{
  "url": "https://openlegislation.uk/eu-regulation-2006-1840/introduction",
  "json_url": "https://openlegislation.uk/eu-regulation-2006-1840/introduction.json",
  "legislation": "eur/2006/1840",
  "legislation_title": "Council Regulation (EC) No 1840/2006 of 11 December 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 74/2004 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of cotton-type bedlinen originating in India",
  "legislation_url": "https://openlegislation.uk/eu-regulation-2006-1840",
  "path": "introduction",
  "kind": "introduction",
  "number": null,
  "heading": "Introductory text",
  "text": "Council Regulation (EC) No 1840/2006\nof 11 December 2006\namending Regulation (EC) No 74/2004 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of cotton-type bedlinen originating in India\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (the basic Regulation),\nHaving regard to Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 74/2004 of 13 January 2004 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of cotton-type bedlinen originating in India (the original Regulation),\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA.\nPREVIOUS PROCEDURE\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 74/2004, the Council imposed a definitive countervailing duty on imports into the Community of cotton-type bedlinen falling within CN codes ex 6302 21 00 (TARIC codes 6302 21 00 81, 6302 21 00 89), ex 6302 22 90 (TARIC code 6302 22 90 19), ex 6302 31 00 (TARIC code 6302 31 00 90) and ex 6302 32 90 (TARIC code 6302 32 90 19), originating in India. Given the large number of cooperating exporting producers of the product concerned in India, a sample was selected in accordance with Article 27 of the basic Regulation and individual duty rates ranging from 4,4 % to 10,4 % were imposed on the companies included in the sample, while other cooperating companies not included in the sample were attributed a duty rate of 7,6 %. A residual duty rate of 10,4 % was imposed on all other companies.\n(2)\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EC) No 74/2004 stipulates that where any new exporting producer in India 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 October 2001 to 30 September 2002) (the first criterion), that it is not related to any of the exporters or producers in India which are subject to the anti-subsidy measures imposed by that Regulation (the second criterion) and that 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 (the third criterion), then Article 1(3) of that Regulation can be amended by granting the new exporting producer the duty rate applicable to the cooperating companies not included in the sample, i.e. 7,6 %.\n(3)\nThe original Regulation has been amended twice by amending Regulations, namely Council Regulation (EC) No 2143/2004, and Council Regulation (EC) No 122/2006. Both Regulations have added to the list of Indian exporting producers in the Annex to the Regulation the names of companies exporting the product concerned originating in India who satisfied the Commission's services that they met the criteria set out in the original Regulation.\nB.\nNEW EXPORTERS/PRODUCERS' REQUESTS\n(4)\nNineteen Indian companies applied to be granted the same status of the companies cooperating in the original investigation not included in the sample (newcomer status) since the publication of the previous amending Regulation.\n(5)\nThe 19 applicants were:\nApplicant Company\nCity\nB.K.S. Textiles Private Limited\nCoimbatore\nIndian Arts & Crafts Syndicate (IACS)\nNew Delhi\nMittal International\nPanipat\nEsskay International\nMumbai\nOpera Clothing\nMumbai\nGovindji Trikamdas & Co.\nMumbai\nNavnitlal Private Limited\nMumbai\nTulip Exim\nMumbai\nAarthi — A1 — Traders\nKarur\nAnjani Synthetics Limited\nAhmedabad\nHome Concepts\nNew Delhi\nSiyaram Silk Mills Limited\nMumbai\nRamlaks Exports Pvt. Ltd\nMumbai\nOracle Exports\nMumbai\nSellon Dynamics\nMumbai\nSynthesis Home Textiles\nKarur\nDevtara Industries\nMuradnagar\nSummer India Textile Mills\nSalem\nPrathishta Weaving and Knitting\nCoimbatore\n(6)\nFour companies requesting newcomer status did not reply to the questionnaire intended to verify that they met the conditions set out in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 74/2004, and their requests had, therefore, to be rejected.\n(7)\nOne company returned the questionnaire twice, both times incomplete and with contradictory information. The third questionnaire sent to the company was not returned and as such it was unable to prove that it complied with the criteria to be granted new exporting producer status. That company's request was therefore rejected.\n(8)\nThe remaining 14 companies submitted complete replies to the questionnaire and were therefore considered for newcomer status.\n(9)\nThe evidence provided by six of the above-mentioned Indian exporters/producers is considered sufficient to grant them the duty rate applicable to the cooperating companies not included in the sample (i.e. 7,6 %) and consequently to add them to the list of exporters/producers in the Annex (the Annex) to Regulation (EC) No 74/2004.\n(10)\nThe remaining eight companies had their applications for new exporting producer status rejected for the following reasons:\n(11)\nSeven companies failed to provide evidence that they had exported the product concerned after the investigation period to the EC or that they had irrevocable contractual obligations to export the product concerned in significant quantities to the EC.\n(12)\nOne company is related to one company already listed in the original Regulation and its application for newcomer status was therefore rejected as it failed the second criterion mentioned in Article 2 of the original Regulation.\n(13)\nCompanies for which newcomer status was not granted were informed of the reasons of this decision and given an opportunity to make their views known in writing.\n(14)\nAll arguments and submissions made by interested parties were analysed and duly taken into account where warranted,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:",
  "extent": "E+W+S+N.I.",
  "status": null,
  "version": "current",
  "annotations": [
    {
      "type": "footnote",
      "label": "f1",
      "text": "OJ L 288, 21.10.1997, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 12)."
    },
    {
      "type": "footnote",
      "label": "f2",
      "text": "OJ L 12, 17.1.2004, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 122/2006 (OJ L 22, 26.1.2006, p. 3)."
    },
    {
      "type": "footnote",
      "label": "f3",
      "text": "OJ L 370, 17.12.2004, p. 1."
    },
    {
      "type": "footnote",
      "label": "f4",
      "text": "OJ L 22, 26.1.2006, p. 3."
    }
  ],
  "outstanding_effects": [],
  "provenance": {
    "source": "legislation.gov.uk",
    "source_url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2006/1840/introduction",
    "retrieved_at": "2026-11-01T14:53:16.506166+00:00"
  },
  "licence": "Open Government Licence v3.0",
  "licence_url": "https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/",
  "attribution": "Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Source: legislation.gov.uk, The National Archives."
}