposed an
      individual duty rate of 35,4% to the exporting producer Zhejiang Sunlight
      Group Co., Ltd. This company has informed the Commission that it has
      changed its name to Zhejiang Yankon Group Co., Ltd. The company has asked
      the Commission to amend the Regulation to ensure that the change of name
      does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the individual duty
      rate applied to that company under its previous name.
(57)  The Commission has examined the information supplied, which demonstrates
      that all the company’s activities linked to the manufacturing, sales and exports
      of the product concerned are unaffected by the change of name. The
      Commission therefore concludes that the change of name in no way affects the
      findings of Council Regulation (EC) No 255/2001.
(58)  Therefore the amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty
      imposed by Regulation (EC) No 255/2001 in respect of goods manufactured
      by Zhejiang Sunlight Group Co., Ltd. should be definitively collected at the
      rate of the duty definitively imposed on goods manufactured by Zhejiang
      Yankon Group Co., Ltd., and the Taric additional code A241 previously
      attributed to Zhejiang Sunlight Group Co., Ltd., shall apply to Zhejiang
      Yankon Group Co., Ltd.
       Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200
       B-1049 Brussels / Belgium
                                                12
 ---pagebreak--- HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
                                        $UWLFOH
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of electronic compact
fluorescent discharge lamps with one or more glass tubes, with all lighting elements
and electronic components fixed to the lamp foot or integrated in the lamp foot,
falling within CN code ex 8539 31 90 (TARIC code 8539 31 9091), and originating in
the People’s Republic of China.
2. The rate of duty applicable to the net free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty,
for products produced by the following manufacturers shall be as follows:
                      0DQXIDFWXUHU                      5DWHRIGXW\            7DULF
                                                                          DGGLWLRQDOFRGH
     Changzhou Hailong Electronics & Light
     Fixtures Co., Ltd.
     Luoyang, Changzhou, Jiangsu                             59.5               A234
     Changzhou 213104
     People’s Republic of China
     City Bright Lighting (Shenzhen) Ltd.
     Shenzhen                                                17.1               A235
     People’s Republic of China
     Deluxe Well Enterprises Ltd.
     Block 17-18, Hong Qiao Tao Industrial Zone,
     Bao An Yuan,                                            37.1               A236
     Shenzhen
     People’s Republic of China
     Lisheng Electronic & Lighting (Xiamen) Co.,
     Ltd. Xiamen                                              0.0               A237
     People’s Republic of China
     Philips & Yaming Lighting Co., Ltd.
     1805 Hu Yi Highway,
     Malu Jia Ding District,                                 32.3               A238
     Shanghai 201801
     People’s Republic of China
     Sanex Electronics Co., Ltd.
     Xin Su Industrial Area, Jiangsu
                                                             20.2               A239
     Suzhou 215001
     People’s Republic of China
     Shenzhen Zuoming Electronic Co. Ltd.,
     Shenzhen, Guangdong                                      8.4               A240
     People’s Republic of China
     Zhejiang Yankon Group Co., Ltd. (previously
     known as Zhejiang Sunlight Group Co., Ltd.).
     129 Fengshan Road, Zhejiang                             35.3               A241
     Shangyu 213104
     People’s Republic of China
     All other companies                                     66.1               A999
                                                13
 ---pagebreak--- 3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall
apply.
                                         $UWLFOH
1. The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant to
Regulation (EC) No 255/2001 on imports of electronic compact fluorescent discharge
lamps with one or more glass tubes, with all lighting elements and electronic
components fixed to the lamp foot or integrated in the lamp foot originating in the
People’s Republic of China shall be collected at the rate of the duty definitively
imposed. The amounts secured by way of provisional duties pursuant to Regulation
(EC) No 255/2001 on imports manufactured by Zhejiang Sunlight Group Co., Ltd.
shall be collected at the rate of duty definitively imposed on imports manufactured by
Zhejiang Yankon Group Co., Ltd. (TARIC additional code A241).
2. Amounts secured in excess of the rate of definitive anti-dumping duty shall be
released. In cases where the rate of the definitive duty imposed is higher than the rate
of the provisional duty, only the amounts secured at the level of the provisional duty
should be definitively collected.
                                         $UWLFOH
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
                                                              The President
                                                 14