(3)

The Commission received from the parties listed in Table 1 below all the information required for the determination of the admissibility of their requests. The information provided was examined and verified, where necessary, at the premises of the parties concerned. Based on this information, the Commission found that the requests submitted by the parties listed in Table 1 are admissible pursuant to Article 4(1) of the exemption Regulation.

Table 1

(4)

The facts as finally ascertained by the Commission show that for 24 of these applicants’ bicycle assembly operations, the value of the parts originating in the People’s Republic of China which were used in their assembly operations was lower than 60 % of the total value of the parts used in these assembly operations, and they, therefore, fall outside the scope of Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation.

(5)

Concerning the last party, although the facts show that the value of the parts originating in the People’s Republic of China which were used in its assembly operations was above 60 % of the total value of the parts used in the assembly operations, the value added was above 25 % of the manufacturing costs. Therefore the assembly operations of that party fall outside the scope of Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation.

(6)

For these reasons, and in accordance with Article 7(1) of the exemption Regulation, the parties listed in the above table should be exempted from the extended anti-dumping duty.

(7)

In accordance with Article 7(2) of the exemption Regulation, the exemption of the parties listed in Table 1 from the extended anti-dumping duty should take effect as from the date of receipt of their requests. In addition, their customs debt in respect of the extended anti-dumping duty is to be considered void as from the date of receipt of their requests for exemption.

(8)

It is to be noted that the following five parties listed in Table 1 informed the Commission services of a change in their name and/or in their legal seat, or transfer of assembly activity, during the examination period:

(9)

It has been established that these changes in the name and/or legal seat and transfer of assembly activity did not affect the assembly operations with regard to the stipulations of the exemption Regulation and therefore the Commission does not consider that these changes should affect the exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty.

(10)

The parties listed in Table 2 below also submitted requests for exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty.

Table 2

(11)

Four parties withdrew their request for exemption and informed the Commission accordingly.

(12)

One party failed to submit the requested information required for the examination of its request. For this reason, and in accordance with Article 7(3) of the exemption Regulation, the Commission informed this party that it intended to reject its request for exemption. This party was given an opportunity to comment. No comments were received.

(13)

Another party did not use the bicycle parts for the production or assembly of bicycles during the examination period, nor did it inform the Commission that it destroyed or re-exported them, which constitutes a breach of the obligations set out in Article 6(2) of the exemption Regulation. The party was informed accordingly and given an opportunity to comment. No comments were received.

(14)

Since the parties listed in Table 2 failed to meet the criteria for exemption set by Article 6(2) of the exemption Regulation, the Commission has to reject their requests for exemption, in accordance with Article 7(3) of the Regulation. In the light of this, the suspension of the payment of the extended anti-dumping duty referred to in Article 5 of the exemption Regulation must be lifted and the extended anti-dumping duty must be collected as from the date of receipt of the requests submitted by these parties.

(15)

The party listed in Table 3 below also submitted a request for exemption from the payment of the extended anti-dumping duty.

Table 3

(16)

As regards this party, the Commission services were not in a position to verify whether the assembly operations of this party fall outside the scope of Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation due to the bankruptcy procedure of the party instituted by the Bankruptcy Penal Tribunal held by the District Court of Ljubljana.

(17)

In light of the above, the party listed in Table 3 should be maintained in the list of parties under examination. The payment of the anti-dumping duty in respect of the imports of essential bicycle parts declared for free circulation by this party should remain suspended.

(18)

The parties listed in Table 4 also submitted requests for exemption from the payment of the extended anti-dumping duty:

Table 4

(19)

With regard to these parties, it should be noted that their requests did not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Article 4(1) of the exemption Regulation.

(20)

Two applicants use essential bicycle parts for the production or assembly of bicycles in quantities below 300 units per type on a monthly basis.

(21)

One applicant did not provide prima facie evidence that its assembly operations fell outside the scope of Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation, notably prima facie evidence that the value of the parts originating in the People’s Republic of China, which were used in their assembly operations, was lower than 60 % of the total value of the parts used in these assembly operations.

(22)

These parties were informed accordingly and were given an opportunity to comment. No comments were received. As a consequence, no suspension was granted to these parties.

(23)

Interested parties are hereby informed of the receipt of further requests for exemption, pursuant to Article 3 of the exemption Regulation, from parties listed in Table 5. The suspension from the extended duty, following these requests, should take effect as shown in the column headed ‘Date of effect’:

Table 5