{
  "url": "https://openlegislation.uk/eu-regulation-2007-1205/introduction",
  "json_url": "https://openlegislation.uk/eu-regulation-2007-1205/introduction.json",
  "legislation": "eur/2007/1205",
  "legislation_title": "Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 of 15 October 2007 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and extending to imports of the same product consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines",
  "legislation_url": "https://openlegislation.uk/eu-regulation-2007-1205",
  "path": "introduction",
  "kind": "introduction",
  "number": null,
  "heading": "Introductory text",
  "text": "Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007\nof 15 October 2007\nimposing anti-dumping duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and extending to imports of the same product consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,\nHaving 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 (the basic Regulation) and in particular Articles 9 and 11(2) thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission, after consulting the Advisory Committee,\nWhereas:\nA.\nPROCEDURE\nMeasures in force\n(1)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 (the original Regulation), the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duties ranging from 0 to 66,1 % on imports of integrated electronic fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China (the country concerned) (the original investigation). Prior to that, the Commission had imposed provisional anti-dumping duties by Regulation (EC) No 255/2001 (the provisional Regulation).\n(2)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 866/2005 (the extending Regulation), the Council extended the anti-dumping measures in force to also cover imports of CFL-i consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines. The extension followed an anti-circumvention investigation carried out pursuant to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation.\n(3)\nBy Regulation (EC) No 1322/2006, (the amending Regulation), the Council amended the anti-dumping measures in force. The amendment was made following an interim review carried out with regard to the product scope. The result of the investigation and the effect of the amending Regulation was that direct current voltage lamps (DC-CFL-i) should be excluded from the scope of the measures. The anti-dumping measures would henceforth only cover alternating current voltage lamps (including electronic compact fluorescent discharge lamps functioning on both alternating and direct current) (AC-CFL-i).\nCurrent investigations\n(4)\nFollowing the publication of a notice of impending expiry, the Commission received a request for a review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. The request was lodged on 18 April 2006 by the Community Federation of Lighting Industry of Compact Fluorescent Lamps Integrated (CFL-i) (the applicant) on behalf of a major proportion, in this case more than 25 %, of the total Community production of CFL-i.\n(5)\nThe request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation of dumping and injury to the Community industry. Having determined, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of a review, the Commission, on 19 July 2006, initiated an investigation pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. The applicant also lodged a request for a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation. Having determined, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of a review, the Commission, on 8 September 2006, initiated an investigation pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation. The scope of the interim review is limited to the level of dumping as far as one exporting producer, Lisheng Electronic & Lighting (Xiamen), is concerned. The latter review is on-going and is not the subject of the present Regulation.\nInvestigation and parties concerned\n(6)\nThe Commission officially advised the applicant, the Community producers, the exporting producers in the PRC (hereinafter ‘Chinese exporters’), the importers, traders, users and their associations known to be concerned, as well as the representatives of the government of the exporting country, of the initiation of the reviews.\n(7)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to all these parties and to those who made themselves known within the time limit set in the notices of initiation.\n(8)\nThe Commission also gave the parties directly concerned the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.\n(9)\nIn view of the apparent high number of exporting producers in the PRC and importers of the product concerned, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to be able to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission sent out sampling forms asking specific information on average sales volume and prices of each exporting producer and importer concerned.\n(10)\nComplete replies were received from three Chinese exporters and three importers.\n(11)\nA questionnaire was also sent to the known producers in the potential analogue country, namely the Republic of Korea (Korea).\n(12)\nReplies to the questionnaires were also received from four Community producers, two producers in the analogue country Korea, one retailer (which also imported) and seven suppliers of components to Community producers.\n(13)\nThe Commission sought and verified all information deemed necessary for the purpose of a determination of the likely continuation of dumping and injury and of the Community interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:\n(a) exporting producer in the PRC related to the applicant Community producer\nOsram China Lighting Ltd., Foshan City, Guangdong Province,\n(b) exporting producer in the PRC related to the other Community producers\nZhejiang Yankon Group Co Ltd., Shangyu City, Zhejiang Province,\n(c) exporting producer in the PRC unrelated to any Community producers\nShenzhen Zuoming Electronic Co. Ltd. Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province,\n(d) trader related to the other Community producers\nPhilips Hong Kong Ltd., Hong Kong SAR,\n(e) trader unrelated to any Community producers\nSuper Trend Lighting Ltd., Hong Kong SAR,\n(f) producers in the analogue country\nOsram Korea Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea,\nHyosun Electric Co., Ltd., Paju-City, Republic of Korea,\n(g) Community manufacturers\nOsram GmbH, München and Augsburg, Germany and Osram Slovakia, Nove Zamky, Slovakia,\nPhilips Lighting B.V., Eindhoven, Netherlands and Philips Lighting Poland S.A, Pila, Poland,\nGeneral Electric Zrt., Budapest and Nagykaniza, Hungary,\nSylvania Lighting International, Frankfurt/Main, Germany and Leeds, United Kingdom,\n(h) Community importers\nElectro Cirkel B.V., Rotterdam, the Netherlands,\nKemner B.V., Amsterdam, the Netherlands,\nOmicron UK Ltd., Huntingdon, United Kingdom,\n(i) Community suppliers\nST Microelectronics Srl, Milano, Italy,\nVitri Electro-Metalurgica S.A., Barcelona, Spain,\n(j) Community retailer\nIKEA AB, Älmhult City, Region of Småland, Sweden.\nInvestigation Period\n(14)\nThe investigation of the likelihood of continuation and/or recurrence of dumping and injury for the expiry review covered the period from 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006 (‘review investigation period’ or ‘RIP’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2003 up to the end of the RIP (period considered).\nB.\nPRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT\nProduct concerned\n(15)\nThe product concerned is the same as determined in the amending Regulation, i.e. electronic compact fluorescent discharge lamps functioning on alternating current (including electronic compact fluorescent discharge lamps functioning on both alternating and direct current), 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 (the product concerned), currently classifiable within CN code ex 8539 31 90.\nLike product\n(16)\nThe Commission found that\nCFL-i manufactured and sold domestically in the PRC,\nCFL-i manufactured in the PRC and exported to the Community,\nCFL-i manufactured and sold in the Community, and,\nCFL-i manufactured and sold domestically in the analogue country,\nhave basically the same physical and technical characteristics and uses. Therefore, these products are alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.\n(17)\nSeveral parties alleged that the types of CFL-i imported from the PRC and the CFL-i manufactured in the Community were not like products since the quality of the product concerned (life-time) was different and since the product concerned had a different category of end-users (consumer CFL-i lamps) than the CFL-i lamps manufactured in the Community (CFL-i lamps for professional uses).\n(18)\nIn respect of the alleged different quality between CFL-i lamps imported from the PRC and CFL-i lamps manufactured in the Community, the same claim was put forward in the original investigation and rejected in the original Regulation. Since the claim contained no new elements showing that the description of the like product, as defined in recital 13 of the provisional Regulation, was incorrect, the definition of the original Regulation, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1322/2006, has been maintained in this investigation.\n(19)\nIn respect of an alleged different end-use between imported CFL-i lamps and CFL-i lamps manufactured in the Community, this situation does not alter the fact that the CFL-i lamps imported and CFL-i lamps manufactured in the Community are completely interchangeable from a technical point of view and are in direct competition with each other. Moreover, whereas the users may differ and be supplied by different sales channels, this does not impinge upon the fact that such CFL-i lamps are technically alike and are used for the same purposes, i.e. to generate light in an energy-saving manner.\nC.\nLIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION AND/OR RECURRENCE OF DUMPING\n1.\nDumping of imports during the investigation period\n(20)\nIn accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether dumping was currently taking place and whether or not the expiry of the measures would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping.\n(21)\nIn accordance with Article 11(9) of the basic Regulation, the same methodology was used as in the original investigation. As an expiry review does not provide for any examination of changed circumstances, it was not reconsidered whether producers merited or not to be granted market economy treatment (MET).\nSampling/cooperation\n(22)\nIt is recalled that in the original investigation a total of nine Chinese exporting producers fully cooperated with the investigation. Two of these exporting producers were granted MET, namely Lisheng Electronic & Lighting (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. and Philips & Yaming Lighting Co., Ltd. (recital 15 of the provisional Regulation and recital 14 of the original Regulation). Six of the total nine were granted individual treatment (IT) (recital 35 of the provisional Regulation and recital 17 of the original Regulation). It is noted that none of the companies awarded with MET and only three of those awarded with IT cooperated with the present expiry review investigation.\n(23)\nIn view of the apparent large number of Chinese exporting producers listed in the complaint sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation for the determination of dumping, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all exporting producers from the PRC were asked to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide, as specified in the notice of initiation, basic information on their activities related to the product concerned during the investigation period.\n(24)\n17 Chinese exporting producers replied to the sampling forms. The investigation was based on information from two cooperating exporting producers which had originally received individual treatment, and also on information from a third one that, originally, was granted neither this treatment nor market economy treatment. This was done in agreement with the Chinese authorities. These three exporting producers represented more than 30 % of the total exported quantities to the Community from the PRC, and more than 40 % of the quantities excluding the Chinese exporter subject to 0 % duty. The two companies which received individual treatment account for a vast majority of these quantities, underlining that cooperation from companies receiving neither individual treatment nor market economy status was low.\n(25)\nVerification visits were carried out at the premises of the three cooperating exporting producers:\nZhejiang Yankon Group Co. Ltd,\nShenzhen Zuoming Electronic Co. Ltd,\nOsram China Lighting Ltd.\nNormal value\nDomestic Sales Prices based on the Analogue Country\n(26)\nSince normal value had to be established on the basis of analogue country data for all producers that did not meet MET criteria, the same methodology as in the original investigation was used. Therefore, the normal value for all Chinese exporters had to be determined on the basis of data obtained from producers in a market economy third country, in accordance with Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation.\n(27)\nIn the notice of initiation, Mexico was envisaged as an appropriate market economy third country in respect to the Community exports of the PRC. Mexico was already used an analogue country in the original investigation.\n(28)\nHowever, no cooperation could be obtained from Mexico. It was found that production of the product concerned had been shut down in Mexico before the beginning of the RIP.\n(29)\nTherefore, producers in other market economy third countries, including Indonesia, Malaysia, India and the Republic of Korea (Korea), were contacted with a view to cooperating with the review investigation.\n(30)\nThe highest level of cooperation was obtained from Korea where two producers filed questionnaire responses and were willing to subsequently undergo on-spot verifications. One producer from Malaysia also replied to the Commission services’ request but the data supplied were largely deficient. Another producer from India replied but its domestic sales were not representative. Moreover, it was found that the existence of several duties, such as countervailing duty, special countervailing duty, and Custom educational duty, had a negative impact on the openness of the Indian market. Therefore and given that no major competition or trade obstacles were found to exist on the Korean market it was considered that Korea was the most appropriate analogue country choice.\n(31)\nSubsequently, various producers and producers’ associations in Korea were contacted and invited to cooperate through the completion of a questionnaire. Two producers in the Republic of Korea provided a questionnaire reply and fully cooperated in the investigation. Consequently, calculations were based on the verified information from these two cooperating producers.\nExport price\n(32)\nFor the two cooperating exporting producers which had received individual treatment, export prices were to be established on the basis of the prices actually paid by unrelated customers in the Community in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.\n(33)\nTo ensure a fair comparison between normal value and export price, allowances were made for differences in physical characteristics, transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs where applicable and justified.\nDumping margin\n(34)\nDumping margins were established for the two cooperating exporting producers who had received individual treatment. To calculate the dumping margin, the weighted average normal values were compared to the weighted average export price to the Community of the product concerned.\n(35)\nThis comparison showed the existence of dumping of above 50 % for both companies.\n(36)\nAs to dumping margins for companies not receiving market economy treatment or individual treatment, cooperation from such companies was low. Against this background, dumping margins were established at least at the level mentioned in the preceding paragraph. This was done on the basis of normal value as described above, compared with export prices emanating from cooperating exporters and Community operators, and from official statistics, as cross-checked with confidential statistical information available to the Commission. Comparison was also undertaken as explained above.\n(37)\nAlso due to non-cooperation in the review investigation by companies which obtained market economy treatment in the original investigation, there are no indications that dumping margins would differ from those originally established.\n(38)\nTherefore, in particular on the basis of the evidence available from the three cooperating exporting producers, the investigation shows strong evidence of continued dumping.\n2.\nDevelopments of imports should measures be repealed\nPreliminary remarks\n(39)\nThe three exporting producers have available production capacities and stocks in order to continue to sell large volumes of sales on the Community market. In addition, it is emphasised that the Community market is very attractive given its size and the ever increasing demand for the product concerned. Accordingly, many Chinese exporting producers have established a well developed distribution network which facilitates sales of the product concerned. This is also mirrored by the fact that the existing measures were circumvented which led to the extension of these measures to Vietnam, Pakistan and the Philippines by Regulation (EC) No 866/2005. Also, the level of cooperation by Chinese exporting producers was rather poor (see above). In addition, the extent of dumping identified in the RIP points to a likelihood of continuation of dumping should measures lapse.\nRelationship between prices in the Community and the exporting country\n(40)\nPrices in the Community were generally higher than those achieved by the three cooperating Chinese exporting producers for comparable models on their domestic market. This would suggest that it would be an attractive alternative for the Chinese exporting producers to shift sales to the Community should the anti-dumping measures be repealed.\nRelationship between export prices to third countries and prices in the exporting country\n(41)\nDuring the RIP, export prices to third countries were generally higher than those achieved by the three cooperating Chinese exporting producers for comparable models on their domestic market. However, they were lower than the normal value determined in the analogue country. There is no reason to assume that this latter pattern would be different for exports to the Community if measures were lifted. Therefore, these facts support the conclusion that there is continuation and at least a risk of recurrence of dumping regarding most Chinese exports.\nRelationship between export prices to third countries and the price level in the Community\n(42)\nChinese export prices to third countries were about the same level as the price level in the Community. However, if measures are repealed it is likely that the Community market will even become more attractive for Chinese exporting producers.\nUnused capacities and stocks\n(43)\nAll three cooperating exporting producers were close to producing and selling their full capacities during the RIP. New assembly-lines can be established relatively quickly if new market evolutions so require. That is why Chinese producers are likely to expand their capacities quickly once measures are repealed. In turn, dumping is likely to continue on that basis.\nCircumvention practices\n(44)\nAs established by Regulation (EC) No 866/2005, the existing measures were circumvented by consignments through Vietnam, Pakistan and the Philippines. Subsequently, measures were extended to consignments of the product concerned. Again, the circumvention practices found stress the attractiveness of the Community market for Chinese exporting producers. This attractiveness will in all likelihood make Chinese producers export increased volumes once measures are repealed. Since exports were already made at dumped prices during the RIP (with measures in place), dumping is likely to continue once measures lapse and export volumes subsequently increase.\nConclusion\n(45)\nDumping at significant levels (beyond 50 %) was found to occur during the RIP. The Community market has been and will be attractive given its size and its increasing demand for the product concerned. In addition, the price level on the Community market with prices substantially beyond the levels in the PRC adds to such attractiveness. Once measures are repealed, Chinese producers are likely to expand their capacities to take advantage of such a changed market situation. All these factors taken together make the continuation of dumping very likely once measures are repealed.\n3.\nConclusion on the likelihood of a continuation and/or recurrence of dumping\n(46)\nOn the basis of the above, it is concluded that dumping is likely to continue should measures be repealed.\nD.\nLIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF INJURY\n1.\nAnalysis pursuant to Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of the basic Regulation\n(47)\nCFL-i is manufactured in the Community by four producers:\nGeneral Electric Zrt., Hungary, with a production site in Hungary,\nOSRAM GmbH, Germany, with production sites in Germany and Slovakia,\nPhilips Lighting B.V., Eindhoven, Netherlands and Philips Lighting Poland S.A, Pila, Poland,\nSylvania Lighting International, Germany, with a production site in the United Kingdom.\n(48)\nAll four cooperating manufacturers belong to multinational groups and are active in the development and manufacturing of a large range of products. They all have their own sales and distribution systems in the Community as well as in other parts of the world.\n(49)\nDuring the investigation, the aforesaid manufacturers have been examined in the light of Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of the basic Regulation. The detailed results (see Annex) showed a complex picture of a sector whose structure appears to be in flux and where views are mixed, with the largest producer in terms of production volumes being in favour and the rest being opposed to the continuation of measures.\n(50)\nIt is noted that the aforementioned largest Community producer, referred to as company B in the Annex, produces around 48 % of Community production and its output therefore certainly constitutes a major proportion of Community production. Moreover, Article 9(1) of the basic Regulation stipulates that the Community may take measures even if a complaint is withdrawn if that is in the Community interest. This rule mutatis mutandis also applies in an expiry review in which there is no complete withdrawal of a complaint, but a major Community producer continues to be in favour of the measures. Provided that producer accounts for a major proportion of Community industry, which is the case here, its injury data constitutes the best available data.\n(51)\nTherefore, for the purpose of the analysis of continuation and/or recurrence of injury, the situation of the supporting company has been analysed. The analysis of the impact the measures have had on the other Community manufacturers is described below under ‘Community interest’.\n2.\nSituation on the Community market\nCommunity consumption\n(52)\nCommunity consumption was established on the basis of the sales volumes of the Community manufacturers and of Eurostat figures concerning the volume of imports from the country concerned and other third countries, duly adjusted where appropriate.\n(53)\nCN code 8539 31 90 may include imports from products other than the product concerned. As a consequence, an estimate of the percentage of imports of the product concerned within this code was made on the basis of questionnaire replies by interested parties, information provided by the complainant and cross-checked with confidential statistical information available to the Commission. Whereas in some instances it could be argued that full CN code data could well reflect import volumes and values of the product concerned, the assessment was made conservatively, thus minimising these amounts. In any event, the conclusions are the same whether this conservative approach or full CN code data are used. Some figures below have been indexed or bracketed to protect confidential company information and/or statistics (such as those emanating from 10 digit or 14 digit codes).\n(54)\nThe Community consumption developed as follows:\nTable 1\n2003\n2004\n2005\nRIP\nCommunity consumption(million of units)\n112\n144\n198\n214\nIndex (2003 = 100)\n100\n129\n176\n190\n(55)\nDuring the period considered consumption of the product concerned increased by 90 %. This increase of consumption is supplied partly by an increase in imports of the product concerned destined to consumers. Smaller-sized CFL-i which resembles classical incandescent lamps has started to penetrate the market and, due to their apparent attraction to consumers (allegedly due to their design and low price), have triggered a significant increase in demand.\nDevelopment of imports\nVolumes, market share and prices of imports from the PRC\n(56)\nThe volumes and market shares of imports of the product concerned from the PRC developed as in Table 2 below. In line with the findings of the extending Regulation, imports recorded under CN code 8539 31 90 consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines, in the period spanning from 2003 to the extension of the measures have been included as dumped imports below. It is underlined that this inclusion has no impact on the nature of the trends described. Since the interim review with respect to Lisheng Electronics (see above) is not yet finalised, it is presumed that the outcome in the original investigation (no dumping found) is also valid in this expiry review.\nTable 2\n2003\n2004\n2005\nRIP\nVolume of dumped imports (only index is provided due to confidentiality)\n100\n148\n262\n335\nVolume of non-dumped imports (only index is provided due to confidentiality)\n100\n147\n194\n205\nTotal imports (thousands of units)\n55 046\n81 361\n127 860\n153 451\nMarket share of dumped imports\nbetween 20 % and 30 %\nbetween 27 % and 37 %\nbetween 37 % and 47 %\nbetween 47 % and 57 %\nMarket share of non-dumped imports\nbetween 17 % and 27 %\nbetween 17 % and 27 %\nbetween 17 % and 27 %\nbetween 17 % and 27 %\nAverage prices of dumped imports\nBetween EUR 1,2 and EUR 1,3\nBetween EUR 1,0 and EUR 1,1\nBetween EUR 0,9 and EUR 1,0\nBetween EUR 0,9 and EUR 1,0\n(57)\nBetween 2003 and the end of the RIP, dumped imports from the PRC increased by 235 %. The share of dumped imports in Community consumption, in the meanwhile, increased from between 20 % and 30 % to between 47 % and 57 %.\n(58)\nMeanwhile non-dumped imports also increased its share of the Community market, albeit not to the extent that dumped imports did. During the RIP, non-dumped imports had a market share of the Community market in the range of 17 % and 27 %, much less than the market share of the dumped imports.\n(59)\nAll in all, imports from the PRC, dumped and non-dumped, during the RIP held a market share of the Community market of around 72 %.\n(60)\nThe approach to calculate the price undercutting is identical to the approach described in recital 60 in the provisional Regulation. The type of CFL-i exported to the Community by the exporting producers in the PRC (for which dumping was established) has been compared with the corresponding type of CFL-i manufactured by the supporter, and expressed as a percentage of supporter’s ex-works price. On this basis, a level of undercutting ranging from 48,2 % to 61,5 % has been found.\nVolumes, market shares and prices of imports from other countries\n(61)\nIn order to present a complete picture of the situation on the Community market, the trends of imports of the product concerned from other countries concerned by this review were also examined.\n(62)\nImport volumes, market shares and average prices of imports from third countries have developed as indicated in Table 3 below (two main exporting countries have been extracted).\nTable 3\n2003\n2004\n2005\nRIP\nVolume of imports from Malaysia\nbetween 1 and 2 million units\nbetween 0 and 1 million units\nbetween 1 and 2 million units\nbetween 2 and 3 million units\nMarket share\nbetween 1 % and 2 %\nbetween 0 % and 1 %\nbetween 0 % and 1 %\nbetween 0 % and 1 %\nAverage prices of imports\nBetween EUR 1,2 and EUR 1,3\nBetween EUR 1,1 and EUR 1,2\nBetween EUR 1,2 and EUR 1,3\nBetween EUR 1,2 and EUR 1,3\nVolume of imports from Taiwan\nbetween 0 and 1 million units\nbetween 1 and 2 million units\nbetween 3 and 4 million units\nbetween 3 and 4 million units\nMarket share\nbetween 0 % and 1 %\nbetween 0 % and 1 %\nbetween 1 % and 3 %\nbetween 1 % and 3 %\nAverage prices of imports\nBetween EUR 0 and EUR 1,0\nBetween EUR 0 and EUR 1,0\nBetween EUR 0 and EUR 1,0\nBetween EUR 0 and EUR 1,0\nVolume of imports from the rest of the world)\nbetween 3 and 4 million units\nbetween 4 and 5 million units\nbetween 7 and 10 million units\nbetween 7 and 10 million units\nMarket share\nbetween 3 % and 4 %\nbetween 2 % and 3 %\nbetween 4 % and 5 %\nbetween 4 % and 5 %\nAverage prices of imports\nBetween EUR 1,0 and EUR 1,1\nBetween EUR 1,0 and EUR 1,1\nBetween EUR 1,0 and EUR 1,1\nBetween EUR 1,0 and EUR 1,1\n(63)\nBetween 2003 and the end of the RIP small increases have been noted for imports originating in Malaysia and Taiwan. In total, imports from third countries have been able to gain market shares despite imports originating in the PRC having successfully penetrated the Community market. However, as compared to imports from the PRC, imports from third countries only play a minor role.\n(64)\nDue to the small quantities imported, the price findings extracted from import statistics have, for some countries, been considered to be unrepresentative as they clearly substantially deviate from imports prices found for imports from the PRC. However, there is no reason to believe that exporting producers in third countries could deviate more than marginally from the prices charged by exporting producers in the PRC. Even if these prices were considered to be representative, given the limited magnitude of the volumes at hand, and the nature of Chinese export price and volumes, there would be no impact on the findings detailed below.\n3.\nEconomic situation of the supporter\nPreliminary remarks\n(65)\nPursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, all relevant economic indicators having a bearing on the state of the single supporter of the investigation have been examined.\n(66)\nIn view of the fact that figures pertain to only one company, for reasons of confidentiality all figures have been indexed.\nTable 4\nProduction, installed production capacity and capacity utilisation rate\n2003\n2004\n2005\nRIP\nProduction\n100\n107\n90\n83\nInstalled production capacity\n100\n100\n100\n100\nCapacity utilisation rate\n100\n107\n90\n83\n(67)\nFollowing an increase in production between 2003 and 2004, the production of the supporter has fallen by 22 % from 2004 to the end of the RIP. As the level of installed production capacity remained unchanged, the capacity utilisation rate has decreased in correspondence with the production rate, i.e. by 22 % since 2004.\n(68)\nThe reason for the lower level of production (and the lower rates of the capacity utilisation) is lower sales volumes on the Community market of the type of CFL-i lamps that the supporter is manufacturing.\nTable 5\nStocks\n2003\n2004\n2005\nRIP\nStocks\n100\n49\n0\n116\nStocks as % of overall sales volumes on the Community market\n100\n49\n0\n168\n(69)\nAs the demand for CFL-i lamps by this manufacturer decreased (see preceding recital), the level of stocks of Community manufactured CFL-i lamps have increased during the period considered. The increase in stocks during the RIP should partly be seen in the light of the fact that CFL-i lamps are a seasonal product (with higher sales volumes preceding and during the darker period of the year). Thus, increase of stocks between 2005 and the RIP is partly due to seasonal effects. However, it is to some extent also due to lower sales volumes of Community manufactured CFL-i lamps during the RIP.\n(70)\nSales volumes of Community produced CFL-i lamps, market share of Community consumption and growth\nTable 6\n2003\n2004\n2005\nRIP\nSales Volumes\n100\n102\n103\n83\nMarket share of Community consumption\n100\n80\n59\n44\nGrowth of Sales turnover\n100\n101\n93\n74\n(71)\nSales volumes of Community produced CFL-i lamps by the supporter for the Community market remained relatively stable in absolute terms during the first years of the period considered. During the RIP, however, a decrease in sales volumes of 20 % was noted.\n(72)\nIn relation to Community consumption, the market share of the Community-manufactured CFL-i lamps by the supporter has decreased.\nTable 7\nSales prices\n2003\n2004\n2005\nRIP\nAverage Sales price\n100\n98\n90\n88\n(73)\nThe average sales price of Community-manufactured CFL-i lamps has decreased during the period considered. The average sales price per unit has decreased by 12 % during the period considered.\nTable 8\nEmployment, wages and productivity per employee\n2003\n2004\n2005\nRIP\nEmployees\n100\n97\n90\n82\nWages\n100\n97\n90\n85\nProductivity (CFL-i lamps manufactured/employee in production)\n100\n109\n101\n106\n(74)\nThe number of employees has decreased during the whole period considered, as a direct result of lower production within the Community border.\n(75)\nThe cost for wages has decreased in line with the decrease of the number of employees.\n(76)\nThe productivity by the employees in production has increased by 11 % during the period considered, i.e. the number of employees in production has fallen more than the number of CFL-i lamps produced.\nMagnitude of the actual margin of dumping and recovery from the effects of past dumping\n(77)\nAs concerns the impact on the supporter of the magnitude of the actual margin of dumping, given the volume and the prices of the imports from the countries concerned, this impact cannot be considered to be negligible.\n(78)\nIn the light of the foregoing, it can not be concluded that the supporter has fully recovered from the effects of past dumping.\nTable 9\nProfitability, return on investment and cash flow\n2003\n2004\n2005\nRIP\nPre-tax profit on sales in the Community(% of Community sales)\n100\n126\n38\n-36\nReturn on total assets\n100\n110\n36\n-17\nCash Flow (% on total sales)\n100\n94\n57\n1\n(79)\nAll the performance indicators above demonstrate the trend towards declined profitability. From a situation of reasonable financial performance (following the imposition of anti-dumping measures in 2001), the supporter enjoyed a period of healthy financial performance during the first years of the period considered. However, as a consequence of competition from imported CFL-i originating in the PRC, sales volumes and average sales prices have decreased and have had a negative effect of the financial performance of the supporter. Despite having anti-dumping measures in force, the supporter made losses during the RIP.\nTable 10\nInvestments and ability to raise capital\n2003\n2004\n2005\nRIP\nInvestments\n100\n55\n95\n71\n(80)\nThe level of investments has, overall, decreased during the period considered. It should also be mentioned that the level of investments in the product concerned has generally been low, as demonstrated by the fact that installed production capacity has not changed during the period considered.\n(81)\nThe supporter has not reported any specific problems in relation to its ability to raise capital.\nConclusion on the economic situation of the supporter\n(82)\nThe period considered has been characterized by an increase of imports from the PRC which partly has been on the expense of the supporter’s financial performance as concerns Community-produced CFL-i lamps. Sales volumes and sales values have both decreased and the profitability has decreased to a level where it made losses during the RIP.\n(83)\nIt is thus clear that, should anti-dumping measures be allowed to lapse, the financial performance as regards Community manufactured CFL-i lamps of the supporter would deteriorate.\n4.\nImport activities of the supporter\nTable 11\n2003\n2004\n2005\nRIP\nRe-sales of imported CFL-i lamps\n100\n323\n346\n941\nProportion of total sales revenues that originate from re-sales of imported CFL-i lamps\n100\n104\n104\n188\n(84)\nIt was stated by the supporting manufacturer that in order to defend itself from competition from imports and to guard its market share of the Community market, the supporter has started to import CFL-i lamps from the country concerned.\n(85)\nThe volumes of imports represent only a relatively small portion of the total sales volumes on the Community market.\n5.\nExport activities of the supporter\nTable 12\n2003\n2004\n2005\nRIP\nExport sales of Community-manufactured CFL-i lamps\n100\n68\n46\n60\nAverage price of exported Community-produced CFL-i lamps\n100\n96\n102\n87\n(86)\nThe export performance by the supporter has deteriorated during the period considered. Part of the explanation for this is that, for some of the export markets, the supporter has changed the location from where it supplies the CFL-i lamps, from Community manufacturing to a location closer to the export market.\n(87)\nThe average price per unit for export sales has been fairly stable during the period considered, with a tendency towards lower prices towards the end of the RIP.\n6.\nConclusion on the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury\n(88)\nThe investigation showed that the capacity of Chinese exporters is significant and can be easily increased. In addition, price levels in the Community remain attractive in comparison to other markets, and there are well established distribution channels in the Community for Chinese exports. Chinese exports would therefore be likely to increase.\n(89)\nThe significant levels of dumping and undercutting observed, as well as the low level of prices practiced in Chinese exports to other third countries, indicate that the export volumes to the Community mentioned above would be made at dumped prices which would lie below the prices and costs of the supporter.\n(90)\nThe combined effect of such volumes and prices would be likely to lead to a deterioration of the supporter’s situation. Whether the supporter’s response thereto would be a drop in sales (and hence in production), a reduction in prices, or both, the financial deterioration would be substantial.\n(91)\nThe investigation has not identified any other factors that would put into question the likely effect of dumped imports on the situation of the supporter. In particular, it is likely that dumped imports from China would gain ground over products from other sources, including from other Community manufacturers and from the Chinese producer subject to a 0 % duty if measures lapse. Even if this were not to take place, the size and price levels of the dumped Chinese imports would be of such a magnitude that imports from non-dumped sources would, in all likelihood, not break the causal link. Moreover, no other factors to which injury must be attributed have been identified. In particular, there is no evidence that any factors enumerated in Article 3(7) of the Basic Regulation apply, and certainly not that is so important as to break the causal link between dumping and injury.\n(92)\nFurthermore it cannot be considered that the imports carried out by the supporting manufacturer would have any substantial impact as to the likelihood of continuation of injury. In this respect it has been established that these imports have been the consequence of the need for the supporter to complete the product range.\n(93)\nOn this basis, it is concluded that there is a likelihood of continuation and recurrence of injurious dumping should anti-dumping measures on imports of CFL-i originating in the People’s Republic of China be allowed to lapse.\nE.\nCOMMUNITY INTEREST\n1.\nPreliminary remarks\n(94)\nFirstly, it is recalled (see recital 50 above), that since Article 9(1) of the basic Regulation stipulates that the Community may take measures even if a complaint is withdrawn if taking measures in the Community interest. A fortiori, this possibility is open to the Community in an expiry review in which the major Community producer continues to be in favour of the measures, even if other manufacturers oppose their continuation. Therefore, and also in accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the maintenance of the existing anti-dumping measures would be in the interest of the Community as a whole and if so, for what period. The determination of the Community interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved. The present investigation analyses a situation in which anti-dumping measures have already been in place since 2001 and therefore allows for the assessment of any undue negative impact on the parties concerned due to the current anti-dumping measures.\n(95)\nOn this basis, it was examined whether, despite the conclusions on the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed which would lead to the conclusion that it is not in the Community interest to maintain measures in this particular case.\n2.\nInterest of manufacturer in the Community supporting the complaint\n(96)\nAs outlined in section D above, there is a likelihood of continuation as well as recurrence of dumping if measures were to be repealed.\n(97)\nThere is likelihood, should the measures be repealed, that the loss-making situation will continue. The manufacturing plants currently employ several hundred staff. Therefore it would be in the interest of the Community manufacturer supporting the complaint that anti-dumping measures against dumped imports from the country concerned be re-imposed.\n3.\nInterest of other manufacturers in the Community\n(98)\nIn general, it should be underlined that, given the import activity of Community manufacturers, the existence of duties has had a negative impact on their overall activity. Aside from the expenses emanating from anti-dumping duties linked to importation, measures have prevented them from optimising their production mix, sales portfolio, and, as a corollary their profitability. Investment, production, R & D and other strategic decisions have also been affected as a result. These negative effects are an important aspect to take into consideration in this analysis.\n(99)\nIt is recalled that Company A had announced, apart from its European production, a strategy to source from the PRC. It is therefore concluded that re-imposition of measures would not be in the interest of this manufacturer.\n(100)\nTwo other Community manufacturers, (identified as ‘Company C’ and ‘Company D’ in the Annex) both opposed re-imposition of measures. While these companies both source CFL-(i)-s from the PRC they both still have substantial production in the Community. For this reason, it cannot be ruled out that the anti-dumping measures would be contrary to these two producers’ interests, especially not in the medium term.\n4.\nInterest of suppliers\n(101)\nSeveral suppliers, accounting for a significant amount of total supplies to the Community industry, cooperated with the Commission in the investigation. All but one supplier expressed support of continuation of measures and expressed concerns about losing business should the existence of CFL-i-manufacturing in the Community be at stake. These suppliers jointly had several hundreds of employees located in Germany, Spain, Italy, Slovakia and Hungary.\n(102)\nIt can therefore be concluded that it would be in the interest of the suppliers to re-impose anti-dumping measures against dumped imports from the country concerned.\n5.\nInterest of importers/traders and retailers\n(103)\nThe Commission sent questionnaires to 8 importers/traders of the product concerned. Responses were received from 3 importers representing only just over 1 % of the total import volume of the product concerned originating in the country concerned to the Community. The product concerned is important for all three companies and the turnover of the product concerned corresponds to between 10 to 70 % of the total turnover of each company. This turnover was due to increase given the expected increase in consumption of this product in the medium term. One company representing the retail sector also made itself known.\n(104)\nTwo of the importers and the one company representing the retail sector expressed clear opposition against the continuation of the measures, while the third importer identified both advantages and disadvantages with the measures in place. All three companies asserted that the Community is dependent on imports of the product concerned from the PRC since the Community production is unable to satisfy the demand on the market. In addition, they underlined that consumption in the Community was due to increase significantly. It was however also acknowledged that the measures in force have prevented so called C-grade spectra lamps of low quality from making significant inroads into the Community market. Given the fact that consumers could have problems in distinguishing these from the higher quality B grade lamps, the abolition of measures could mean that the B-grade lamps that are central to the business of the importers in question would have difficulties in competing.\n6.\nInterest of consumers and the development of the product concerned on the Community market\n(105)\nSeveral interested parties submitted that anti-dumping duties are contrary to Community energy saving policies, as they have resulted in excessive retail prices for consumers and are therefore suppressing the sales of energy saving lamps (CFL-i). Conversely, one party argued that the discontinuation of measures would be detrimental to the Community environment policy as the CFL-i produced in China contain more mercury and therefore have a greater negative effect on the environment when disposed of then the ones produced in the Community.\n(106)\nAnti dumping measures are aimed at addressing unfair competitive advantages resulting from practices of dumping of imports to the Community. The existence of other Community policies as such would therefore not preclude the imposition and continuation of duties should these be needed.\n(107)\nNevertheless, the investigation has shown that the consumption and demand for the product concerned has increased rapidly on the European market and this increase in demand is the likely consequence of an increased interest amongst European consumers to reduce their energy expenditure and thus contribute to a sustainable development. It is also clear that the measures in force have a significant impact on the retail prices in the Community of the product concerned. This has meant that consumers that would potentially have made the switch from incandescent lamps to the product concerned have not been able to do so given the substantial difference in retail price between these products — a difference exacerbated i.a. by the measures in force. To this end the supply to the market of the product concerned in sufficient quantities and at reasonable prices must therefore also be taken into account when assessing the Community interest in this case.\n(108)\nThis should be set against the background of Community policy to foster the use of energy saving lamps, which can only reinforce the arguments mentioned above.\n(109)\nWhen taking into account the probable market developments, it is highly likely that the continuation of measures would pose a significant burden on consumers in the medium and long term.\n(110)\nIn reaction to the disclosure, the manufacturer in the Community supporting the complaint has argued that the measures in force have not had a significant upward effect on consumer prices in the Community. Regarding this argument, it should be noted that whilst it may be true that the consumer price of some models has gone down since the imposition of the measures, it cannot be denied that duties of up to 66 % which have furthermore been extended to circumventing imports must have had an upward effect on price. Moreover, in the Member State with the biggest Community retail market, according to the supporter’s own data, prices for three out of the five models were higher at the start of 2006 than at the start of 2001. The company referred to as company A in the Annex stated it was unclear whether the complainant has withdrawn its complaint. As was stated before, the manufacturer in the Community supporting the complaint maintains its complaint.\n(111)\nSome interested parties have also asserted that the measures go against the Community interest as the Community manufacturers lack the capacity to satisfy the demand and that imports therefore are necessary to ensure the supply to the market.\n(112)\nThe purpose of anti-dumping measures is neither to prohibit imports nor to limit the supply of CFL-i to the Community market. As shown above, the measures in place have not been detrimental to imports. On the contrary, the growing consumption has lead to an increase both in absolute terms as well as in the market share of imports from the PRC in the period considered. However, it is clear that in the medium term, the impact on supply emanating from a continuation of measures may be more significant.\n(113)\nSome interested parties have furthermore stated that the measures in place distort competition on the Community market as only some operators are able to source CFL(i) lamps from the producers in the PRC that are subject to zero or very low duties. Other operators only have limited market access as they can only import from exporting producers that are subject to high duties.\n(114)\nIt should be recalled that Article 21 of the basic Regulation refers to the need to remedy the trade-distorting effects of injurious dumping. To this end, the imposition of measures will help to offset the advantage to exporters resulting from the dumping. Duties would thus help in maintaining a level playing field between on the one hand, Community producers, third country exporters and exporters in the country concerned where no dumping has been found and on the other hand, exporters that have been found to be operating by way of dumping practices. The fact that some exporters are subject to higher duties than others simply reflects different dumping margins between different exporters and does not therefore result in discrimination or a distortion of competition between importers with access to different sources in the PRC. In addition, the investigation has shown that Community operators can access to supply of CFL(i) from a number of producers in the Community as well as in the Country concerned and third countries and no evidence has been provided that would support the claim that some operators are excluded from access to the market. In view of the above, it must be concluded that the continuation of measures will have a significant effect on consumers in terms of retail prices, and availability of supply, in particular in the medium to long-term.\n7.\nConclusion on Community interest and duration of the measures\n(115)\nArticle 21(1) of the Basic Regulation provides that special consideration be given to the need to eliminate the trade distorting effects of injurious dumping and one producer, accounting for a substantial proportion of Community production, is suffering the effects of the injurious dumping established by the investigation. Against that however, there are substantial considerations that lead to the conclusion that it is in the Community interest to discontinue the measures; the Community industry is itself heavily reliant on imports from the PRC to meet demand, which is expanding rapidly, some Community producers themselves do not favour a continuation of the measures, and the measures have been shown to have a significant impact on consumer prices and hence on the choices made by consumers as to whether to buy CFL(i) or less efficient incandescent lamps.\n(116)\nHaving regard to all the interests concerned, it is concluded that the overall balance of the relevant interests lies in discontinuing the measures. However, in light of the considerations noted above regarding the interests of the producer supporting continuation, when weighing them against the interests at stake and in particular those of the other producers in the Community, it is in the short term interest of the Community to continue the measures for a further adjustment period. It is therefore appropriate that the measures be maintained only for one year before they lapse. After this the likely negative effects on consumers and other operators would be disproportionate to the benefits which Community manufacturers would derive from the measures.\nF.\nFINAL PROVISIONS\n(117)\nAll parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the existing measures be discontinued after one year. They were also granted a period to submit comments and claims subsequent to disclosure. None of the disclosure comments received was such as to alter the conclusions as contained in this Regulation.\n(118)\nIt follows from the above that the anti-dumping duties should be discontinued after one year,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:",
  "extent": "E+W+S+N.I.",
  "status": null,
  "version": "current",
  "annotations": [
    {
      "type": "footnote",
      "label": "f1",
      "text": "OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ L 340, 23.12.2005, p. 17)."
    },
    {
      "type": "footnote",
      "label": "f2",
      "text": "OJ L 195, 19.7.2001, p. 8. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1322/2006 (OJ L 244, 7.9.2006, p. 1)."
    },
    {
      "type": "footnote",
      "label": "f3",
      "text": "OJ L 38, 8.2.2001, p. 8."
    },
    {
      "type": "footnote",
      "label": "f4",
      "text": "OJ L 145, 9.6.2005, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1322/2006."
    },
    {
      "type": "footnote",
      "label": "f5",
      "text": "OJ C 167, 19.7.2006, p. 13."
    },
    {
      "type": "footnote",
      "label": "f6",
      "text": "OJ C 217, 8.9.2006, p. 2."
    }
  ],
  "outstanding_effects": [],
  "provenance": {
    "source": "legislation.gov.uk",
    "source_url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2007/1205/introduction",
    "retrieved_at": "2026-11-01T14:52:42.085011+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."
}