(1)

By Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports into the Community of cotton-type bed linen falling within CN codes ex 6302 21 00 (TARIC codes 6302210081, 6302210089), ex 6302 22 90 (TARIC code 6302229019), ex 6302 31 00 (TARIC code 6302310090) and ex 6302 32 90 (TARIC code 6302329019), originating in Pakistan. A countrywide anti-dumping duty of 13,1 % was imposed on all companies exporting the product concerned to the Community.

(2)

In May 2006, following an ex officio partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 695/2006, amended Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 and established new duty rates ranging from 0 % to 8,5 %. Given the large number of cooperating exporting producers a sample was established.

(3)

The companies selected in the sample were attributed the individual duty rates established during the review investigation, while other co-operating companies not included in the sample were attributed the weighted average duty rate of 5,8 %. A duty rate of 8,5 % was imposed on companies which either did not make themselves known or did not co-operate in the investigation.

(4)

Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 gives the possibility to Pakistani exporting producers which meet the three criteria set out in the same Article to be granted the same treatment as the co-operating companies not included in the sample (new exporting producer treatment or NEPT).

(5)

Eighteen Pakistani companies requested to be granted NEPT.

(6)

An examination was carried out to determine whether each applicant fulfils the criteria for being granted NEPT as set out in Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 397/2004, by verifying that:

(7)

A questionnaire was sent to all applicants who were asked to supply evidence to demonstrate that they met the three criteria mentioned above.

(8)

Exporting producers fulfilling these three criteria may be granted the duty rate applicable to the co-operating companies not included in the sample, i.e. 5,8 %, pursuant to Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 397/2004.

(9)

Eight Pakistani companies requesting NEPT did not reply to the initial questionnaire. It was therefore not possible to verify whether these companies fulfilled the criteria set out in Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 397/2004, and their request had to be rejected. These companies were informed that their application would not be considered any further, and were given the opportunity to comment. No comments were received.

(10)

Three Pakistani companies having not fully replied to the questionnaire did not reply to the requests for further clarification. Consequently it was not possible to analyse the replies of these companies and verify whether they fulfilled the criteria set out in Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 397/2004. Their requests were therefore rejected. These companies were informed that their application would not be considered any further, and were given the opportunity to comment. No comments were received.

(11)

For four Pakistani exporting producers, the examination of the information submitted showed that they had provided sufficient evidence to prove that they meet the three criteria set out in Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 397/2004. Therefore these four producers can be granted the duty rate applicable to the cooperating companies not included in the sample (i.e. 5,8 %) in accordance with Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 and be added to the list of exporting producers in the Annex to that Regulation.

(12)

One Pakistani company was unable to prove that it had either exported the product concerned to the EC after the IP, or that it had evidence of irrevocable contractual obligations to export a significant quantity to the Community. This company had exported products claimed to be the product concerned since the IP, but had not declared their exports as being the product concerned under the CN codes listed in recital (1) above. This company was requested to submit additional evidence supporting their claim that this shipment was indeed the product concerned. No additional supporting evidence has been submitted. This company was informed that if they failed to submit any further evidence their application would not be considered any further, and was given the opportunity to comment. No comments were received. Therefore, it could not be established with certainty whether this company had exported the product concerned after the IP as set out in the third criterion in Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 397/2004, and its request for NEPT had therefore to be rejected.

(13)

One Pakistani company was unable to submit sufficient evidence to support its claim of not having exported the product concerned during the original IP. The company did not submit detailed evidence of its sales activity during and prior to the IP although repetitively requested to do so for the purpose of this investigation. It was therefore impossible to establish whether indeed this company was a new exporting producer fulfilling the first criterion set out in Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 397/2004, and its request for NEPT had therefore to be rejected. This company was informed that their application would not be considered any further, and were given the opportunity to comment. No comments were received.

(14)

One Pakistani company was unable to prove that it was a producer of the product concerned. This applicant did therefore not meet the basic criterion of being an exporting producer and their application could therefore not be considered any further. This company was informed of the rejection and did not comment.

(15)

All the applicants and the Community industry were informed of the final findings of the examination and have had the opportunity to submit their comments. Following disclosure, a number of applicants claimed that they had not replied to the letters and requests of information sent by the Commission because they had not received the correspondence in question or had had internal organisational problems in dealing with such correspondence. The correspondence was checked again and it was concluded that these claims were unfounded. Moreover, a company's non-cooperation cannot be justified by problems of internal organisation. One company requested that their claims were reconsidered. That company did not submit any reasoning or any additional information that could lead to a change in the findings. None of the companies concerned proved that they fulfilled the relevant criteria. The claims were therefore rejected.

(16)

In consideration of the findings mentioned in recital (11) above, four Pakistani exporting producers fulfil the criteria set out in Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 to be granted NEPT. These companies should therefore be added to the list of cooperating manufactures in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 and be subject to the duty rate of 5,8 %. The requests submitted by the remaining 14 exporting producers should be rejected for the reasons outlined above,