ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 379

European flag  

English edition

Legislation

Volume 49
28 December 2006


Contents

 

I   Acts whose publication is obligatory

page

 

*

Council Regulation (EC) No 1997/2006 of 19 December 2006 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs ( 1 )

1

 

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to de minimis aid

5

 

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1999/2006 of 20 December 2006 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain saddles originating in the People's Republic of China

11

 

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2000/2006 of 20 December 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 1870/2005 by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union

37

 

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2001/2006 of 21 December 2006 adapting Regulation (EC) No 2295/2003 introducing detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 on certain marketing standards for eggs by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union

39

 

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2002/2006 of 21 December 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers

47

 

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2003/2006 of 21 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the financing by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) of expenditure relating to the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products

49

 

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2004/2006 of 22 December 2006 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2273/93 determining the intervention centres for cereals, and adapting the said regulation due to the accession of Bulgaria and Romania

54

 

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2005/2006 of 22 December 2006 imposing provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of synthetic staple fibres of polyesters (PSF) originating in Malaysia and Taiwan

65

 

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2006/2006 of 22 December 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 950/2006 to include the annual tariff quota for sugar products originating in Croatia

95

 

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2007/2006 of 22 December 2006 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the importation and transit of certain intermediate products derived from Category 3 material intended for technical uses in medical devices, in vitro diagnostics and laboratory reagents and amending that Regulation ( 1 )

98

 

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2008/2006 of 22 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application in 2007 of the tariff quotas for baby beef products originating in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo

105

 

 

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2009/2006 of 27 December 2006 fixing the export refunds on milk and milk products

117

 

 

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2010/2006 of 27 December 2006 determining the quantity of certain products in the milk and milk products sector available for the first half of 2007 under quotas opened by the Community on the basis of an import licence alone

121

 

 

II   Acts whose publication is not obligatory

 

 

Council

 

*

Council Decision of 21 December 2006 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism

123

 

 

Commission

 

*

Commission Decision of 22 December 2006 concerning the non-inclusion of dimethenamid in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (notified under document number C(2006) 6895)  ( 1 )

125

 

*

Commission Decision of 22 December 2006 concerning the non-inclusion of phosalone in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (notified under document number C(2006) 6897)  ( 1 )

127

 

 

Acts adopted under Title V of the Treaty on European Union

 

*

Council Common Position 2006/1011/CFSP of 21 December 2006 implementing Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism

129

 


 

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.


I Acts whose publication is obligatory

28.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 379/1


COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1997/2006

of 19 December 2006

amending Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 37 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas:

(1)

It is necessary to advance the implementation of the European Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming on the basis of concrete measures with a view to assuring simplification and overall coherence.

(2)

Organic products imported into the Community should be allowed to be placed on the Community market labelled with a reference to organic farming if they have been produced in accordance with production rules and subject to inspection arrangements that are in compliance with, or equivalent to, Community legislation.

(3)

Third countries whose production standards and inspection arrangements are equivalent to those applied in the Community should be recognised and a list thereof should be published. Inspection bodies or inspection authorities competent to carry out inspection in countries which are not on the list of recognised third countries should also be recognised and listed. Third country operators who produce in direct compliance with Community rules should be allowed to submit their activities to inspection bodies and inspection authorities recognised by the Commission for this purpose.

(4)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (2) provides for the possibility for Member States to grant until 31 December 2006 authorisations to importers for the placing on the Community market of individual products under certain conditions. It should be amended to replace that import scheme with a scheme applicable after that date.

(5)

In order not to disrupt international trade, it is necessary to extend the possibility for Member States to continue to grant authorisations to importers on a case by case basis for the placing on the Community market of products until the measures necessary for the functioning of the new import scheme have been put in place, in particular as regards the recognition of inspection bodies and inspection authorities competent to carry out inspection in those countries which are not on the list of recognised third countries.

(6)

Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 should be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 is hereby amended as follows:

1.

In Article 10(1), point (b) shall be replaced by the following:

‘(b)

have been subject to the inspection system referred to in Article 9, or have been imported in conformity with Article 11;

however, in the case of products imported in conformity with Article 11(6), the implementation of the inspection system shall comply with requirements equivalent to those provided for in Article 9, and in particular paragraph 4 thereof.’

2.

Article 11 shall be replaced by the following:

‘Article 11

1.   A product imported from a third country may be placed on the Community market labelled as a product with indications referring to the organic production method provided that:

(a)

the product complies with the provisions set out in Articles 5 and 6 of this Regulation;

(b)

all operators, including the exporters, have submitted their activities to an inspection body or an inspection authority recognised in accordance with paragraph 2; and,

(c)

the operators concerned shall be able to provide at any time, to the importers or the national authorities, documentary evidence permitting the identification of the operator who carried out the last operation and the type or range of products under his control, as well as permitting verification of compliance by that operator with points (a) and (b), and the period of validity.

2.   The Commission shall, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 14(2), recognise the inspection bodies and inspection authorities referred to in paragraph 1(b), including inspection bodies and inspection authorities referred to in Article 9, competent to carry out inspections and to issue documentary evidence referred to in paragraph 1(c) in third countries, and shall establish a list of those inspection bodies and inspection authorities.

The inspection bodies shall be accredited to the relevant European Standard EN 45011 or ISO Guide 65 “General requirements for bodies operating product certification systems”, this being the version last published in the Official Journal of the European Union, C series. The inspection bodies shall undergo regular on-the-spot evaluation, monitoring and multi-annual re-assessment of their activities by the accreditation body.

When examining requests for recognition, the Commission shall invite the inspection body or authority to supply all the necessary information. The Commission may also entrust experts with the task of examining on-the-spot the rules of production and the inspection activities carried out in the third country by the inspection body or inspection authority concerned.

The recognised inspection bodies or inspection authorities shall provide the assessment reports issued by the accreditation body or, as appropriate, the competent authority on the regular on-the-spot evaluation, monitoring and multi-annual re-assessment of their activities.

Based on the assessment reports, the Commission, assisted by the Member States, shall ensure appropriate supervision of the recognised inspection bodies and inspection authorities by regularly reviewing their recognition. The nature of the supervision shall be determined on the basis of an assessment of the risk of the occurrence of irregularities or infringements of the provisions of this Regulation.

3.   A product imported from a third country may also be placed on the Community market labelled as a product with indications referring to the organic production method, provided that:

(a)

the product has been produced in accordance with production standards equivalent to the production rules laid down in Articles 5 and 6 for organic production in the Community;

(b)

the operators have been subject to inspection measures equivalent to those referred to in Articles 8 and 9, and such inspection measures have been permanently and effectively applied;

(c)

the operators at all stages of production, preparation and distribution in the third country have submitted their activities to an inspection system recognised in accordance with paragraph 4 or an inspection body or inspection authority recognised in accordance with paragraph 5; and,

(d)

the product is covered by a certificate of inspection issued by the competent authorities or inspection bodies or inspection authorities of the third country recognised in accordance with paragraph 4, or by an inspection body or inspection authority recognised in accordance with paragraph 5, which confirms that the product satisfies the conditions set out in this paragraph. The original of the certificate must accompany the goods to the premises of the first consignee. Thereafter, the importer must keep the certificate at the disposal of the inspection body and, as appropriate, the inspection authority for not less than two years.

4.   The Commission may, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 14(2), recognise third countries whose system of production complies with rules equivalent to those laid down in Articles 5 and 6 and whose inspection arrangements are equivalent to those laid down in Article 8 and 9, and may establish a list of these countries. The assessment of equivalency shall take into account Codex Alimentarius guidelines CAC/GL 32.

When examining requests for recognition, the Commission shall invite the third country to supply all the necessary information. The Commission may entrust to experts the task of examining on-the-spot the rules of production and the inspection arrangements of the third country concerned.

By 31 March of each year, the third countries so recognised shall send a concise annual report to the Commission regarding the implementation and the enforcement of their inspection arrangements.

Based on the information in those annual reports, the Commission, assisted by the Member States, shall ensure appropriate supervision of the recognised third countries by regularly reviewing their recognition. The nature of the supervision shall be determined on the basis of an assessment of the risk of the occurrence of irregularities or infringements of the provisions of this Regulation.

5.   For products not imported under paragraph 1 and not imported from a third country which is recognised under paragraph 4, the Commission may, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 14(2), recognise the inspection bodies and inspection authorities, including inspection bodies and inspection authorities as referred to in Article 9, competent to carry out inspections and issue certificates in third countries for the purpose of paragraph 3, and establish a list of these inspection bodies and inspection authorities. The assessment of equivalency shall take into account Codex Alimentarius guidelines CAC/GL 32.

The Commission shall examine any request for recognition lodged by an inspection body or an inspection authority in a third country.

When examining requests for recognition, the Commission shall invite the inspection body or inspection authority to supply all the necessary information. The inspection body or the inspection authority shall undergo regular on-the-spot evaluation, monitoring and multi-annual re-assessment of their activities by an accreditation body or, as appropriate, by a competent authority. The Commission may entrust to experts the task of examining on-the-spot the rules of production and the inspection activities carried out in the third country by the inspection body or inspection authority concerned.

The recognised inspection bodies or inspection authorities shall provide the assessment reports issued by the accreditation body or, as appropriate, the competent authority on the regular on-the-spot evaluation, monitoring and multi-annual re-assessment of their activities.

Based on those assessment reports, the Commission, assisted by the Member States, shall ensure appropriate supervision of recognised inspection bodies and inspection authorities by regularly reviewing their recognition. The nature of the supervision shall be determined on the basis of an assessment of the risk of the occurrence of irregularities or infringements of the provisions of this Regulation.

6.   For a period starting on 1 January 2007 and ending 12 months after the publication of the first list of inspection bodies and inspection authorities recognised pursuant to paragraph 5, the competent authority of a Member State may authorise importers in that Member State, where the importer has notified his activity in accordance with Article 8(1), to place on the market products imported from third countries which are not included in the list referred to in paragraph 4, provided that the importer provides sufficient evidence showing that the conditions referred to in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 3 are satisfied. If those conditions are no longer satisfied, the authorisation shall be immediately withdrawn. Authorisations shall expire at the latest 24 months after the publication of the first list of inspection bodies and inspection authorities recognised pursuant to paragraph 5. The imported product shall be covered by a certificate of inspection issued by the authority or body which has been accepted for issuing the certificate of inspection by the competent authority of the authorising Member State. The original of the certificate must accompany the goods to the premises of the first consignee; thereafter the importer must keep the certificate at the disposal of the inspection body and, as appropriate, the inspection authority for not less than two years.

Each Member State shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of each authorisation granted pursuant to this paragraph, including information on the production standards and inspection arrangements concerned.

At the request of a Member State or at the Commission's initiative, an authorisation granted pursuant to this paragraph shall be examined by the Committee referred to Article 14. If this examination discloses that the conditions referred to in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 3 of this Article are not satisfied, the Commission shall require the Member State which granted the authorisation to withdraw it.

Any authorisation to market products imported from a third country which had, prior to 31 December 2006, been granted to an importer by the competent authority of the respective Member State under this paragraph, shall expire on 31 December 2007 at the latest.

7.   The Commission shall, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 14(2), adopt detailed rules for the application of this Article, in particular regarding:

(a)

the criteria and procedures to be followed with regard to the recognition of third countries and inspection bodies and inspection authorities, including the publication of lists of recognised third countries and inspection bodies and inspection authorities; and,

(b)

the documentary evidence referred to in paragraph 1 and the certificate referred to in paragraphs 3(d) and 6 of this Article, taking into account the advantages of electronic certification including the enhanced protection against fraud.’

3.

The second subparagraph of Article 16(3) shall be deleted.

4.

Point C of Annex III is hereby amended as follows:

(a)

In the first paragraph, the second indent shall be replaced by the following:

‘—

the first consignee shall mean the natural or legal person referred to in Article 11(3)(d) and Article 11(6) to whom the consignment is delivered and who will receive it for further preparation or placing on the Community market. and,’;

(b)

In point 5, the first subparagraph shall be replaced by the following:

‘The inspection body or authority shall inspect the stock and financial records mentioned in section C, point 2 and the certificate of inspection referred to in Article 11(3)(d) or Article 11(6) and the documentary evidence referred to in Article 11(1).’

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 1 January 2007.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 December 2006.

For the Council

The President

J. KORKEAOJA


(1)  Opinion delivered on 28 September 2006 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(2)  OJ L 198, 22.7.1991, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 780/2006 (OJ L 137, 25.5.2006, p. 9).


28.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 379/5


COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1998/2006

of 15 December 2006

on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to de minimis aid

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98 of 7 May 1998 on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty establishing the European Community to certain categories of horizontal State aid (1), and in particular Article 2 thereof,

Having published a draft of this Regulation (2),

After consulting the Advisory Committee on State aid,

Whereas:

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 994/98 empowers the Commission to set out in a Regulation a threshold under which aid measures are deemed not to meet all the criteria of Article 87(1) of the Treaty and therefore do not fall under the notification procedure provided for in Article 88(3) of the Treaty.

(2)

The Commission has applied Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty and has, in particular, clarified in numerous decisions the notion of aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty. The Commission has also stated its policy with regard to a de minimis ceiling, below which Article 87(1) can be considered not to apply, initially in its notice on the de minimis rule for State aid (3) and subsequently in Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid (4). In the light of the experience gained in applying that Regulation and in order to take account of the evolution of inflation and gross domestic product in the Community up to and including 2006 and of the likely developments through the period of validity of this Regulation, it appears appropriate to revise some of the conditions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 and to replace that Regulation.

(3)

In view of the special rules which apply in the sectors of primary production of agricultural products, fisheries and aquaculture and of the risk that smaller amounts of aid than those set out in this Regulation could fulfil the criteria of Article 87(1) of the Treaty in those sectors, this Regulation should not apply to those sectors. Given the evolution of the transport sector, in particular the restructuring of many transport activities following their liberalisation, it is no longer appropriate to exclude the transport sector from the scope of the de minimis Regulation. The scope of this Regulation should therefore be extended to the whole of the transport sector. The general de minimis ceiling should however be adapted in order to take account of the average small size of undertakings active in the road freight and passengers transport sector. For the same reasons, and also in view of the overcapacity of the sector and of the objectives of transport policy as regards road congestion and freight transports, aid for the acquisition of road freight transport vehicles by undertakings performing road freight transport for hire and reward should be excluded. This does not call into question the Commission's favourable approach with regard to State aid for cleaner and more environmentally friendly vehicles in Community instruments other than this Regulation. In view of Council Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 of 23 July 2002 on State aid to the coal industry (5), this Regulation should not apply to the coal sector.

(4)

Considering the similarities between the processing and marketing of agricultural products, on the one hand, and of non-agricultural products, on the other hand, this Regulation should apply to the processing and marketing of agricultural products, provided that certain conditions are met. Neither on-farm activities necessary for preparing a product for the first sale, such as harvesting, cutting and threshing of cereals, packing of eggs etc., nor the first sale to resellers or processors should be considered as processing or marketing in this respect. As from the entry into force of this Regulation, aid granted in favour of undertakings active in the processing or marketing of agricultural products should no longer be subject to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004 of 6 October 2004 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid in the agriculture and fisheries sector (6). Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(5)

The Court of Justice of the European Communities has established that, once the Community has legislated for the establishment of a common organisation of the market in a given sector of agriculture, Member States are under an obligation to refrain from taking any measure which might undermine or create exceptions to it. For this reason, this Regulation should not apply to aid, the amount of which is fixed on the basis of price or quantity of products purchased or put on the market. Nor should it apply to de minimis support which is linked to an obligation to share the aid with primary producers.

(6)

This Regulation should not apply to de minimis export aid or de minimis aid favouring domestic over imported products. In particular, it should not apply to aid financing the establishment and operation of a distribution network in other countries. Aid towards the cost of participating in trade fairs, or of studies or consultancy services needed for the launch of a new or existing product on a new market does not normally constitute export aid.

(7)

This Regulation should not apply to undertakings in difficulty within the meaning of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (7) in view of the difficulties linked to determining the gross grant equivalent of aid granted to this type of undertakings.

(8)

In the light of the Commission's experience, it can be established that aid not exceeding a ceiling of EUR 200 000 over any period of three years does not affect trade between Member States and/or does not distort or threaten to distort competition and therefore does not fall under Article 87(1) of the Treaty. As regards undertakings active in the road transport sector, this ceiling should be set at EUR 100 000.

(9)

The years to take into account for this purpose are the fiscal years as used for fiscal purposes by the undertaking in the Member State concerned. The relevant period of three years should be assessed on a rolling basis so that, for each new grant of de minimis aid, the total amount of de minimis aid granted in the fiscal year concerned, as well as during the previous two fiscal years, needs to be determined. Aid granted by a Member State should be taken into account for this purpose even when financed entirely or partly by resources of Community origin. It should not be possible for aid measures exceeding the de minimis ceiling to be broken down into a number of smaller parts in order to bring such parts within the scope of this Regulation.

(10)

In accordance with the principles governing aid falling within Article 87(1) of the Treaty, de minimis aid should be considered to be granted at the moment the legal right to receive the aid is conferred on the undertaking under the applicable national legal regime.

(11)

In order to avoid circumvention of maximum aid intensities provided in different Community instruments, de minimis aid should not be cumulated with State aid in respect of the same eligible costs if such cumulation would result in an aid intensity exceeding that fixed in the specific circumstances of each case by a block exemption Regulation or Decision adopted by the Commission.

(12)

For the purposes of transparency, equal treatment and the correct application of the de minimis ceiling, all Member States should apply the same method of calculation. In order to facilitate this calculation and in accordance with the present practice of application of the de minimis rule, aid amounts not taking the form of a cash grant should be converted into their gross grant equivalent. Calculation of the grant equivalent of transparent types of aid other than grants or of aid payable in several instalments requires the use of market interest rates prevailing at the time of granting such aid. With a view to a uniform, transparent and simple application of the State aid rules, the market rates for the purposes of this Regulation should be deemed to be the reference rates periodically fixed by the Commission on the basis of objective criteria and published in the Official Journal of the European Union or on the Internet. It may, however, be necessary to add additional basis points on top of the floor rate in view of the securities provided or the risk associated with the beneficiary.

(13)

For the purposes of transparency, equal treatment and effective monitoring, this Regulation should apply only to de minimis aid which is transparent. Transparent aid is aid for which it is possible to calculate precisely the gross grant equivalent ex ante without a need to undertake a risk assessment. Such precise calculation can, for instance, be realised as regards grants, interest rate subsidies and capped tax exemptions. Aid comprised in capital injections should not be considered as transparent de minimis aid, unless the total amount of the public injection is lower than the de minimis ceiling. Aid comprised in risk capital measures as referred to in the Community guidelines on State aid to promote risk capital investments in small and medium-sized enterprises (8) should not be considered as transparent de minimis aid, unless the risk capital scheme concerned provides capital only up to the de minimis ceiling to each target undertaking. Aid comprised in loans should be treated as transparent de minimis aid when the gross grant equivalent has been calculated on the basis of market interest rates prevailing at the time of grant.

(14)

This Regulation does not exclude the possibility that a measure, adopted by a Member State, might not be considered as State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty on the basis of other grounds than those set out in this Regulation, for instance, in the case of capital injections, because such measure has been decided in conformity with the market investor principle.

(15)

It is necessary to provide legal certainty for guarantee schemes which do not have the potential to affect trade and distort competition and in respect of which sufficient data is available to assess any potential effects reliably. This Regulation should therefore transpose the general de minimis ceiling of EUR 200 000 into a guarantee-specific ceiling based on the guaranteed amount of the individual loan underlying such guarantee. It is appropriate to calculate this specific ceiling using a methodology assessing the State aid amount included in guarantee schemes covering loans in favour of viable undertakings. The methodology and the data used to calculate the guarantee-specific ceiling should exclude undertakings in difficulty as referred to in the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty. This specific ceiling should therefore not apply to ad hoc individual aid granted outside the scope of a guarantee scheme, to aid granted to undertakings in difficulty, or to guarantees on underlying transactions not constituting a loan, such as guarantees on equity transactions. The specific ceiling should be determined on the basis of the fact that taking account of a cap rate (net default rate) of 13 %, representing a worst case scenario for guarantee schemes in the Community, a guarantee amounting to EUR 1 500 000 can be considered as having a gross grant equivalent identical to the general de minimis ceiling. This amount should be reduced to EUR 750 000 as regards undertakings active in the road transport sector. Only guarantees covering up to 80 % of the underlying loan should be covered by these specific ceilings. A methodology accepted by the Commission following notification of such methodology on the basis of a Commission Regulation in the State aid area, like Commission Regulation (EC) No 1628/2006 of 24 October 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to national regional investment aid (9), may also be used by Member States for the purpose of assessing the gross grant equivalent contained in a guarantee, if the approved methodology explicitly addresses the type of guarantees and the type of underlying transactions at stake in the context of the application of the present Regulation.

(16)

Upon notification by a Member State, the Commission may examine whether an aid measure which does not consist in a grant, loan, guarantee, capital injection or risk capital measure leads to a gross grant equivalent that does not exceed the de minimis ceiling and could therefore be covered by the provisions of this Regulation.

(17)

The Commission has a duty to ensure that State aid rules are respected and in particular that aid granted under the de minimis rules adheres to the conditions thereof. In accordance with the cooperation principle laid down in Article 10 of the Treaty, Member States should facilitate the achievement of this task by establishing the necessary machinery in order to ensure that the total amount of de minimis aid, granted to the same undertaking under the de minimis rule, does not exceed the ceiling of EUR 200 000 over a period of three fiscal years. To that end, when granting a de minimis aid, Member States should inform the undertaking concerned of the amount of the aid and of its de minimis character, by referring to this Regulation. Moreover, prior to granting such aid the Member State concerned should obtain from the undertaking a declaration about other de minimis aid received during the fiscal year concerned and the two previous fiscal years and carefully check that the de minimis ceiling will not be exceeded by the new de minimis aid. Alternatively it should be possible to ensure that the ceiling is respected by means of a central register, or, in the case of guarantee schemes set up by the European Investment Fund, the latter may establish itself a list of beneficiaries and require Member States to inform the beneficiaries of the de minimis aid received.

(18)

Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 expires on 31 December 2006. This Regulation should therefore apply from 1 January 2007. In view of the fact that Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 did not apply to the transport sector, which was not subject to de minimis so far; given also the very limited de minimis amount applicable in the sector of processing and marketing of agricultural products, and provided that certain conditions are met, this Regulation should apply to aid granted before its entry into force to undertakings active in the transport sector, and in the sector of processing and marketing of agricultural products. Moreover, any individual aid granted in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 during the period of application of that Regulation should remain unaffected by this Regulation.

(19)

Having regard to the Commission's experience and in particular the frequency with which it is generally necessary to revise State aid policy, it is appropriate to limit the period of application of this Regulation. Should this Regulation expire without being extended, Member States should have an adjustment period of six months with regard to de minimis aid covered by this Regulation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Scope

1.   This Regulation applies to aid granted to undertakings in all sectors, with the exception of:

(a)

aid granted to undertakings active in the fishery and aquaculture sectors, as covered by Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 (10);

(b)

aid granted to undertakings active in the primary production of agricultural products as listed in Annex I to the Treaty;

(c)

aid granted to undertakings active in the processing and marketing of agricultural products as listed in Annex I to the Treaty, in the following cases:

(i)

when the amount of the aid is fixed on the basis of the price or quantity of such products purchased from primary producers or put on the market by the undertakings concerned,

(ii)

when the aid is conditional on being partly or entirely passed on to primary producers;

(d)

aid to export-related activities towards third countries or Member States, namely aid directly linked to the quantities exported, to the establishment and operation of a distribution network or to other current expenditure linked to the export activity;

(e)

aid contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods;

(f)

aid granted to undertakings active in the coal sector, as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002;

(g)

aid for the acquisition of road freight transport vehicles granted to undertakings performing road freight transport for hire or reward;

(h)

aid granted to undertakings in difficulty.

2.   For the purposes of this Regulation:

(a)

‘agricultural products’ means products listed in Annex I to the EC Treaty, with the exception of fishery products;

(b)

‘processing of agricultural products’ means any operation on an agricultural product resulting in a product which is also an agricultural product, except on farm activities necessary for preparing an animal or plant product for the first sale;

(c)

‘marketing of agricultural products’ means holding or display with a view to sale, offering for sale, delivery or any other manner of placing on the market, except the first sale by a primary producer to resellers or processors and any activity preparing a product for such first sale; a sale by a primary producer to final consumers shall be considered as marketing if it takes place in separate premises reserved for that purpose.

Article 2

De minimis aid

1.   Aid measures shall be deemed not to meet all the criteria of Article 87(1) of the Treaty and shall therefore be exempt from the notification requirement of Article 88(3) of the Treaty, if they fulfil the conditions laid down in paragraphs 2 to 5 of this Article.

2.   The total de minimis aid granted to any one undertaking shall not exceed EUR 200 000 over any period of three fiscal years. The total de minimis aid granted to any one undertaking active in the road transport sector shall not exceed EUR 100 000 over any period of three fiscal years. These ceilings shall apply irrespective of the form of the de minimis aid or the objective pursued and regardless of whether the aid granted by the Member State is financed entirely or partly by resources of Community origin. The period shall be determined by reference to the fiscal years used by the undertaking in the Member State concerned.

When an overall aid amount provided under an aid measure exceeds this ceiling, that aid amount cannot benefit from this Regulation, even for a fraction not exceeding that ceiling. In such a case, the benefit of this Regulation cannot be claimed for this aid measure either at the time the aid is granted or at any subsequent time.

3.   The ceiling laid down in paragraph 2 shall be expressed as a cash grant. All figures used shall be gross, that is, before any deduction of tax or other charge. Where aid is awarded in a form other than a grant, the aid amount shall be the gross grant equivalent of the aid.

Aid payable in several instalments shall be discounted to its value at the moment of its being granted. The interest rate to be used for discounting purposes and to calculate the gross grant equivalent shall be the reference rate applicable at the time of grant.

4.   This Regulation shall apply only to aid in respect of which it is possible to calculate precisely the gross grant equivalent of the aid ex ante without need to undertake a risk assessement (‘transparent aid’). In particular:

(a)

Aid comprised in loans shall be treated as transparent de minimis aid when the gross grant equivalent has been calculated on the basis of market interest rates prevailing at the time of the grant.

(b)

Aid comprised in capital injections shall not be considered as transparent de minimis aid, unless the total amount of the public injection does not exceed the de minimis ceiling.

(c)

Aid comprised in risk capital measures shall not be considered as transparent de minimis aid, unless the risk capital scheme concerned provides capital only up to the de minimis ceiling to each target undertaking.

(d)

Individual aid provided under a guarantee scheme to undertakings which are not undertakings in difficulty shall be treated as transparent de minimis aid when the guaranteed part of the underlying loan provided under such scheme does not exceed EUR 1 500 000 per undertaking. Individual aid provided under a guarantee scheme in favour of undertakings active in the road transport sector which are not undertakings in difficulty shall be treated as transparent de minimis aid when the guaranteed part of the underlying loan provided under such scheme does not exceed EUR 750 000 per undertaking. If the guaranteed part of the underlying loan only accounts for a given proportion of this ceiling, the gross grant equivalent of that guarantee shall be deemed to correspond to the same proportion of the applicable ceiling laid down in Article 2(2). The guarantee shall not exceed 80 % of the underlying loan. Guarantee schemes shall also be considered as transparent if (i) before the implementation of the scheme, the methodology to calculate the gross grant equivalent of the guarantees has been accepted following notification of this methodology to the Commission under another Regulation adopted by the Commission in the State aid area and (ii) the approved methodology explicitly addresses the type of guarantees and the type of underlying transactions at stake in the context of the application of this Regulation.

5.   De minimis aid shall not be cumulated with State aid in respect of the same eligible costs if such cumulation would result in an aid intensity exceeding that fixed in the specific circumstances of each case by a block exemption Regulation or Decision adopted by the Commission.

Article 3

Monitoring

1.   Where a Member State intends to grant de minimis aid to an undertaking, it shall inform that undertaking in writing of the prospective amount of the aid (expressed as gross grant equivalent) and of its de minimis character, making express reference to this Regulation, and citing its title and publication reference in the Official Journal of the European Union. Where the de minimis aid is granted to different undertakings on the basis of a scheme and different amounts of individual aid are granted to those undertakings under the scheme, the Member State concerned may choose to fulfil this obligation by informing the undertakings of a fixed sum corresponding to the maximum aid amount to be granted under the scheme. In such case, the fixed sum shall be used for determining whether the ceiling laid down in Article 2(2) is met. Prior to granting the aid, the Member State shall also obtain a declaration from the undertaking concerned, in written or electronic form, about any other de minimis aid received during the previous two fiscal years and the current fiscal year.

The Member State shall only grant the new de minimis aid after having checked that this will not raise the total amount of de minimis aid received by the undertaking during the period covering the fiscal year concerned, as well as the previous two fiscal years in that Member State, to a level above the ceiling laid down in Article 2(2).

2.   Where a Member State has set up a central register of de minimis aid containing complete information on all de minimis aid granted by any authority within that Member State, the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 shall cease to apply from the moment the register covers a period of three years.

Where an aid is provided by a Member State on the basis of a guarantee scheme providing a guarantee which is financed from the EU budget under mandate through the European Investment Fund, the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 of this Article may cease to apply.

In such cases, the following monitoring system shall apply:

(a)

the European Investment Fund shall establish, on a yearly basis, on the basis of information that financial intermediaries must provide to the EIF, a list of beneficiaries of aid and of the gross grant equivalent received by each of them. The European Investment Fund shall send this information to the Member State concerned and to the Commission; and

(b)

the Member State concerned shall disseminate that information to the final beneficiaries within three months of receipt of such information from the European Investment Fund; and

(c)

the Member State concerned shall obtain a declaration from each beneficiary that the overall de minimis aid it has received does not exceed the ceiling laid down in Article 2(2). In case the ceiling is exceeded with respect to one or more beneficiaries, the Member State concerned shall ensure that the aid measure leading to the ceiling being exceeded is either notified to the Commission or recovered from the beneficiary.

3.   Member States shall record and compile all the information regarding the application of this Regulation. Such records shall contain all information necessary to demonstrate that the conditions of this Regulation have been complied with. Records regarding individual de minimis aid shall be maintained for 10 years from the date on which it was granted. Records regarding a de minimis aid scheme shall be maintained for 10 years from the date on which the last individual aid was granted under such scheme. On written request the Member State concerned shall provide the Commission, within a period of 20 working days, or such longer period as may be fixed in the request, with all the information that the Commission considers necessary for assessing whether the conditions of this Regulation have been complied with, in particular the total amount of de minimis aid received by any undertaking.

Article 4

Amendment

Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004 is amended as follows:

(a)

in point 1, the words ‘processing and marketing’ are deleted;

(b)

point 3 is deleted.

Article 5

Transitional measures

1.   This Regulation shall apply to aid granted before its entry into force to undertakings active in the transport sector and undertakings active in the processing and marketing of agricultural products if the aid fulfils all the conditions laid down in Articles 1 and 2. Any aid which does not fulfil those conditions will be assessed by the Commission in accordance with the relevant frameworks, guidelines, communications and notices.

2.   Any individual de minimis aid granted between 2 February 2001 and 30 June 2007, which fulfils the conditions of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001, shall be deemed not to meet all the criteria of Article 87(1) of the Treaty and shall therefore be exempt from the notification requirement of Article 88(3) of the Treaty.

3.   At the end of the period of validity of this Regulation, any de minimis aid which fulfils the conditions of this Regulation may be validly implemented for a further period of six months.

Article 6

Entry into force and period of validity

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 1 January 2007 until 31 December 2013.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 15 December 2006.

For the Commission

Neelie KROES

Member of the Commission


(1)  OJ L 142, 14.5.1998, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 137, 10.6.2006, p. 4.

(3)  OJ C 68, 6.3.1996, p. 9.

(4)  OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 30.

(5)  OJ L 205, 2.8.2002, p. 1.

(6)  OJ L 325, 28.10.2004, p. 4.

(7)  OJ C 244, 1.10.2004, p. 2.

(8)  OJ C 194, 18.8.2006, p. 2.

(9)  OJ L 302, 1.11.2006, p. 29.

(10)  OJ L 17, 21.1.2000, p. 22.


28.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 379/11


COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1999/2006

of 20 December 2006

imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain saddles originating in the People's Republic of China

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

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) (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Whereas:

A.   PROCEDURE

1.   Initiation

(1)

On 22 February 2006, the Commission received a complaint concerning certain saddles originating in the People's Republic of China (PRC) lodged pursuant to Article 5 of the basic Regulation by the European Saddle Manufacturers Association (the complainant) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case 99 %, of the total Community production of certain saddles.

(2)

This complaint contained evidence of dumping and of material injury resulting there from, which was considered sufficient to justify the opening of a proceeding.

(3)

On 7 April 2006, the proceeding was initiated by the publication of a notice of initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union  (2).

2.   Parties concerned by the proceeding

(4)

The Commission officially advised the exporting producers in the PRC, importers, traders, users, suppliers and associations known to be concerned, representatives of the PRC and the complainant Community producers and other Community producers known to be concerned of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.

(5)

In order to allow exporting producers to submit a claim for market economy treatment (MET) or individual treatment (IT), if they so wished, the Commission sent claim forms to the Chinese exporting producers known to be concerned. Three exporting producers groups and one individual exporting producer requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, or IT should the investigation establish that they do not meet the conditions for MET. It should be noted that three of these exporting producers consisted of two or more related companies involved in the production and/or sales of saddles.

(6)

In view of the apparent high number of exporting producers in the PRC, importers and producers in the Community, in the notice of initiation, the Commission indicated that sampling may be applied in this investigation for the determination of dumping and injury in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

(7)

In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all exporting producers in the PRC, Community importers and Community producers 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 (1 January 2005 to 31 December 2005).

(8)

As far as the exporting producers are concerned, given that only three groups of companies and one individual company cooperated in the investigation, it was decided that sampling was not required.

(9)

With regard to Community producers, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, a sample was selected based on the largest representative volume of production of saddles in the Community, which can reasonably be investigated within the time available. On the basis of the information received from Community producers, the Commission selected five companies located in two different Member States. In terms of production volume the five sampled companies represented 86 % of the total Community production. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the parties concerned were consulted and raised no objection. In addition, the remaining Community producers were requested to provide certain general data for the injury analysis. Furthermore, and in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, a sample of importers was selected based on the largest representative volume of imports of the product concerned into the Community which can reasonably be investigated within the time available. On the basis of the information received from various importers and considering the different quality of the information submitted, two importers located in one Member State were selected for the sample. The two importers selected for the sample represent 21 % of imports of the product concerned in the Community. In view of the small number of responses received by users, it was decided that sampling of users was not necessary.

(10)

Questionnaires were sent to all parties known to be concerned and to all other companies that made themselves known within the deadlines set out in the notice of initiation. Replies were received from four exporting producers in the PRC and one producer in the analogue country, Brazil. Full questionnaire replies were also received from the five Community producers selected in the sample. Although four importers replied to the sampling form, only two cooperated by submitting a full questionnaire reply. Moreover, four users of saddles returned a full questionnaire reply. In addition, one questionnaire reply was also received from a raw material supplier.

(11)

The Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for a provisional determination of dumping, resulting injury and Community interest and carried out verifications at the premises of the following companies:

(a)

Community producers

Selle Royal S.p.A., Pozzoleone, Italy

Selle Italia s.r.l., Rossano Veneto, Italy

Bassano Selle s.r.l., Riese Pio X, Italy

Selle SMP S.A.S., Casalserugo, Italy

pph ABI sp.j., Nasielsk, Poland.

(b)

Exporting producers in the PRC

Cionlli Group

Cionlli Bicycle (Taicang) Co., Ltd.

Shunde Hongli Bicycle Parts Co., Ltd., Shunde

Safe Strong Bicycle Parts Shenzhen Co., Ltd., Shenzhen

Cionlli Bicycle (Tianjin) Co., Ltd., Tianjin.

Giching Group

Giching Bicycle Parts (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Shenzhen

Velo Cycle (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., Kunshan.

Justek Group

Jiangyin Justek Vehicle Co., Ltd., Jiangyin

Jiangyin Justek Communication Equipment Co., Ltd., Jiangyin

Tianjin Justek Vehicle Co., Ltd., Tianjin

Viscount Vehicle (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Shenzhen.

(c)

Related companies in the PRC and Taiwan

Cionlli Bicycle (Tianjin) Co., Ltd, Tianjin

Cionlli Industrial Co., Ltd.

(d)

Unrelated importer in the Community

Buechel GmbH, Fulda, Germany.

(12)

In view of the need to establish a normal value for exporting producers to which MET might not be granted, a verification to establish normal value on the basis of data from an analogue country, Brazil in this case, took place at the premises of the following company:

(e)

Producer in Brazil

Royal Ciclo Indústria de Componentes Ltda, Rio do Sul.

3.   Investigation period

(13)

The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 January to 31 December 2005 (investigation period or IP). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2002 to the end of the investigation period (‘period considered’).

B.   PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

1.   Product concerned

(14)

The product concerned is certain saddles and essential parts thereof (i.e. bases, cushions and covers), of bicycles and other cycles (including delivery tricycles), not motorised, of cycles fitted with an auxiliary motor with or without sidecars, of fitness machines and of home trainers, (‘the product concerned’, or ‘saddles’) originating in the People's Republic of China. The product is normally declared within CN codes 8714 95 00, ex 8714 99 90 and ex 9506 91 10.

(15)

A saddle is typically made up of three parts: a base or support on which the saddle is built, is generally produced through a plastic injection moulding process; the cushion which is applied to the base to make the saddle comfortable which can made from different types of synthetic foam or other materials; the cover, made from synthetic material or natural leather which covers the cushion and the edges of the base giving the saddle its feeling and aesthetical properties. As well as the above three components a saddle normally incorporates an attaching mechanism made from metal such as a fork, or clamp and may also include a spring or elastomer shock-absorbing mechanism.

(16)

The product concerned is used in bicycles and similar vehicles, as well as stationary appliances such as fitness machines. The investigation has shown that, despite differences in shapes, materials and production process, the different types of the product concerned all share the same basic physical and technical characteristics and are basically used for the same purposes. They are therefore considered to constitute a single product for the purpose of this proceeding.

2.   Like product

(17)

The investigation showed that the basic physical and technical characteristics of the saddles produced and sold by the Community industry in the Community, saddles produced and sold on the domestic Chinese market and saddles imported into the Community from the PRC, as well as those produced and sold in Brazil are the same and that these products have the same use.

(18)

It was therefore provisionally concluded that these products are alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

C.   DUMPING

1.   Market economy treatment (MET)

(19)

Pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in the PRC, normal value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the said Article for those producers which were found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.

(20)

Briefly, and for ease of reference only, the MET criteria are set out in summarised form below:

1.

Business decisions and costs are made in response to market signals and without significant State interference; and costs of major inputs substantially reflect market values.

2.

Firms have one clear set of basic accounting records which are independently audited in line with international accounting standards and are applied for all purposes.

3.

There are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system.

4.

Bankruptcy and property laws guarantee legal certainty and stability.

5.

Exchange rate conversions are carried out at market rates.

(21)

Two groups of exporting producers and one individual exporting producer requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation and replied to the MET claim form for exporting producers within the given deadline. The Commission sought and verified at the premises of these companies all necessary information submitted in the MET applications as deemed necessary. The investigation revealed that the MET could only be granted to two group of exporting producers, whereas the claim had to be rejected for one group of companies and the individual company.

(22)

With regard to the individual exporting producer, the investigation showed that the company did not meet the requirements of the above-mentioned criteria 1 and 3. Namely, the company could not demonstrate that its business decisions were taken in response to market signals, without significant State interference, in particular as sales quantities in the domestic and export markets are restricted by the Articles of Association of the company which cannot be changed without State approval. Moreover, the company could not demonstrate that there are no distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system, in particular by providing written evidence concerning the acquisition of the land use rights.

(23)

In addition, one group of exporting producers failed to declare their relationship with a major domestic customer both in the reply to the market economy claim form and the response to the anti-dumping questionnaire. The relationship was only uncovered by cross-checks made at the premises of those exporting producers. It is the Commission's consistent policy to make an MET/IT determination for groups of related companies as a whole. Therefore granting MET/IT to this exporter would have required the related company to fully cooperate in the investigation, in order to establish its precise activities regarding the product concerned, the fulfilment of the MET criteria and the influence of the relationship upon the transactions between the two companies. This was not the case, since the related company did not cooperate in the investigation. Therefore, the Commission was not in a position to make a MET/IT determination for this group of companies. It should be noted that this issue affected a very substantial part of the exporters' domestic sales. Moreover, this deliberate omission cast doubts on the reliability of other information and documents submitted to the Commission. In view of this omission and its significance both in terms of the MET analysis and of any dumping determinations that would be based on the individual data submitted by this group of exporters, it was determined that they had provided false and misleading information within the meaning of Article 18 of the basic Regulation. The company was informed forthwith of the basis on which it was intended to disregard the information provided and was given the opportunity to provide further explanations, in accordance with Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation. However, the explanations given by the company were unsatisfactory and could neither convince the Commission that it did not submit misleading information nor resolve the doubts about the integrity of the remaining data submitted by the company. As such, this group of exporting producers was considered as not cooperating in the investigation and its request for MET and IT was rejected.

(24)

The interested parties were given an opportunity to comment on the above findings.

(25)

On this basis, MET was granted to two groups of exporting producers:

Cionlli Bicycle (Taicang) Co. Ltd., and related companies

Giching Bicycle parts (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd., and related companies.

2.   Individual treatment (IT)

(26)

Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, a country-wide duty, if any, is established for countries falling under that Article, except in those cases where companies are able to demonstrate that they meet all criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.

(27)

The exporting producer to which MET could not be granted also claimed IT in the event it was not granted MET. However, the company's claim for individual treatment (IT) was also rejected as the company failed to meet the criteria set out in Article 9(5)(b), namely that export prices and quantities were freely determined.

3.   Normal value

(a)   Determination of normal value for the exporting producers granted MET

(28)

As far as the determination of normal value is concerned, the Commission first established, for each of the exporting producers concerned, whether its total domestic sales of saddles were representative in comparison with its total export sales to the Community. In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, domestic sales were considered representative when the total domestic sales volume of the exporting producer was at least 5 % of its total export sales volume to the Community.

(29)

The two groups of companies granted MET included five companies producing saddles for export, three of which had also domestic sales. One further company had domestic sales but no exports.

(30)

For those exporting producers whose overall domestic sales were found to be representative, the Commission subsequently identified the types of saddles sold domestically which were identical or directly comparable to the types sold for export to the Community.

(31)

For each of those types, it was established whether domestic sales were sufficiently representative for the purposes of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular type were considered sufficiently representative when the total domestic sales volume of that type during the IP represented 5 % or more of the total sales volume of the comparable type exported to the Community.

(32)

The Commission subsequently examined for each company whether the domestic sales of each type of the product concerned, sold domestically in representative quantities, could be regarded as having been made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation, by establishing the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers on the domestic market of the type in question.

(33)

In cases where the sales volume of a type of saddle, sold at a net sales price equal to or above its cost of production, represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume of that type, and where the weighted average price of that type was equal to or above its cost of production, normal value, by product type, was based on the actual domestic price. This price was calculated as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of that type made during the IP, irrespective of whether these sales were profitable or not.

(34)

Where the volume of profitable sales of a type of saddle represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below its cost of production, normal value, by product type, was based on the actual domestic price, which was calculated as a weighted average of profitable sales of that type only, provided that these sales represented 10 % or more of the total sales volume of that type.

(35)

Finally, where the volume of profitable sales of any type of saddle represented less than 10 % of the total sales volume of that type, it was considered that this particular type was sold in insufficient quantities for the domestic price to provide an appropriate basis for the establishment of the normal value.

(36)

Wherever domestic prices of a particular type sold by an exporting producer could not be used, constructed normal value was used.

(37)

In accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, normal value was constructed by adding to each exporter's manufacturing costs of the exported types, adjusted where necessary, a reasonable amount for selling, general and administrative costs (SG&A) and for profits. In all cases SG&A and profits were established pursuant to the methods set out in Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation. To this end, the Commission examined whether the SG&A costs incurred and the profit realised by each of the exporting producers concerned on the domestic market constituted reliable data.

(38)

Actual domestic SG&A costs were considered reliable when the total domestic sales volume of the company concerned could be regarded as representative as compared to the volume of export sales to the Community. The domestic profit margin was determined on the basis of domestic sales of those types that were sold in the ordinary course of trade. For this purpose, the methodology set out above was applied.

(39)

For the three companies with representative domestic sales it was found that the majority of types of the product concerned, which were exported, were sold on the domestic market in the ordinary course of trade. For those types where this was not the case, normal value was constructed using the methodology set out above, using the SG&A and profit information for each company concerned.

(40)

For the two companies without representative domestic sales, the amounts for SG&A and profit were determined on the basis of the average SG&A and profit of the four companies with domestic sales.

(b)   Determination of normal value for the exporting producers not granted MET

(i)   Analogue country

(41)

According to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for the exporting producers not granted MET, has to be established on the basis of the prices or constructed value in an analogue country.

(42)

In the notice of initiation, the Commission indicated its intention to use Brazil as an appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value and interested parties were invited to comment on this.

(43)

No exporting producers in the PRC not granted MET objected to this proposal.

(44)

However, an importer and an exporting producer granted MET have argued that Brazil is not the most appropriate analogue country, and that Taiwan or Mexico should be selected for that purpose instead.

(45)

Regarding Taiwan, it is considered that although a bicycle parts industry had developed there, most of the production has been transferred to the PRC. Accordingly, saddle manufacturers headquartered in Taiwan would be largely the same companies or related companies to the ones which are exporting from the PRC to the Community at allegedly dumped prices. Moreover, the normal division of labour within those groups means that only a few specialised models, with higher profit margins, are still produced in Taiwan, while the production of the vast majority of middle-range to lower-end models have been transferred to the PRC for cost reasons. It is not likely, therefore, that prices or costs of saddle models manufactured in Taiwan would be the best surrogate to base a normal value for the saddles manufactured in the PRC.

(46)

Regarding Mexico, this country is considered to be an open and competitive market, representing about one eighth of the size of the Brazilian market. The Commission contacted the two known producers in Mexico, but no cooperation was offered.

(47)

Regarding Brazil, the investigation revealed that it is a competitive market for the product concerned with at least three domestic producers, of different sizes, and with imports from third countries amounting to about 15 % of the domestic consumption of eight to nine million saddles per year. One exporting producer alleged that the level of competition on the Brazilian market was dubious due to the low number of producers. However, the investigation showed that there was no evidence of a dominant position of one of the Brazilian producers or that prices are established in a non-competitive manner. There was also no reason to believe that the access to raw materials, costs and other conditions of production in Taiwan or Mexico would be more similar to those in the PRC than they are in Brazil. The Brazilian market was therefore deemed adequate for the purpose of establishing normal value.

(48)

The three known exporting producers in Brazil were contacted, and one company agreed to cooperate. A questionnaire was therefore sent to this producer and the data submitted in its reply was verified on the spot. This cooperating producer is related to one of the Community producers, but there is no reason to believe that this would affect the reliability of the data, which was moreover verified at the company's premises.

(49)

In view of the foregoing, it is provisionally concluded that Brazil is the most appropriate and reasonable analogue country in accordance with Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation.

(ii)   Normal value

(50)

Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for the exporting producers not granted MET was established on the basis of verified information received from the producer in the analogue country, i.e. on the basis of prices paid or payable on the Brazilian market for comparable product types, in accordance with the methodology set out above.

(51)

Normal value was established on the basis of all prices paid or payable on the Brazilian market for comparable product types, as the transactions were all found to be made in the ordinary course of trade.

4.   Export prices

(52)

All exporting producers made export sales to the Community either directly to independent customers in the Community or through related or unrelated trading companies located in Hong Kong, the British Virgin Islands and Taiwan.

(53)

Where the product concerned was directly exported to independent customers in the Community, the export prices were based on the prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

(54)

Where sales were made via a related trader located outside the Community, the export price was established on the basis of the first resale prices to independent customers in the Community.

5.   Comparison

(55)

The normal value and export prices were compared on an ex-works basis. For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Appropriate adjustments concerning transport, insurance, handling and ancillary costs, packing, credit, and bank charges were granted in all cases where they were found to be reasonable, accurate and supported by verified evidence.

(56)

For the sales channelled through related companies in Taiwan, an adjustment was applied in accordance with Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation, where these companies have been shown to perform functions similar to that of an agent working on a commission basis. Given that the allocation of SG&A expenditure provided by the related company could not be considered reliable, this adjustment was based on the SG&A and profit data obtained from an unrelated trader.

6.   Dumping margins

(a)   For the cooperating exporting producers granted MET

(57)

For the companies granted MET, the weighted average normal value of each type of the product concerned exported to the Community was compared with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned, as provided for in Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation.

(58)

It has been the consistent practice of the Commission to consider related exporting producers or exporting producers belonging to the same group as one single entity for the determination of a dumping margin and thus to establish one single dumping margin for them. This in particular because individual dumping margins might encourage circumvention of anti-dumping measures, thus rendering them ineffective, by enabling related exporting producers to channel their exports to the Community through the company with the lowest individual dumping margin.

(59)

In accordance with this practice, the related exporting producers belonging to the same groups were regarded as one single entity and attributed one single dumping margin which was calculated on the basis of the weighted average of the dumping margins of the cooperating producers in the respective groups.

(60)

On this basis, the provisional weighted average dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the cif Community frontier price, duty unpaid, are:

Company

Provisional dumping margin

Cionlli Bicycle (Taicang) Co. Ltd., Shunde Hongli Bicycle Parts Co. Ltd. and Safe Strong Bicycle Parts Shenzhen Co. Ltd.

7,5 %

Giching Bicycle parts (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. and Velo Cycle Kunshan Co. Ltd.

0 %

(b)   For all other exporting producers

(61)

In order to calculate the country-wide dumping margin applicable to all other exporters in the PRC, the Commission first established the level of cooperation. A comparison was made between the total export quantities indicated in the questionnaire replies of the three cooperating exporting producers and total dumped imports from the PRC, calculated as explained in recital 71. The percentage found was 23 %. On this basis, the level of cooperation was deemed to be low.

(62)

It was therefore considered appropriate to determine the country-wide dumping margin as the weighted average of:

the dumping margin found for the cooperating exporter to which neither MET nor IT was granted, and

the highest dumping margins for representative product types of the same exporter, since there were no indications that the non-cooperating exporting producers dumped at a lower level.

(63)

On this basis the country-wide level of dumping was provisionally established at 30,9 % of the cif Community frontier price, duty unpaid.

D.   INJURY

1.   Community production

(64)

Within the Community the product concerned is known to be manufactured by nine producers on behalf of which the complaint was lodged. They are located in Italy, Poland, the United Kingdom and Portugal and represent 99 % of the Community production during the IP.

(65)

Furthermore, there was at initiation stage only one known Community producer which was not complainant. Taking into account the production volume of the nine complaining producers and the non-complaining producer in the Community, the total production of the like product amounted to 16 165 936 pieces in the IP.

2.   Community industry

(66)

The following Community producers supported the complaint:

Selle Royal S.p.A., Pozzoleone, Italy with its related company:

Brooks England Ltd., West Midlands, United Kingdom

Selle Italia s.r.l., Rossano Veneto, Italy with its related company:

Bassano Selle s.r.l., Riese Pio X, Italy

Selle SMP S.A.S., Casalserugo, Italy

pph ABI sp.j., Nasielsk, Poland

Iberoselle Fabrica de Selins Lda., Agueda, Portugal

Selle Montegrappa s.n.c., Ramon di Loria, Italy

Selle San Marco S.p.A., Rossano, Italy.

(67)

As these nine complainant cooperating Community producers (both the sampled and non-sampled) represent 99 % of the Community production of the like product, they constitute the Community industry within the meaning of Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of the basic Regulation. The sampled Community producers in the investigation, (hereafter referred to as ‘sampled producers’) accounted for 86 % of the total Community production of saddles during the IP. The remaining Community producers were requested to provide certain general data for the injury analysis.

3.   Community consumption

(68)

The Community consumption was established on the basis of the sales volumes on the Community market by the five sampled Community producers, the four Community producers which were not included in the sample, the non-complaining producer in the Community and imports from the PRC and from other third countries under the relevant CN codes according to Eurostat. As mentioned in recital 14 the product concerned is presently declared within CN codes 8714 95 00, ex 8714 99 90 and ex 9506 91 10. The Eurostat data concerning the latter two CN codes (ex 8714 99 90 and ex 9506 91 10) comprise also other parts of bicycles and exercising apparatus. As it was not possible to retrieve from these two broader categories the data for saddles only, it was decided to establish the import statistics only on the basis of one CN code, namely CN codes 8714 95 00. As a consequence, the import volumes considered for the establishment of the Community consumption may be slightly understated.

(69)

On the basis of these data, it was found that over the period considered, consumption increased by 17 % from 20 701 027 pieces in 2002 to 24 179 012 pieces in 2005.

Table 1

 

2002

2003

2004

2005 (IP)

Community consumption (pieces)

20 701 027

21 688 470

23 357 359

24 179 012

Index

100

105

113

117

4.   Imports of saddles from the PRC

(a)   Margin of dumping and volume of imports and market share

(70)

As indicated earlier, the present investigation has shown that average dumping margins established for the PRC are above the de minimis threshold as defined in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation, and that the volume of imports from the PRC is not negligible in the sense of Article 5(7) of the basic Regulation.

(71)

Import volumes were established on the basis of Eurostat data. As mentioned above in recital 68, the import data given below may be slightly understated. Furthermore, Eurostat provides statistics concerning import volumes of bicycle saddles in quantities of 100 kg and not in pieces. It was therefore considered as appropriate to use 500 grams per piece as the average weight of imported saddles from China as this weight was reported by one exporting producer and one unrelated importer.

(72)

Imports from the PRC more than quadrupled over the period considered. In fact, they increased from 1 416 814 pieces in 2002 to 6 276 749 pieces in the IP. Correspondingly, the market share increased from 7 % in 2002 to 26 % during the IP. This has to be seen against the background of a consumption which augmented by only 17 %, i.e. relatively less than the increase of imports from the PRC.

(73)

One unrelated importer alleged that import statistics were overestimated because an average weight of 400 grams per piece of saddles was used in the complaint. The company claimed that the average weight of saddles imported from the PRC would be between 600 and 800 grams. However, the same company confirmed during the verification visit which took place at its premises that the average weight of imported saddles from the PRC was 500 grams, i.e. exactly the weight used by the Commission for the conversion of Eurostat data given in 100 kg into pieces. This importer also argued that the import statistics from the PRC were inflated because they included also imports of saddles cover coats which are used for the protection of saddles. As mentioned above in recital 71, the import statistics were based on only one CN code, (CN 8714 95 00) which is not the one under which seat covers are normally declared and therefore the claim of the importer is unfounded.

Table 2

 

2002

2003

2004

2005 (IP)

Imports (pieces)

1 416 814

2 048 240

4 351 842

6 276 749

Index

100

145

307

443

Market share

7 %

9 %

19 %

26 %

(b)   Prices

(74)

The weighted average price of imports of saddles originating in the PRC decreased steadily each year throughout the period considered and overall by 21 %, i.e. from EUR 1,4 per piece to EUR 1,1 per piece between 2002 and the IP.

Table 3

 

2002

2003

2004

2005 (IP)

Weighted average cif Community frontier price (EUR/piece)

1,4

1,3

1,1

1,1

Index

100

91

75

79

(c)   Undercutting

(75)

For the determination of price undercutting, the Commission analysed data referring to the IP. The relevant sales prices of the Community industry were those to independent customers, adjusted where necessary to an ex-works level, i.e. excluding freight costs in the Community and after deduction of discounts and rebates. Prices for the different types of saddles, defined according to base, cushion, cover, fork and weight, were compared with the sales prices of similar types charged by the exporters, net of discounts, and adjusted, where necessary, to cif Community frontier with an appropriate adjustment for the customs duties (1,2 %) and post-importation costs, as incurred by an importer in the Community.

(76)

For the calculation of weighted average undercutting margins, export prices of cooperating exporting producers were taken into consideration. During the IP, the weighted average undercutting margin of cooperating producers amounted to 67,3 %. Moreover, taking into account all imports of saddles, i.e. those of cooperating and non-cooperating exporting producers in the PRC, the calculation of the average undercutting margin based on Eurostat data showed a similar average undercutting margin of 70,1 % for the IP.

5.   Situation of the Community industry

(77)

In accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the Community industry included an evaluation of all economic factors having a bearing on the state of the Community industry during the period considered.

(78)

This analysis was carried out for the sampled companies. However, in order to provide a complete picture of the situation of the Community industry, for those indicators for which reliable information was available for the Community industry as a whole, this information has also been provided below. On this basis, the industry's performances as measured by factors such as prices, wages, investments, profits, return on investment, cash flow and ability to raise capital have been established on the basis of information provided by the sampled companies. The injury factors such as market share, sales volume and production have been established for the full Community industry.

(a)   Production

(79)

The production volume of the whole Community industry showed a clear negative trend over the period considered. Whereas in 2002 the production volume amounted to 19 546 740 pieces of saddles, during the IP, the Community industry produced only 16 165 936 pieces, which is almost 3,5 million pieces or 17 % less than in 2002. As saddles are in general only produced upon orders received from customers, the negative development of the production volume can be directly linked to the declined demand for saddles produced by the Community industry.

Table 4

 

2002

2003

2004

2005 (IP)

Production (pieces)

19 546 740

19 022 491

17 698 103

16 165 936

Index

100

97

91

83

(b)   Capacity of production and capacity utilisation rates

(80)

The production capacity was established on the basis of the nominal capacity of the production units owned by the Community industry, taking into account interruptions in production as well as the fact that in some few cases part of the capacity had been used for other products manufactured, e.g. handle bars for wheel chairs, with the same production lines.

(81)

The saddles production capacity increased by 5 % over the period considered from 29 492 120 pieces in 2002 to 30 921 920 pieces in the IP. The slight increase in production capacity results from investments made in 2004 and in the IP for the production of some new product types which are used for racing bicycles. The capacity utilisation rate mirrors the decline in production and demand. It steadily decreased during the period considered reaching only a 45 % utilisation in the IP.

Table 5

 

2002

2003

2004

2005 (IP)

Capacity of production (pieces)

29 492 120

29 215 880

29 354 000

30 921 920

Index

100

99

100

105

Capacity utilisation

60 %

59 %

53 %

45 %

(c)   Stocks

(82)

As far as end of year stocks are concerned, the vast majority of production is made in response to orders. Therefore, whilst a decrease in stocks of 35 % was observed over the period considered, it is considered that in this case stocks were not a relevant indicator of injury.

Table 6

 

2002

2003

2004

2005 (IP)

Stocks (pieces)

1 365 040

1 192 612

1 000 376

884 829

Index

100

87

73

65

(d)   Investments

(83)

Between 2002 and 2003, investments for the production of the like product diminished from EUR 3 808 057 to EUR 1 664 147. In 2004 the Community producers stepped up their investments and spent almost double the amount, i.e. EUR 3 381 996 compared to the previous year. During the IP investments amounted to 3 638 962 which is 4 % lower than the level reached at the beginning of the period considered in 2002. During the investigation it was found that investments in buildings, plants and machinery were mainly made to maintain the production capacity and, only in 2004 and the IP, to a lesser extent, to develop new product types. In view of the low capacity utilisation mentioned before, investments were in any case not made with the purpose to increase the overall production volume.

(84)

The investigation revealed that the Community industry is considered as the world leader concerning product design, and innovation of saddles. Between 2000 and the IP, the Community producers designed and marketed over one thousand new types of saddles. R&D accounts for approximately 8 % to 10 % of turnover of the Community industry. In order to keep this position, the Community industry needs to maintain a certain level of investment, even if capacity utilisation is low.

Table 7

 

2002

2003

2004

2005 (IP)

Investments (EUR)

3 808 057

1 664 147

3 381 996

3 638 962

Index

100

44

89

96

(e)   Sales volume and market share

(85)

There are two main sales channels for saddles: the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) market and the ‘after market’. In the first case, saddles are sold to be put on a new bicycle and, in the second case saddles are sold in order to replace a used bicycle saddle. It was found that OEM sales account for approximately 60 % and after market sales for approximately 40 % of the total market. Like tyres, saddles are those components of a bicycle which are replaced most frequently.

(86)

Sales volumes of the whole Community industry declined by 20 % over the period considered from 15 109 569 pieces to 12 139 162 pieces in the IP, i.e. the Community industry sold almost three million saddles less in the IP than during 2002. After a small decrease of 1 % in 2003 compared to 2002, the loss in sales volumes was more pronounced in 2004 and the IP.

(87)

In terms of value, over the whole period considered sales of saddles by the Community industry increased only by 1 %. Sales value on the Community market increased by 5 % from EUR 54 460 180 in 2002 to EUR 56 978 530 in 2003 and then further to EUR 58 052 609 in 2004. However, during the IP, the Community industry's sales value decreased by almost EUR three million as compared to the previous year. The fact that sales in value did not develop along the same trend as sales in volume is explained by an increase in average prices which will be explained below.

(88)

Corresponding to the decline in sales volumes, the Community market share also went down significantly from 81 % in 2002 to 58 % in the IP. In other words, the Community industry lost 23 percentage points of its market share over the whole period considered to increasing imports from the PRC.

Table 8

 

2002

2003

2004

2005 (IP)

Sales value (EUR)

54 460 180

56 978 530

58 052 609

55 228 738

Index

100

105

107

101

Sales in the EC (pieces)

15 109 569

15 024 427

13 803 151

12 139 162

Index

100

99

91

80

Market share

81 %

77 %

67 %

58 %

(f)   Prices

(89)

The Community industry's average unit selling price increased by 25 % over the period considered. This price increase can be explained, on the one hand, as a result of the increased cost of raw material, which impacted the whole industry and, on the other hand, by a shift from low tech to high tech product types which incorporate more expensive raw materials and whose production is also more labour intensive.

(90)

The main raw materials used for the production of saddles include plastic shells, coverings, polyurethane, rails and clamps. The prices of these raw materials are indirectly related to the development of the oil price and metal prices. The raw material is a major cost driving component in the production cost of saddles accounting for approximately half of the total production cost and has a direct impact on the sales price evolution.

(91)

It was found that average prices of raw materials remained stable between 2002 and 2003, but increased from 2003 and also during the IP, which was reflected in the higher sales prices of the Community industry

(92)

One unrelated importer alleged that the rise of prices of the Community industry was a result of a change in consumer demand. The company argued that the demand for low price bicycles and accordingly low price saddles has declined whereas the demand for more expensive high quality saddles has increased. This statement is contradicted by the fact that low priced imports from the PRC increased in relative terms considerably more that the overall consumption of saddles in the Community as stated in recital 72.

Table 9

 

2002

2003

2004

2005 (IP)

Weighted average price (EUR/piece)

3,6

3,8

4,2

4,5

Index

100

106

117

125

(g)   Profitability and cash flow

(93)

During the period considered the weighted average profitability on net turnover of the Community industry decreased sharply from 3,8 % in 2002 to only 0,4 % in the IP. Whereas profitability increased to 5,0 % in 2003, it dropped to 3,1 % in 2004 and reached finally 0,4 % during the IP. The low profit margin is a consequence of the fact that the Community industry was unable to sufficiently pass on the price increase in raw materials to its customers.

Table 10

 

2002

2003

2004

2005 (IP)

Pre-tax profit margin

3,8 %

5,0 %

3,1 %

0,4 %

The Community industry generated a cash flow of EUR 3 990 473 during the IP which was approximately EUR 1,1 million or 22 % lower than in the year 2002. The still substantial amount of liquidity of the Community industry is explained by the fact that it is a capital intensive industry which requires high depreciation amounts. In general, it could be seen that the liquidity of the Community industry developed in a similar trend as profitability.

Table 11

 

2002

2003

2004

2005 (IP)

Cash flow (EUR)

5 084 871

6 655 555

6 574 821

3 990 473

Index

100

131

129

78

(h)   Return on net assets

(94)

The return on net assets was calculated by expressing the pre-tax net profit of the like product as a percentage of the net book value of fixed assets allocated to the like product. This indicator followed a similar trend as profitability, decreasing from 12 % in 2002 to only 1 % in the IP.

Table 12

 

2002

2003

2004

2005 (IP)

Return on net assets

12 %

16 %

10 %

1 %

(i)   Ability to raise capital

(95)

There was no claim from the Community industry nor indication that it encountered problems to raise capital for its activities and it was therefore concluded that the Community industry, as a whole, was in a position to raise capital for its activities throughout the period considered.

(j)   Employment and wages

(96)

Employment in the Community industry remained stable over the whole period considered. After a small increase in 2003 and 2004, the Community industry employed 418 people on a full time basis during the IP, i.e. almost the same number as in 2002. However, it is noted that all Community producers outsource substantial parts of their production to other small and medium sized enterprises located in the Community and, in a few cases, almost the entire production process to other small and medium sized enterprises. Therefore, the total amount of people employed on a full time basis in the production of saddles is much higher than the number of employees directly employed by the Community industry. It is estimated that the total number of employees working in the production of the like product is at least three times higher, i.e. approximately 1 200 people during the IP. Average annual wages developed along the same trend as labour cost, i.e. they increased by 5 % over the period considered from EUR 7 784 339 in 2002 to EUR 8 190 911 in the IP, which is below the inflation rate in the Community during the same period.

Table 13

 

2002

2003

2004

2005 (IP)

Employees

421

434

456

418

Index

100

103

108

99

Labour cost (EUR/year)

11 427 812

12 136 974

12 319 136

12 121 976

Index

100

106

108

106

Wages (EUR/year)

7 784 339

8 136 410

8 428 090

8 190 911

Index

100

105

108

105

(k)   Productivity

(97)

Productivity measured in output (production) per employee per year amounted to 42 225 pieces in 2002 and declined steadily over the years to 33 317 pieces in the IP. This decrease is caused by the decreasing production volume.

Table 14

 

2002

2003

2004

2005 (IP)

Productivity (pieces/employee)

42 225

39 752

34 388

33 317

Index

100

94

81

79

(l)   Growth

(98)

While Community consumption increased by 17 % between 2002 and the IP, the sales volume of the Community industry remained stable during the same period. Thus, sales by the Community industry increased far less than the demand during the period considered. On the other hand, the market share of imports from the PRC went up by 19 percentage points.

(m)   Magnitude of the dumping margin and recovery from past dumping

(99)

As concerns the impact on the Community industry of the magnitude of the actual margin of dumping, given the volume and the prices of the imports from the PRC, this impact cannot be considered negligible.

(100)

The Community industry was not found to be recovering from the effects of past dumping or subsidisation.

6.   Conclusion on injury

(101)

The analysis of the injury indicators revealed that the situation of the Community industry deteriorated significantly over the period considered. The majority of injury indicators (net sales in volume, production volume, capacity utilisation, profitability, return on investments, investments, cash flow and employment) follow a negative trend over the period considered.

(102)

Still, some injury indicators show a stable development (net sales in value and ability to raise capital) or, they even show a positive trend (average sales prices, production capacity and closing stocks). However, the increase in sales prices and net sales value during IP cannot be attributed to an improvement of the situation of the Community industry as such, but were a consequence of the increased prices of raw materials and also a shift of the Community industry to the production of higher value product types. As far as closing stocks are concerned, as mentioned in recital 82, in view of the particularity of this industry, closing stocks cannot be considered as relevant for the determination of the injury.

(103)

Given the vastly negative development of the profit-related indicators, the viability of the industry can be considered to be at stake if this situation is not remedied. Indeed, as the Community industry consists of small and medium sized enterprises and operates in a capital intensive business, it is highly unlikely that the Community industry could financially survive a longer period at this level.

(104)

In the light of the foregoing, it is concluded that the Community industry has suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.

E.   CAUSATION

1.   Introduction

(105)

In accordance with Article 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission has examined whether the dumped imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC have caused injury to the Community industry to a degree that enables it to be classified as material. Known factors other than the dumped imports, which could at the same time have injured the Community industry, were also examined to ensure that possible injury caused by these other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports.

2.   Effect of the dumped imports

(106)

Imports from the PRC more than quadrupled over the period considered, i.e. they increased by 343 % in terms of volume, and by 19 percentage points in terms of market share. At the same time, average prices of all exporting producers in the PRC undercut the average Community industry prices by 70,1 % in the IP. The substantial increase in the volume of imports from the PRC and their gain in market share during the period considered, at prices which were only a fraction of those of the Community industry, coincided with the evident deterioration of the overall financial situation of the Community industry during the same period.

(107)

Whereas unit prices of imports from PRC steadily declined over the period considered by 21 % from EUR 1,4 in 2002 to EUR 1,1 in the IP, the Community industry's prices increased over the same period by 26 % from EUR 3,6 in 2002 to EUR 4,5 during the IP. This price development into opposite directions can only partly be explained by a different product mix of saddles produced in the Community and the PRC. Moreover, the Community producers have submitted evidence that the access to and the prices of most raw materials are similar in the Community and the PRC. They have also shown that the raw material cost of saddles in the Community increased over the period considered. Indeed, some exporting producers in the PRC sell their products to the Community below cost of the raw material and this clearly shows that this is not a situation where prices are low because of a comparative advantage of the producers in the PRC, but because of the existence of dumping practices.

(108)

The effect of this unfair pricing behaviour of the dumped imports from the PRC was that the Community industry's prices were suppressed and could not even cover the increase of cost of raw materials. This was further confirmed by the significant reduction in profitability by the Community industry.

(109)

Based on the above considerations, it is evident that the low-priced imports from the PRC which significantly undercut the prices of the Community industry have had a determining role in the deterioration of the situation of the Community industry, which is reflected in particular in the decrease of production and sales volumes, market share, and in the sharp decrease of profitability.

3.   Effect of other factors

(a)   Non-dumped imports originating in the PRC

(110)

For one exporting producer the dumping margin established was below the de minimis threshold. Therefore, imports of this company were not considered in the injury analysis above. Of all imports from the PRC, the imports of this exporting producer amounted to a range of 28 % up to 33 % in the years 2002 and 2003, to a range between 18 % and 23 % in 2004 and reached a range between 12 % and 17 % in the IP. Average prices of this company still undercut those of the Community industry significantly throughout the period considered. However, the average undercutting margins of this company were much smaller than those of the companies for which dumping was found. In view of the fact that imports from this company were not significant, and, even more important, sharply decreased over the period considered, it is concluded that the non-dumped imports of this exporting producer did not break the causal link, i.e. that dumped imports from the PRC caused material injury to the Community industry.

(b)   Imports originating in third countries other than the country concerned

(111)

According to Eurostat and to the information collected during the investigation, the main third countries from which saddles are imported are Taiwan, India and Vietnam.

(112)

Imports from Taiwan amounted 1 145 000 pieces in 2002 and increased over the period considered by 25 % to 1 429 200 pieces in the IP. The market share of saddles imported from Taiwan amounted to 6 % in 2002, i.e. the same level as in the IP. Taiwanese imports were made at prices at similar levels of those of the Community industry. As the market share of Taiwanese imports did not increase, but remained stable at 6 % over the period considered and prices were at the same level as Community industry's prices, imports from Taiwan are not considered as having had a negative effect on the situation of the Community industry.

(113)

Imports from India amounted to 204 200 pieces in 2002 and augmented by 30 % to 264 600 in the IP. Average prices of imports from India stayed during the whole period considered well below the level of imports from the PRC. They amounted to EUR 0,63 in 2002, then increased to EUR 0,91 EUR in 2003 after which they declined sharply to EUR 0,47 and reached EUR 0,6 in the IP. However, these imports only represent a market share of 1 % throughout the whole period considered. Therefore, it is concluded that despite the low price level of imports from India, these imports did not have a significant effect on the situation of the Community industry.

(114)

As to imports from Vietnam, Eurostat statistics show a very low level of 4 400 imported saddles in 2002 which augmented to 136 600 pieces in the IP. Prices of imports from Vietnam remained in the same range as prices from the PRC. However, similar as in the case of India, the market share of Vietnamese imports was below 1 % in 2002 and 2003 and merely reached 1 % in 2004 and the IP. Thus, it is concluded that these imports have not had a significant impact on the state of the Community industry.

(115)

It can thus provisionally be concluded that imports other than from the PRC did not contribute to the material injury suffered by the Community industry.

(c)   Infringement of intellectual property rights

(116)

As mentioned earlier in recital 84, around 8 % to 10 % of the Community industry's turnover is devoted to investments in R&D. These investments include posture studies, tests and the design of new models of saddles. Some Community producers alleged that certain exporting producers from the PRC simply copy the patented European products and are hence able to generate a cost advantage compared to the producers in the Community which is reflected in the low price of saddles imported from the PRC. On the other hand, one unrelated importer submitted that counterfeits were not only originating from the PRC, but that they were also a cause of litigation among the producers in the Community. It is acknowledged that counterfeiting is an important issue in this industry and may indeed have aggravated the situation for the Community industry. In any event, the losses incurred by infringement of intellectual property rights caused by the Community industry itself are not such as to break the strong causal link between the surge of dumped imports and the material injury suffered by the Community industry. It should also be noted that to the extent that dumped imports from the PRC benefited from infringements of intellectual property rights, this could not be considered as another factor as this infringement would still relate to the dumped imports.

4.   Conclusion on causation

(117)

The coincidence in time between, on the one hand, the increase in dumped imports from the PRC, the increase in market shares and the undercutting found and, on the other hand, the evident deterioration in the situation of the Community industry, leads to the conclusion that the dumped imports caused the material injury suffered by the Community industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation. Other factors were analysed but found not to be a determining reason for the injury suffered.

(118)

Based on the above analysis, which has properly distinguished and separated the effects of all known factors having an effect on the situation of the Community industry from the injurious effect of the dumped imports, it is provisionally concluded that the imports of saddles from the PRC have caused material injury to the Community industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.

F.   COMMUNITY INTEREST

(119)

In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether, despite the conclusion on injurious dumping, compelling reasons exist for concluding that it is not in the Community interest to adopt measures in this particular case. The likely impact of possible measures on all parties involved in the proceeding and also the consequences of not taking measures have to be considered in this respect.

1.   Community industry

(120)

The injurious situation of the Community industry resulted from its difficulty to compete with the low-priced, dumped imports.

(121)

The imposition of measures should enable the Community industry to increase the volume of its sales and to regain market share and thereby generating better economies of scale, thus achieving the necessary profit level to justify continued investments in its production facilities and in research, to remain competitive.

(122)

One importer claimed that one Community producer had a dominant market position, however, without substantiating this allegation. Given the fact that saddles were produced throughout the period considered by at least 10 different competing producers in the Community, and that nothing was found in the course of the investigation to support this allegation, this claim is rejected.

(123)

Should measures not be imposed, the deterioration of the situation of the Community industry would continue. It would not be able to invest in new technologies and to compete effectively with imports from third countries. In addition, if measures are not imposed, the Community industry would continue to be deprived from the big volumes of the market of medium range saddles, therefore be unable to distribute its fixed costs. Indeed, some companies would have to cease the production of the like product and lay off their employees, as was already the case of one Community producer in 2005. It is therefore concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping measures is in the interest of the Community industry.

2.   Interest of unrelated importers

(124)

As far as importers are concerned, only two unrelated importers replied to the questionnaire and a verification visit was subsequently carried out to one of them. The volumes of the product concerned imported by these two importers represented 21 % of the total imports in the Community from China and 7 % of the Community consumption.

(125)

In view of the fact that the majority of all saddles imports into the Community are channelled through importers which are not related to exporting producers, imports of these unrelated importers were considered as representative for all other unrelated importers.

(126)

For both importers, imports of the product concerned from the PRC represented 100 % of their total imports of saddles. In the case of one importer, the corresponding sales value of saddles represented 8 % of the importer's total turnover during the IP. The sales of imported saddles from the PRC were profitable during the IP. However, the profitability of the sales of saddles was 0,7 percentage points below the overall profitability of this company which was in a range of approximately 2 % to 6 % in the IP. In the case of the other importer, the sales value of imported saddles in the IP represented only 1,2 % of the company's total turnover and the profitability of the sales of saddles was estimated to be in line with the overall profitability of this company. It can be assumed from the information submitted by other importers that the situation of these two described importers is representative for most importers of saddles from the PRC.

(127)

As both companies imported saddles only from the PRC, it can be concluded that the imposition of measures may indeed have a negative effect on the financial situation of these companies. However, taking into consideration that the sales of saddles only account for a minor share of the companies' total turnover and profit, it is not expected that measures would have a significant financial impact on the overall situation of these two importers. In addition, these companies could also import saddles either from the group of companies for which zero dumping was found, or from other third countries, e.g. Taiwan.

3.   Interest of users

(128)

Four users and distributors of the product concerned replied to the questionnaire sent by the Commission. These are companies which use saddles produced in the Community and also imported saddles for the assembly of bicycles. These four companies used a total amount of 1 255 655 saddles during the IP of which more than half (55 %) were saddles originating in the PRC. The number of imported saddles from the PRC and used by the four companies represented 5,7 % of the sales volume of the Community industry and 2,9 % of the total consumption of saddles in the Community during the IP. As far as the assemblers of bicycles are concerned, it was found that saddles constitute only a minor cost component of the total cost of a finished bicycle. On average, saddles account, depending on the model, for 1 % to 4 % of the total cost of a bicycle.

(129)

Two of the four users declared that the imposition of an anti-dumping duty would most likely not have a big effect on their business because an increase in the price of saddles would possibly be passed on to their final customer. Furthermore, they argued that the price difference between saddles produced and sold by the Community industry and imports from China was such, that even after the imposition of anti-dumping duties, saddles originating in the PRC would still remain competitive.

(130)

The other two users did not provide a non-confidential version of their submission. Therefore, in line with Article 19(3), such information was provisionally disregarded.

(131)

One exporting producer claimed that the imposition of measures on imports of saddles was not in the Community interest as it would put the existence of a viable European bicycle manufacturing industry further at risk. The company argued that manufacturers in the Community would stop their assembling business and instead start importing finished bicycles from the PRC despite the existence of an anti-dumping duty on bicycles. In this respect, it should be noted that exporters have no standing with regard to the determination of the Community interest. Nevertheless, the substance of the argument was examined. Given that two of the four users of bicycle saddles declared that the imposition of measures would not have any substantial impact on their businesses because of the low cost of a saddle in the overall cost of production of a bike the argument should in any event be rejected.

(132)

In view of the fact that the four companies purchased an important part of saddles (45 % during the IP) in the Community and given the relatively low importance of a saddle in the total cost of a fully assembled bicycle, it is concluded that the impact on costs resulting from the imposition of anti-dumping measures on saddles would not result in a significant impact in the overall costs of users. In any event, should such impact occur it is highly likely that users of imported saddles will be able to pass on the additional cost.

4.   Interest of raw material suppliers and consumers

(133)

One raw material supplier replied to the questionnaire. This company is selling the metallic parts of saddles to producers in the Community, namely frames and springs which are made out of iron, steel, titanium, vanadium, manganese or carbon-steel. The company is in favour of the imposition of anti-dumping duties, as it expects production volumes of the Community industry to increase and consequently a higher demand for its raw materials.

(134)

On the basis of the above findings, and in the absence of any other element or reaction from consumer organisations it is concluded that the impact of the proposed measures on the consumers is not likely to be significant.

5.   Conclusion on Community interest

(135)

Following the above, it is concluded that there are no compelling reasons on the grounds of Community interest, why provisional anti-dumping duties should not be imposed.

G.   PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

1.   Injury elimination level

(136)

In view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, resulting injury, causation and Community interest, provisional measures should be imposed in order to prevent further injury being caused to the Community industry by the dumped imports.

(137)

The measures should be imposed at a level sufficient to eliminate the injury caused by these imports without exceeding the dumping margin found. When calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious dumping, it was considered that any measures should allow the Community industry to cover its costs of production and to obtain overall a profit before tax that could be reasonably achieved by an industry of this type in the sector under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports, on the sales of the like product in the Community. The pre-tax profit margin used for this calculation was 5 % of turnover, based on the profitability established in previous investigations for producers of bicycle parts which include the Community producers as defined in recital 67.

(138)

The necessary price increase was then determined on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average import price, as established for the price undercutting calculations (see recital 75 above), with the non-injurious price of products sold by the Community industry on the Community market. The non-injurious price has been obtained by adjusting the sales price of the Community industry by the actual loss/profit made during the IP and by adding the above mentioned profit margin. Any difference resulting from this comparison was then expressed as a percentage of the total cif import value.

(139)

In order to calculate the country-wide injury elimination level for all other exporters in the PRC, it should be recalled that the level of cooperation was low. Therefore, the injury margin was calculated as a weighted average of the margin calculated for the cooperating exporter and the highest margins established for representative types exported by the same exporter.

(140)

The injury margins were significantly higher than the dumping margins found.

2.   Provisional measures

(141)

In light of the foregoing, it is considered that a provisional anti-dumping duty should be imposed at the level of the dumping margin found, but should not, in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, be higher than the injury margin calculated above.

(142)

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 countrywide 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 document 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’.

(143)

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 Commission (3) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company's activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, 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. In order to ensure a proper enforcement of the anti-dumping duty, the countrywide dumping margin should also apply to those producers which did not have any exports to the Community during the IP.

(144)

On the basis of the above, the provisional duty rates are:

Cionlli Bicycle (Taicang) Co. Ltd., Shunde Hongli Bicycle Parts Co. Ltd. and Safe Strong Bicycle Parts Shenzhen Co. Ltd.

7,5 %

Giching Bicycle parts (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. and Velo Cycle Kunshan Co. Ltd.

0 %

All other companies

30,9 %

3.   Special monitoring

(145)

In order to minimise the risks of circumvention due to the high difference in the duty rates, it is considered that special measures are needed in this case to ensure the proper application of the anti-dumping duties. Only the imports of the product concerned manufactured by the respective exporting producer can benefit from the specific dumping margin calculated for the producer concerned. These special measures include the following:

(146)

The presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice which must conform to the requirements set out in the Annex to this Regulation. Imports not accompanied by such an invoice must be made subject to the residual anti-dumping duty applicable to all other companies.

(147)

It is recalled that should the exports by the companies benefiting from lower individual duty rates increase significantly in volume after the imposition of the anti-dumping measures, such an increase in volume could be considered as constituting in itself a change in the pattern of trade due to the imposition of measures within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation. In such circumstances, and provided the conditions are met, an anti-circumvention investigation may be initiated. This investigation may, inter alia, examine the need for the removal of individual duty rates and the consequent imposition of a country-wide duty.

H.   FINAL PROVISION

(148)

In the interest of sound administration, a period should be fixed within which the interested parties which made themselves known within the time limit specified in the notice of initiation may make their views known in writing and request a hearing. Furthermore, it should be stated that the findings concerning the imposition of anti-dumping duties made for the purposes of this Regulation are provisional and may have to be reconsidered for the purpose of any definitive duty,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   A provisional anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of saddles and essential parts thereof i.e., bases, cushions and covers, of bicycles and other cycles (including delivery tricycles), not motorised, of cycles fitted with an auxiliary motor with or without sidecars, of fitness machines and of home trainers, falling within CN codes 8714 95 00, ex 8714 99 90 and ex 9506 91 10 (TARIC codes 8714999081 and 9506911010) and originating in the People's Republic of China.

2.   The rate of the provisional anti-dumping duty applicable to the net free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, of the products manufactured by the companies below shall be:

Company

Anti-Dumping Duty

TARIC Additional Code

Cionlli Bicycle (Taicang) Co. Ltd., Shunde Hongli Bicycle Parts Co. Ltd. and Safe Strong Bicycle Parts Shenzhen Co. Ltd.

7,5 %

A787

Giching Bicycle parts (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. and Velo Cycle Kunshan Co. Ltd.

0 %

A788

All other companies

30,9 %

A999

3.   The application of the individual duty rates specified for the companies mentioned in paragraph 2 shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex. If no such invoice is presented, the duty rate applicable to all other companies shall apply.

4.   The release for free circulation in the Community of the product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the provision of a security, equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.

5.   Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.

Article 2

Without prejudice to Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96, interested parties may request disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which this Regulation was adopted, make their views known in writing and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within one month of the date of entry into force of this Regulation.

Pursuant to Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, the parties concerned may comment on the application of this Regulation within one month of the date of its entry into force.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Article 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of six months.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 December 2006.

For the Commission

Peter MANDELSON

Member of the Commission


(1)  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).

(2)  OJ C 84, 7.4.2006, p. 4.

(3)  European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, Direction B, 1049 Brussels, Belgium.


ANNEX

The valid commercial invoice referred to in Article 1(3) of this Regulation must include a declaration signed by an official of the company, in the following format:

(1)

The name and function of the official of the company which has issued the commercial invoice.

(2)

The following declaration: ‘I, the undersigned, certify that the [volume] of saddles sold for export to the European Community covered by this invoice was manufactured by [company name and address] [TARIC additional code] in the People's Republic of China. I declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct.’


28.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 379/37


COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2000/2006

of 20 December 2006

amending Regulation (EC) No 1870/2005 by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania, and in particular its Article 4(3),

Having regard to the Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania, and in particular its Article 41,

Whereas:

(1)

Transitional measures should be laid down in order to allow importers from Bulgaria and Romania to benefit from the provisions contained in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1870/2005 of 16 November 2005 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas and introducing a system of import licences and certificates of origin for garlic imported from third countries (1). These measures should cover in particular the definition of the reference quantity and the definitions of traditional and new importers.

(2)

Regulation (EC) No 1870/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 1870/2005 is amended as follows:

1.

Article 2 is amended as follows:

(a)

in point 5 of the first paragraph, point (c) is replaced by the following:

‘(c)

for traditional importers who imported garlic between 2003 and 2005 into Bulgaria or Romania, the maximum quantity of garlic imported during:

(i)

either the 2003, 2004 or 2005 calendar year,

(ii)

or the 2003/04, 2004/05 or 2005/06 import period;

(d)

for traditional importers who do not fall within points (a), (b) or (c), the maximum quantity of garlic imported during one of the first three completed import periods during which they have obtained import licences pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 565/2002 or this Regulation.’;

(b)

the second paragraph is replaced by the following:

‘Garlic originating in Member States of the Community as constituted at 31 December 2006 or in Bulgaria and Romania shall not be taken into account for the calculation of the reference quantity.’;

(c)

the following paragraph is added:

‘Bulgaria and Romania shall choose and apply one of the two methods referred to in point (c) to all traditional importers, in accordance with objective criteria and in such a way as to ensure equal treatment between operators.’

2.

In Article 3, the following paragraph 4 is added:

‘4.   By way of derogation from paragraphs 1 and 2, as regards the 2006/07, 2007/08 and 2008/09 import periods and only in Bulgaria and Romania:

(a)

“traditional importers” means importers, whether natural or legal persons, individuals or groups of operators set up in accordance with national law, who can prove that:

(i)

they have imported garlic from countries of origin other than the Member States of the Community as constituted at 31 December 2006 or Bulgaria and Romania in at least two of the previous three completed import periods;

(ii)

they have imported at least 50 tonnes of fruit and vegetables as referred to in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 during the preceding calendar year;

(iii)

the imports referred to in points (i) and (ii) have taken place in Bulgaria or Romania, where the head office of the importer concerned is located;

(b)

“new importers” means importers other than traditional importers within the meaning of point (a), whether traders, natural or legal persons, individuals or groups of operators set up in accordance with national law, who can prove that:

(i)

they have imported at least 50 tonnes of fruit and vegetables as referred to in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 in each of the two preceding calendar years from countries of origin other than the Member States of the Community as constituted at 31 December 2006 or Bulgaria and Romania;

(ii)

the imports referred to in point (i) have taken place in Bulgaria or Romania, where the head office of the importer concerned is located.’

3.

Annex II is amended as follows:

(a)

the following mention is inserted before the mention in Spanish:

‘—

in Bulgarian: Мито 9,6 % — Регламент (ЕО) № 1870/2005,’;

(b)

the following mention is inserted after the mention in Portuguese:

‘—

in Romanian: Taxa vamală: 9,6 % — Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1870/2005,’.

4.

Annex III is amended as follows:

(a)

the following mention is inserted before the mention in Spanish:

‘—

in Bulgarian: Лицензия, издадена и валидна само за тримесечие от 1 (месец) до 28/29/30/31 (месец)’;

(b)

the following mention is inserted after the mention in Portuguese:

‘—

in Romanian: licență emisă și valabilă numai pentru trimestrul de la 1 [luna] pana la 28/29/30/31[luna]’.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force subject to and on the date of the entry into force of the Treaty of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 December 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission


(1)  OJ L 300, 17.11.2005, p. 19. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 991/2006 (OJ L 179, 1.7.2006, p. 15).


28.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 379/39


COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2001/2006

of 21 December 2006

adapting Regulation (EC) No 2295/2003 introducing detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 on certain marketing standards for eggs by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to the Treaty of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania, and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,

Having regard to the Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania, and in particular Article 56 thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

Certain technical amendments are necessary in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2295/2003 (1), by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union.

(2)

Annexes I, II and V to Regulation (EC) No 2295/2003 contain certain entries in all the languages of the Community as constituted at 31 December 2006. Those Annexes should also include the entries in Bulgarian and in Romanian.

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 2295/2003 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 2295/2003 is amended as follows:

1.

Article 4(2) is replaced by the following:

‘2.   The competent authority shall allot the packing centre a distinguishing approval number with an initial code as follows:

BE

Belgium

BG

Bulgaria

CZ

Czech Republic

DK

Denmark

DE

Germany

EE

Estonia

GR

Greece

ES

Spain

FR

France

IE

Ireland

IT

Italy

CY

Cyprus

LV

Latvia

LT

Lithuania

LU

Luxembourg

HU

Hungary

MT

Malta

NL

Netherlands

AT

Austria

PL

Poland

PT

Portugal

RO

Romania

SI

Slovenia

SK

Slovakia

FI

Finland

SE

Sweden

UK

United Kingdom’

2.

Annexes I, II and V are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force subject to and on the date of the entry into force of the Treaty of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 December 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission


(1)  OJ L 340, 24.12.2003, p. 16. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 89/2006 (OJ L 15, 20.1.2006, p. 30).


ANNEX

The Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 2295/2003 are amended as follows:

1.

Annex I is replaced by the following:

‘ANNEX I

1.   Minimum durability date

Language codes

On eggs

On packs

BG

срок на годност

срок на годност

ES

Cons. pref.

Consúmase preferentemente antes del

CS

Spotřebujte or S.

Spotřebujte do

DA

Mindst holdbar til or M.H.

Mindst holdbar til

DE

Mind. haltbar or M.H.D.

Mindestens haltbar bis

ET

Parim enne or PE

Parim enne

EL

Ανάλωση πριν από

Ανάλωση κατά προτίμηση πριν από

EN

Best before or B.B. (1)

Best before

FR

à cons. de préf. av. or DCR (1)

A consommer de préférence avant le

IT

Entro

da consumarsi preferibilmente entro

LV

Izlietot līdz or I.L. (1)

Izlietot līdz

LT

Geriausi iki or G (1)

Geriausi iki

HU

Min. meg. or M.M (1)

Minőségét megőrzi

MT

L-aħjar jintuża sa

L-aħjar jintuża sa

NL

Tenm. houdb. tot or THT (1)

Tenminste houdbaar tot

PL

Najlepiej spożyć przed or N.S.P. (1)

Najlepiej spożyć przed

PT

Cons. pref.

A consumir de preferência antes de

RO

d.d.m.

A se consuma, de preferință, înainte de

SK

Minimálna trvanlivosť do or M.T.D. (1)

Minimálna trvanlivosť do

SL

Uporabno najmanj do or U.N.D. (1)

Uporabno najmanj do

FI

parasta ennen

parasta ennen

SV

bäst före

Bäst före

2.   Packing date

Language codes

On eggs

On packs

BG

Дата на опаковане

Дата на опаковане

ES

Emb.

Embalado el:

CS

Baleno or D. B. (2)

Datum balení

DA

Pakket

Pakket den:

DE

Verp.

Verpackt am:

ET

Pakendamiskuupäev or PK

Pakendamiskuupäev:

EL

Συσκευασία

Ημερομηνία συσκευασίας:

EN

Packed or pkd

Packing date:

FR

Emb. le

Emballé le:

IT

Imb.

Data d'imballaggio:

LV

Iepakots

Iepakots

LT

Supakuota or PK (2)

Pakavimo data

HU

Csom.

Csomagolás dátuma

MT

Ippakkjat

Data ta’ l-ippakkjar:

NL

Verp.

Verpakt op:

PL

Zapakowano w dniu or ZWD

Zapakowano w dniu

PT

Emb.

Embalado em:

RO

Amb.

Ambalat la

SK

Balené dňa or B.D.

Balené dňa

SL

Pakirano or Pak.

Datum pakiranja

FI

Pakattu

Pakattu:

SV

förp. Den

Förpackat den:

3.   Recommended sell-by date

Language codes

 

BG

Препоръчителна дата за продажба

ES

Vender antes

CS

Prodat do

DA

Sidste salgsdato

DE

Verkauf bis

ET

Viimane soovitav müügikuupäev or VSM

EL

Πώληση

EN

Sell by

FR

à vend. préf. av. or DVR (3)

IT

racc.

LV

Realizēt līdz

LT

Parduoti iki

HU

Forgalomba hozható: …-ig

MT

Għandu jinbiegħ sa

NL

Uiterste verkoopdatum or Uit. verk. dat.

PL

Sprzedaż do dnia

PT

Vend. de pref. antes de

RO

A se vinde înainte de

SK

Predávať do

SL

Prodati do

FI

viimeinen myyntipäivä

SV

sista försäljningsdag

4.   Date of laying

Language codes

 

BG

Дата на снасяне

ES

Puesta

CS

Sneseno

DA

Læggedato

DE

Gelegt am

ET

Munemiskuupäev

EL

Ωοτοκία

EN

Laid

FR

Pondu le

IT

Dep.

LV

Izdēts

LT

Padėta

HU

Tojás rakás napja

MT

Tbiedu

NL

Gelegd op

PL

Zniesione w dniu

PT

Postura

RO

Produs la

SK

Znáška

SL

Zneseno

FI

munintapäivä

SV

värpta den’

2.

Annex II is replaced by the following:

‘ANNEX II

Terms referred to in Article 13 for the indication of types of farming: (a) on packs; (b) on eggs

Languages codes

 

1

2

3

BG

(a)

яйца от кокошки – свободно отглеждане на открито

яйца от кокошки – подово отглеждане

яйца от кокошки – клетъчно отглеждане

(b)

яйца от кокошки – свободно отглеждане на открито

яйца от кокошки – подово отглеждане

яйца от кокошки – клетъчно отглеждане

ES

(a)

Huevos de gallinas camperas

Huevos de gallinas criadas en el suelo

Huevos de gallinas criadas en jaula

(b)

Camperas

Suelo

Jaula

CS

(a)

Vejce nosnic ve volném výběhu

Vejce nosnic v halách

Vejce nosnic v klecích

(b)

Výběh

Hala

Klec

DA

(a)

Frilandsæg

Skrabeæg

Buræg

(b)

Frilandsæg

Skrabeæg

Buræg

DE

(a)

Eier aus Freilandhaltung

Eier aus Bodenhaltung

Eier aus Käfighaltung

(b)

Freiland

Boden

Käfig

ET

(a)

Vabalt peetavate kanade munad

Õrrekanade munad

Puuris peetavate kanade munad

(b)

Vabapidamine or V

Õrrelpidamine or Õ

Puurispidamine or P

EL

(a)

Αυγά ελεύθερης βοσκής

Αυγά αχυρώνα

Αυγά κλωβοστοιχίας

(b)

Eλεύθερης βοσκής

Αχυρώνα

Κλωβοστοιχία

EN

(a)

Free range eggs

Barn eggs

Eggs from caged hens

(b)

Free range or F/range

Barn

Cage

FR

(a)

Œufs de poules élevées en plein air

Œufs de poules élevées au sol

Œufs de poules élevées en cage

(b)

Plein air

Sol

Cage

IT

(a)

Uova da allevamento all'aperto

Uova da allevamento a terra

Uova da allevamento in gabbie

(b)

Aperto

A terra

Gabbia

LV

(a)

Brīvās turēšanas apstākļos dētās olas

Kūtī dētas olas

Sprostos dētas olas

(b)

Brīvībā dēta

Kūtī dēta

Sprostā dēta

LT

(a)

Laisvai laikomų vištų kiaušiniai

Ant kraiko laikomų vištų kiaušiniai

Narvuose laikomų vištų kiaušiniai

(b)

Laisvų

Ant kraiko

Narvuose

HU

(a)

Szabad tartásban termelt tojás

Alternatív tartásban termelt tojás

Ketreces tartásból származó tojás

(b)

Szabad t.

Alternatív

Ketreces

MT

(a)

Bajd tat-tiġieg imrobbija barra

Bajd tat-tiġieġ imrobbija ma’ l-art.

Bajd tat-tiġieġ imrobbija fil-gaġeġ

(b)

Barra

Ma’ l-art

Gaġġa

NL

(a)

Eieren van hennen met vrije uitloop

Scharreleieren

Kooieieren

(b)

Vrije uitloop

Scharrel

Kooi

PL

(a)

Jaja z chowu na wolnym wybiegu

Jaja z chowu ściółkowego

Jaja z chowu klatkowego

(b)

Wolny wybieg

Ściółka

Klatka

PT

(a)

Ovos de galinhas criadas ao ar livre

Ovos de galinhas criadas no solo

Ovos de galinhas criadas em gaiolas

(b)

Ar livre

Solo

Gaiola

RO

(a)

Ouă de găini crescute în aer liber

Ouă de găini crescute în hale la sol

Ouă de găini crescute în baterii

(b)

Aer liber

Sol

baterii

SK

(a)

Vajcia z chovu na voľnom výbehu

Vajcia z podostieľkového chovu

Vajcia z klietkového chovu

(b)

Voľný výbeh

Podstieľkové

Klietkové

SL

(a)

Jajca iz proste reje

Jajca iz hlevske reje

Jajca iz baterijske reje

(b)

Prosta reja

Hlevska reja

Baterijska reja

FI

(a)

Ulkokanojen munia

Lattiakanojen munia

Häkkikanojen munia

(b)

Ulkokanan

Lattiakanan

Häkkikanan

SV

(a)

Ägg från utehöns

Ägg från frigående höns inomhus

Ägg från burhöns

(b)

Frigående (alt. Frig.) ute

Frigående (alt. Frig.) inne

Burägg’

3.

Annex V is replaced by the following:

‘ANNEX V

Entries referred to in Article 16(6)

:

in Bulgarian

:

яйца, предназначени изключително за преработка, съгласно член 16, параграф 6 от Регламент (ЕО) № 2295/2003.

:

in Spanish

:

huevos destinados exclusivamente a la transformación, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el apartado 6 del artículo 16 del Reglamento (CE) no 2295/2003.

:

in Czech

:

vejce určená výhradně ke zpracování v souladu s čl. 16, odst. 6 Nařízení (ES) č. 2295/2003.

:

in Danish

:

æg, der udelukkende er bestemt til forarbejdning, jf. artikel 16, stk. 6, i forordning (EF) nr. 2295/2003.

:

in German

:

Eier ausschließlich bestimmt zur Verarbeitung gemäß Artikel 16 Absatz 6 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 2295/2003.

:

in Estonian

:

eranditult ümbertöötlemisele kuuluvad munad, vastavalt määruse (EÜ) nr 2295/2003 artikli 16 lõikele 6.

:

in Greek

:

αυγά που προορίζονται αποκλειστικά για την μεταποίησή τους, σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 16, παράγραφος 6 του κανονισμού (ΕΚ) αριθ. 2295/2003.

:

in English

:

eggs intended exclusively for processing in accordance with Article 16(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2295/2003.

:

in French

:

œufs destinés exclusivement à la transformation, conformément à l’article 16, paragraphe 6, du règlement (CE) no 2295/2003.

:

in Italian

:

uova destinate esclusivamente alla trasformazione, in conformità dell’articolo 16, paragrafo 6, del regolamento (CE) n. 2295/2003.

:

in Latvian

:

olas, kas paredzētas tikai pārstrādei, saskaņā ar regulas (EK) Nr. 2295/2003 16. panta 6. punktu.

:

in Lithuanian

:

tik perdirbti skirti kiaušiniai, atitinkantys Reglamento (EB) Nr. 2295/2003 16 straipsnio 6 dalies reikalavimus.

:

in Hungarian

:

A 2295/2003/EK rendelet 16. cikke (6) bekezdésének megfelelően kizárólag feldolgozásra szánt tojás.

:

in Maltese

:

bajd destinat esklussivament għall-konverżjoni, f’konformità ma’ l-Artikolu 16, Paragrafu 6 tar-Regolament (KE) Nru 2295/2003.

:

in Dutch

:

eieren die uitsluitend bestemd zijn voor verwerking, overeenkomstig artikel 16, lid 6, van Verordening (EG) nr. 2295/2003.

:

in Polish

:

jaja przeznaczone wyłącznie dla przetwórstwa, zgodnie z artykułem 16, paragraf 6 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 2295/2003.

:

in Portuguese

:

ovos destinados exclusivamente à transformação, em conformidade com o n.o 6 do artigo 16.o do Regulamento (CE) n.o 2295/2003.

:

in Romanian

:

ouă destinate exclusiv procesării, conform articolului 16 alineatul 6 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 2295/2003.

:

in Slovak

:

vajcia určené výhradne na spracovanie podľa článku 16, odsek 6 nariadenia (ES) č. 2295/2003.

:

in Slovenian

:

jajca namenjena izključno predelavi, v skladu s 6. odstavkom 16. čelna uredbe (CE) št. 2295/2003.

:

in Finnish

:

Yksinomaan jalostettaviksi tarkoitettuja munia asetuksen (EY) N:o 2295/2003 16 artiklan 6 kohdan mukaisesti.

:

in Swedish

:

Ägg uteslutande avsedda för bearbetning, i enlighet med artikel 16.6 i förordning (EG) nr 2295/2003.’


(1)  If the abbreviation is used, its meaning must be clearly shown on the package.

(2)  If the abbreviation is used, its meaning must be clearly shown on the package.

(3)  If the abbreviation is used, its meaning must be clearly shown on the package.


28.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 379/47


COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2002/2006

of 21 December 2006

amending Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (1), and in particular Article 145(c) thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 (2) introduces the implementing rules for the single payment scheme as from 2005.

(2)

Article 54(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 provides that farmers shall set aside from production the hectares eligible for set-aside entitlements and Article 56(1) of that Regulation stipulates that the use of land declared as set aside for agricultural purpose is in general prohibited.

(3)

Article 32(1) of Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 provides that areas set aside must so remain for a period commencing on 15 January at the latest and ending on 31 August at the earliest.

(4)

The Commission has frequently provided for derogation from those rules to respond to the fodder needs of farmers in regions affected by natural disasters, in particular, droughts. The special circumstances of local natural disaster require an analysis and a decision in good time. Experience shows that to deal appropriately and in due time with local situations it would be appropriate to give to the Member States the responsibility of such decisions, provided that exceptional circumstances justify them.

(5)

It is therefore appropriate that Member States take the decision to recognise severe natural disasters seriously affecting land on holdings in a given region and to authorise all producers affected to use land declared as set aside for animal feed purposes in good time and notify it to the Commission. Member States should notify the Commission of such national decisions and notably of the adverse climatic conditions that justify them.

(6)

Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(7)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Direct Payments,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 is amended as follows:

In Article 32 the following paragraph is added:

‘5.   In cases as referred to in Article 40(4) (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, Member States may authorise all producers affected to use land declared as set aside for animal feed purposes for the year of the single application. Member States shall take all necessary measures to ensure that the set-aside area subject to the authorisation is not used for lucrative purposes, and in particular that no fodder produced on that set-aside land is sold.

Member States shall notify to the Commission their decision on the authorisation and its justification.’

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 December 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission


(1)  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1405/2006 (OJ L 265, 26.9.2006, p. 1).

(2)  OJ L 141, 30.4.2004, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1291/2006 (OJ L 236, 31.8.2006, p. 20).


28.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 379/49


COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2003/2006

of 21 December 2006

laying down detailed rules for the financing by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) of expenditure relating to the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (1), and in particular Article 35(3) thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

Article 3(2)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (2) provides that European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) expenditure relating to fisheries markets is to be managed in a centralised manner.

(2)

Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 specifies the types of expenditure that are incurred by the Member States.

(3)

The financing of this expenditure follows the rules of centralised direct management between the Commission and the Member States.

(4)

In order to ensure that Community funds are soundly managed and to protect the financial interests of the Community, Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 contains certain obligations for Member States concerning the management and control of these funds, as well as providing information regarding their legal and administrative framework for fulfilment of these obligations and to recover undue amounts if irregularities are detected in the management of these funds. Furthermore, the Communities' financial interests in relation to the expenditure financed under Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 are protected by the relevant rules pertaining to the protection of those interests in Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (3), Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (4), Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities' financial interests against fraud and other irregularities (5) and Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (6).

(5)

To ensure sound management of financial flows, in particular because the Member States themselves mobilise, in a first step, the funds to cover the expenditure referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 before the Commission reimburses their expenditure on a biannual basis, the Member States should collect the relevant information concerning the expenditure and transmit it to the Commission together with the declaration of expenditure.

(6)

The Commission should reimburse Member States biannually on the basis of those declarations of expenditure and the supporting documents to that declaration.

(7)

To enable the Commission to make efficient use of information from the Member States, that information should be sent electronically.

(8)

To avoid the application of different exchange rates for aid paid to producer organisations in currencies other than the euro, on the one hand, and in the declaration of expenditure, on the other, Member States concerned should apply the same exchange rate in their declarations of expenditure as that used when making those payments to the beneficiaries. The exchange rates applicable must be laid down according to operative events as defined by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1925/2000 establishing the operative events for the exchange rates to be applied when calculating certain amounts provided for by the mechanisms of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 on the common organisation of the market in fishery and aquaculture products (7).

(9)

In order to provide a legal basis for the payments made in the first reference period, it is appropriate to apply this Regulation with retroactive effect as from 16 October 2006,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Subject matter

This Regulation lays down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 as regards the financing by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) of expenditure incurred by Member States under the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products.

Article 2

Definitions

For the purposes of this Regulation the following definition shall apply:

‘Expenditure’ means expenditure incurred by the Member States as referred to in Article 35(1) of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000.

Article 3

Competent authority

Each Member State shall designate its competent authority for the implementation of this Regulation and notify it to the Commission.

Article 4

Declarations of expenditure

1.   Each Member State shall draw up a declaration of expenditure in accordance with the model in the Annex. The declaration of expenditure shall consist of a statement, broken down according to the nomenclature of the budget of the European Communities and by type of expenditure on the basis of a detailed nomenclature made available to the Member States. It shall cover:

(a)

the expenditure incurred during the previous six-month reference period;

(b)

total expenditure incurred from the beginning of the financial year until the end of the previous six-month reference period.

2.   Each Member State shall collect all the information relevant to the declaration of expenditure.

3.   The reference periods shall be the six-month periods from 16 October until 15 April and from 16 April until 15 October.

4.   The declaration of expenditure may incorporate corrections to the amounts declared for previous reference periods.

5.   The competent authorities of the Member States shall submit their declaration of expenditure together with the information, referred to in paragraph 2, to the Commission electronically, respectively on 10 May and 10 November at the latest.

Article 5

Biannual payments

1.   The appropriations necessary to finance the expenditure shall be made available to Member States by the Commission in the form of biannual reimbursements, (hereinafter referred to as ‘biannual payments’).

The amounts of the biannual payments shall be fixed in the basis of the declaration of expenditure submitted by the Member States in accordance with Article 4.

2.   Biannual payments shall be made to each Member State within 60 days after the complete declaration of expenditure by the Member State has been received by the Commission. The declaration shall be deemed complete if the Commission does not request further information within 30 days from receipt of declaration.

3.   Until they receive transfer of the biannual payments from the Commission, the Member States shall mobilise the resources required to undertake expenditure.

Article 6

Exchange rates to be applied

The exchange rate to be used by Member States for their declaration of expenditure shall be the rate most recently fixed by the European Central Bank (ECB) prior to the corresponding operative events as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1925/2000.

Article 7

Entry into force and application

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 16 October 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 December 2006.

For the Commission

Joe BORG

Member of the Commission


(1)  OJ L 17, 21.1.2000, p. 22. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1759/2006 (OJ L 335, 1.12.2006, p. 3).

(2)  OJ L 209, 11.8.2005, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 (OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 42).

(3)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 1.

(5)  OJ L 292, 15.11.1996, p. 2.

(6)  OJ L 312, 23.12.1995, p. 1.

(7)  OJ L 230, 12.9.2000, p. 7.


ANNEX

DECLARATION OF EXPENDITURE

Data broken down according to the nomenclature of the budget of the European Communities and by type of expenditure

Content of declaration of expenditure to be transmitted to the Commission by electronic mail

Header of the declaration

The header of the declaration comprises:

an identifier of the message type and of the Member State transmitting the data (N.B.: this will be used to verify that the user forwarding the declaration is actually entitled to do so on behalf of the Member State concerned). The identifier will be sent to you by the Commission,

the period of expenditure covered by the declaration,

the language of the declaration.

Body of the declaration

The body of the declaration comprises the following for each sub-item of the EAGF nomenclature:

the identifier of the sub-item (e.g. 110201002610033),

the wording of the sub-item in the language chosen in the header of the declaration,

the amount declared for the period concerned (N) and the cumulative amount declared since the start of the financial year. All amounts must be declared in Euro.

End section

The following appears after the list of all the sub-items:

the total amount declared for the period concerned (N) and the total cumulative amount declared since the start of the financial year,

space for comments.

Syntax of the message

Image

Description of the fields

Name

Format

Description

Header of the declaration: occurrence of data = 1

[IDENTIFICATION] *

 

Identification code given by DG FISH

[PERIOD] *

Date (YYYYMM)

Expenditure period

[LANGUAGE] *

(2 characters)

ISO code for the language

Body of the declaration: occurrence of data = 1 to n

[SUBITEM] *

Number (15)

Sub-item

[DESCRIPTION] *

Free text (600)

Wording of the sub-item

[AMOUNT ] *

Number (15,2)

Amount declared

[AMOUNT CUMUL] *

Number (15,2)

Cumulative amount

End section: occurrence of data = 1

[AMOUNT TOT ] *

Number (15,2)

Total amount declared

[AMOUNT CUMUL TOT] *

Number (15,2)

Cumulative total amount

[COMMENT]

Free text (80)

Comments

Fields marked with an asterisk are compulsory.

Example

Image


28.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 379/54


COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2004/2006

of 22 December 2006

amending Regulation (EEC) No 2273/93 determining the intervention centres for cereals, and adapting the said regulation due to the accession of Bulgaria and Romania

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to the Treaty of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania, and in particular Article 4(3) thereof

Having regard to the Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania, and in particular Article 56 thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 6(a) thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

A number of Member States have submitted requests to make amendments to some of centres for cereals listed in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2273/93 (2) with a view to improving their location or responding better to the conditions required. Their requests should be granted.

(2)

In view of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, the intervention centres must be determined for those new Member States and be listed in Regulation (EEC) No 2273/93.

(3)

Regulation (EEC) No 2273/93 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 2273/93 is hereby amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 1 January 2007. However, points 1, 2 and 6 of the Annex apply subject to and from the date of the entry into force of the Treaty of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 December 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission


(1)  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005, (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

(2)  OJ L 207, 18.8.1993, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1805/2004 (OJ L 318, 19.10.2004, p. 9).


ANNEX

The Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 2273/93 is amended as follows:

1.

The title, the explanatory notes before the table and the titles of the columns are replaced by the following:

1.

Знакът + означава, че определеното място се счита за интервенционен център за въпросния вид зърно.

2.

Знакът – означава, че определеното място не трябва да се счита за интервенционен център за въпросния вид зърно.

1.

El signo + significa que el lugar indicado se considera centro de intervención para el cereal en cuestión.

2.

El signo – significa que el lugar indicado no ha de considerarse centro de intervención para el cereal en cuestión.

1.

Označení + znamená, že uvedené místo je považováno za intervenční centrum pro příslušnou obilovinu.

2.

Označení – znamená, že uvedené místo není považováno za intervenční centrum pro příslušnou obilovinu.

1.

Tegnet + angiver, at det anførte sted betragtes som interventionscenter for den pågældende kornsort.

2.

Tegnet – angiver, at det anførte sted ikke betragtes som interventionscenter for den pågældende kornsort.

1.

Das Zeichen + bedeutet, dass der angegebene Ort als Interventionsort für die betreffende Getreideart gilt.

2.

Das Zeichen – bedeutet, dass der angegebene Ort nicht als Interventionsort für die betreffende Getreideart gilt.

1.

Märge + näitab, et tähistatud piirkonda käsitletakse nimetatud teravilja sekkumiskeskusena.

2.

Märge – näitab, et tähistatud piirkonda ei käsitleta nimetatud teravilja sekkumiskeskusena.

1.

Το σημείο + καθορίζει ότι ο αναγραφόμενος τόπος θεωρείται ως κέντρο παρεμβάσεως για τα εν λόγω σιτηρά.

2.

Το σημείο – καθορίζει ότι ο αναγραφόμενος τόπος δεν θεωρείται ως κέντρο παρεμβάσεως για τα εν λόγω σιτηρά.

1.

The sign + indicates that the location shown is treated as an intervention centre for the cereal in question.

2.

The sign – indicates that the location shown is not to be treated as an intervention centre for the cereal in question.

1.

Le signe + précise que le lieu indiqué est considéré comme centre d'intervention pour la céréale en cause.

2.

Le signe – précise que le lieu indiqué n'est pas à considérer comme centre d'intervention pour la céréale en cause.

1.

Il segno + significa che il luogo indicato è considerato centro d'intervento per il cereale in causa.

2.

Il segno – significa che il luogo indicato non è da considerarsi centro di intervento per il cereale in causa.

1.

Zīme + norāda uz to, ka šī vieta uzskatāma par intervences centru minētajiem graudaugiem.

2.

Zīme – norāda uz to, ka šī vieta nav uzskatāma par intervences centru minētajiem graudaugiem.

1.

Ženklas + nurodo, kad tam tikri produktai yra sandėliuojami intervencinėje agentūroje.

2.

Ženklas – nurodo, kad tam tikri produktai nėra sandėliuojami intervencinėje agentūroje.

1.

A + jel azt jelzi, hogy a feltüntetett hely a kérdéses gabonaféle szempontjából intervenciós központnak minősül.

2.

A – jel azt jelzi, hogy a feltüntetett hely a kérdéses gabonaféle szempontjából nem minősül intervenciós központnak.

1.

Het teken + geeft aan, dat deze plaats interventiecentrum is voor de betrokken graansoort.

2.

Het teken – geeft aan, dat deze plaats geen interventiecentrum is voor de betrokken graansoort.

1.

Znak + oznacza, że wskazane miejsce traktuje się jako centrum interwencji w odniesieniu do danego zboża.

2.

Znak – oznacza, że wskazanego miejsca nie należy traktować jako centrum interwencji w odniesieniu do danego zboża.

1.

O sinal + significa que a localidade indicada é considerada centro de intervenção para o cereal em questão.

2.

O sinal – significa que a localidade indicada não é considerada centro de intervenção para o cereal em questão.

1.

Semnul ‘+’ indică faptul că locul menționat este considerat ca si centru de intervenție pentru cereala în cauză.

2.

Semnul ‘–’ indică faptul că locul menționat nu este considerat ca si centru de intervenție pentru cereala în cauză.

1.

Znamienko + označuje, že uvedené miesto sa považuje za intervenčné centrum pre daný druh obilniny.

2.

Znamienko – označuje, že uvedené miesto sa nepovažuje za intervenčné centrum pre daný druh obilniny.

1.

Znak + pomeni, da se prikazana lokacija šteje za intervencijski center za zadevno žito.

2.

Znak – pomeni, da se prikazana lokacija ne šteje za intervencijski center za zadevno žito.

1.

Merkki + ilmaisee, että mainittu paikka on kyseisen viljan interventiokeskus.

2.

Merkki – ilmaisee, että mainittu paikka ei ole kyseisen viljan interventiokeskus.

1.

Tecknet + indikerar att platsen används för intervention av det aktuella spannmålsslaget.

2.

Tecknet – indikerar att platsen inte används för intervention av det aktuella spannmålsslaget

1

2

4

5

6

7

Интервенционен

Centros de intervención

Intervenční centrum

Interventionscentre

Interventionsort

Sekkumiskeskus

Κέντρα παρεμβάσεως

Intervention centres

Centres d'intervention

Centri di intervento

Intervences centri

Intervencinis centras

Intervenciós központok

Interventiecentrum

Centrum interwencji

Centros de intervencão

Centre de intervenție

Intervenčné centrum

Intervencijski center

Interventiokeskus

Interventionsort

Обикновена пшеница

Trigo blando

Pšenice setá

Blød hvede

Weichweizen

Harilik nisu

Σίτος μαλακός

Common wheat

Froment tendre

Frumento tenero

Mīkstie kvieši

Paprastieji kviečiai

Búza

Zachte tarwe

Pszenica zwyczajna

Trigo mole

grâu comun

Pšenica obyčajná

Navadna pšenica

Tavallinen vehnä

Vete

Ечемик

Cebada

Ječmen

Byg

Gerste

Oder

Κριθή

Barley

Orge

Orzo

Mieži

Miežiai

Árpa

Gerst

Jęczmień

Cevada

orz

Jačmeň

Ječmen

Ohra

Korn

Твърда пшеница

Trigo duro

Pšenice tvrdá

Hård hvede

Hartweizen

Kōva nisu

Σίτος σκληρός

Durum wheat

Froment dur

Frumento duro

Cietie kvieši

Kietieji kviečiai

Durumbúza

Durum tarwe

Pszenica durum

Trigo duro

Grâu dur

Psenica tvrdá

Trda pšenica

Durumvehnä

Durumvete

Царевица

Maíz

Kukuřice

Majs

Mais

Mais

Αραβόσιτος

Maize

Maïs

Granturco

Kukurūza

Kukurūzai

Kukorica

Maïs

Kukurydza

Milho porumb

Kukurica

Koruza

Maissi

Majs

Сорго

Sorgo

Čirok

Sorghum

Sorghum

Sorgo

Σόργο

Sorghum

Sorgho

Sorgo

Sorgo

Sorgas

Cirok

Sorgho

Sorgo

Sorgo

sorg

Cirok

Sirek

Durra

Sorgum’

2.

Before the section ‘BELGIQUE’, the following section is inserted:

1

2

4

5

6

7

‘БЪЛГАРИЯ

Бургаска област

Айтос

+

Бургас

+

+

+

Карнобат

+

+

Варненска област

Варна

+

+

+

Вълчи дол

+

+

+

Провадия

+

+

+

Великотърновска и Габровска област

Велико Търново

+

+

+

Павликени

+

Свищов

+

+

+

Видинска област

Дунавци

+

+

+

Врачанска област

Бяла Слатина

+

+

+

Враца

+

+

+

Мизия

+

+

+

Добричка област

Балчик

+

+

+

+

Белгун

+

Генерал Тошево

+

+

+

Добрич

+

+

 

+

Каварна

+

Карапелит

+

Шабла

+

+

+

Ловешка област

Ловеч

+

+

Монтана област

Лом

+

+

+

Монтана

+

+

Пернишка област, София-град и София област

Перник

+

Плевенска област

Гулянци

+

Левски

+

+

+

Плевен

+

+

+

Пловдивска и Смолянска област

Пловдив

+

+

Разградска област

Исперих

+

+

+

Кубрат

+

Разград

+

+

+

Русенска област

Бяла

+

+

+

Русе

+

+

+

Силистренска област

Алфатар

+

Дулово

+

+

+

Силистра

+

+

+

Тутракан

+

+

+

Сливенска област

Нова Загора

+

+

Сливен

+

+

+

Старозагорска област

Гълъбово

+

Стара Загора

+

+

+

Чирпан

+

Търговищка област

Попово

+

+

+

Търговище

+

+

+

Хасковска и Кърджалийска област

Хасково

+

+

Шуменска област

Каспичан

+

+

+

Хитрино

+

Ямболска област

Елхово

+

+

+

Стралджа

+

Ямбол

+

+

+

–’

3.

in the ‘BELGIQUE/BELGIË’ section:

(a)

the ‘Ath’ centre is deleted.

(b)

After the ‘Liege’ centre, the ‘Seneffe’ centre is added for common wheat and for barley,

4.

in the ‘BUNDESREPUBLIK DEUTSCHLAND’ section:

(a)

under ‘Brandenburg’, ‘Gusow’ is replaced by ‘Gusow-Platkow’;

(b)

under ‘Sachsen-Anhalt’, ‘Vahldorf’ is replaced by ‘Niedere Börde’;

5.

in the ‘FRANCE’ section:

(a)

the text corresponding to the department ‘Creuse-23’ is amended as follows:

(i)

the ‘Reterre’ centre is deleted,

(ii)

the line corresponding to the ‘Maison-Feyne’ centre is replaced by the following:

‘Maison-Feyne

+

+

–’

(b)

the text corresponding to the department ‘Haute-Loire-43’ is amended as follows:

(i)

the line corresponding to the ‘Brioude’ centre is replaced by the following:

‘Brioude

+

–’

(ii)

the ‘Le Puy’ centre is deleted;

(c)

in the department ‘Puy-de-Dôme-63’, the line corresponding to the ‘Issoire’ centre is replaced by the following:

‘Issoire

+

–’

(d)

the text corresponding to the department ‘Somme-80’ is amended as follows:

‘Somme — 80

Abbeville

+

+

Beauquesne

+

+

Languevoisin

+

+

+

Moislains

+

+

+

Montdidier

+

+

+

Poix-de-Picardie

+

+

Saleux

+

+

–’

6.

After the section ‘NEDERLAND’, the following section is inserted:

1

2

4

5

6

7

‘ROMÂNIA

Alba

Blaj

+

+

Sebeș

+

+

Alba iulia

+

Arad

Arad

+

+

+

+

Pecica

+

+

+

Chișinău-criș

+

+

+

Pâncota

+

+

+

Argeș

Miroși

+

+

+

Bascov

+

+

+

Topoloveni

+

+

Bacău

Sascut

+

+

Bihor

Oradea

+

+

+

Salonta

+

+

+

Marghita

+

+

+

Săcuieni

+

+

+

Bistrita năsăud

Lechinta

+

Botoșani

săveni

+

+

Brăila

Făurei

+

+

Însurătei

+

+

Brăila

+

+

Movila miresei

+

+

Brașov

Codlea

+

Buzău

Pogoanele

+

+

Buzău

+

+

Râmnicu sărat

+

+

Mihăilești

+

+

Caraș-severin

Grădinari

+

Călărași

Călărași

+

+

+

fundulea

+

+

+

Lehliu

+

+

+

Vlad țepeș

+

+

+

Cluj

Gherla

+

Constanța

Medgidia

+

+

+

Cobadin

+

+

+

N. Bălcescu

+

+

+

Negru vodă

+

+

+

Casimcea

+

+

+

Covasna

Covasna

+

Tg. Secuiesc

+

Ozun

+

Dâmbovița

Titu

+

+

Găiești

+

+

Răcari

+

+

Tărgoviște

+

+

Dolj

Băilești

+

+

+

Leu

+

+

+

Dobrești

+

+

+

Moțăței

+

+

+

Filiași

+

+

+

Portărești

+

+

+

Galați

Tecuci

+

Independența

+

+

Galați

+

+

Berești

+

Matca

+

+

Giurgiu

Giurgiu

+

+

+

Mihăilești

+

+

+

Băneasa

+

+

+

Izvoarele

+

+

+

Gorj

Tg. cărbunești

+

Harghita

Sânsimion

+

Hunedoara

Hațeg

+

Ialomița

Tăndărei

+

+

Fetești

+

+

+

Slobozia

+

+

Urziceni

+

+

Fierbinți

+

+

Iași

Iași

+

+

Ilfov

Balotești

+

+

+

Dragomirești Vale

+

+

+

Maramureș

Ulmeni

+

Mehedinți

Prunișor

+

+

+

Vânju mare

+

+

+

Mureș

Luduș

+

+

Tg. Mureș

+

+

Neamț

Roman

+

Olt

Drăgănești olt

+

+

+

Caracal

+

+

+

Piatra olt

+

+

+

Slatina

+

+

+

Corabia

+

+

+

Prahova

Ploiești

+

Satu Mare

Carei

+

+

+

Satu Mare

+

+

+

Tășnad

+

+

+

Sanislau

+

+

+

Sălaj

Jibou

+

Sibiu

Agnita

+

Suceava

Fălticeni

+

Teleorman

Videle

+

+

+

Drăgănești Vlașca

+

+

+

Alexandria

+

+

+

Roșiorii de Vede

+

+

+

Dobrotești

+

+

+

Turnu Măgurele

+

+

+

Timiș

Timișoara

+

+

+

Lugoj

+

+

+

Deta

+

+

+

Sânicolau Mare

+

+

+

Topolovătu Mare

+

+

+

Orțișoara

+

+

+

Tulcea

Tulcea

+

+

Babadag

+

+

Cataloi

+

+

Baia

+

+

Vaslui

Bârlad

+

Vaslui

+

Huși

+

Vâlcea

Drăgășani

+

Vrancea

Focșani

+

Gugești

+

Pădureni

+

–’

7.

in the ‘ÖSTERREICH’ section, the line corresponding to the ‘Ennsdorf’centre is replaced by the following:

‘Ennsdorf

+

+

+

–’

8.

in the ‘ČESKÁ REPUBLIKA’ section:

(a)

the text corresponding to the ‘Středočeský kraj’ region is amended as follows:

(i)

the ‘Lysa n. L.’ and ‘Beroun’ centres are deleted,

(ii)

the following text is added:

‘Mesice

+

Zdice

+

–’

(b)

the text corresponding to the ‘Karlovarský kraj’ region is replaced by the following:

‘Karlovarský kraj

Nebanice

+

–’

(c)

the text corresponding to the ‘Jihomoravský kraj’ region is amended as follows:

(i)

the line corresponding to the ‘Hodonice’ centre is replaced by the following:

‘Hodonice

+

–’

(ii)

the following text is added:

‘Hosteradicee

+

–’

(d)

in the ‘Moravskoslezský kraj’ region, the ‘Mesto Albrechtice’ centre is added for common wheat;

9.

in the ‘LIETUVA’ section:

(a)

the line corresponding to the ‘Alytus’ centre is replaced by the following:

‘Alytus

+

+

–’

(b)

the line corresponding to the ‘Marijampole’ centre is replaced by the following:

‘Marijampole

+

+

–’

(c)

the following text is added:

‘Pakruojis

+

+

–’

10.

in the ‘MAGYARORSZÁG’ section:

(a)

the line corresponding to the ‘Kaposvar’ centre is replaced by the following:

‘Kaposvar

+

+

+

+’

(b)

the line corresponding to the ‘Encs’ centre is replaced by the following:

‘Encs

+

+

+

–’

11.

in the ‘SLOVENSKO’ section, the following text is added in the ‘Košický kraj’ region:

‘Dobra

+

–’


28.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 379/65


COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2005/2006

of 22 December 2006

imposing provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of synthetic staple fibres of polyesters (PSF) originating in Malaysia and Taiwan

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

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) (‘basic Regulation’), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (2), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

After consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

A.   PROCEDURE

1.   Initiation

(1)

On 12 April 2006, the Commission announced by a notice (‘notice of initiation’) published in the Official Journal of the European Union  (3), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Community of synthetic staple fibres of polyesters (‘PSF’) originating in Malaysia and Taiwan.

(2)

The anti-dumping proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 3 March 2006 by the Comité International de la Rayonne et des Fibres Synthétiques (‘CIRFS’ or ‘the complainant’) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the total Community production of PSF. The complaint contained evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.

2.   Measures in force

(3)

In March 2005, by Regulation (EC) No 428/2005 (4), the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of PSF originating in the People's Republic of China, and Saudi Arabia and amended the existing anti-dumping duties on PSF originating in the Republic of Korea. Also, definitive anti-dumping measures are in force on imports of PSF from Belarus (5).

3.   Parties concerned by the proceeding

(4)

The Commission officially advised the exporting producers in Malaysia and in Taiwan, importers/traders and their associations, suppliers and users known to be concerned, the representatives of the exporting countries concerned as well as the complainant and all known Community producers of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation. The parties who so requested were granted the opportunity to be heard.

(5)

In view of the apparent large number of Taiwanese exporting producers listed in the complaint, and the large number of Community producers and importers of PSF, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation for the determination of dumping and injury, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

(6)

In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all exporting producers from Taiwan, Community producers and importers 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 PSF during the period 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2005. (‘investigation period’ (IP)).

(7)

In the case of Taiwan, nine companies replied to the sampling questions. Eight out of nine reported export sales to the Community during the IP. Four companies representing more than 80.0 % of the reported export quantities to the Community, during the IP, were included in the sample. The sample selected was based on the largest representative volume of exports which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the Taiwanese authorities were consulted and raised no objection. The sample consists of the following companies:

Far Eastern Textile Ltd.

Nan Ya Plastics Corporation

Tung Ho Spinning Weaving & Dyeing Co., Ltd.

Tuntex Distinct Corporation and its related company Tuntex Synthetic Corporation.

(8)

As far as importers into the European Community are concerned, only three unrelated importers made themselves known and provided the requested information in due time. It was therefore not necessary to use the sampling methodology. Questionnaires have been sent to these three unrelated importers but two of them were subsequently considered as non-cooperating given that they refrained to fill in the full questionnaire sent to them.

(9)

As far as Community industry producers are concerned, only three of them made themselves known, provided the requested information in due time and were ready to reply to the questionnaire. It was therefore not necessary to use the sampling methodology.

(10)

The Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned and/or to all the other companies that made themselves known within the deadlines set out in the notice of initiation. Replies were received from two Malaysian exporting producers, from four Taiwanese exporting producers included in the sample, from one company related to a Taiwanese exporting producer, as well as from three Community producers, one unrelated importer, one supplier of raw material and from seven users.

(11)

The Commission and verified all the information it deemed necessary for the purpose of a provisional determination of dumping, resulting injury and Community interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:

(a)

Community producers

Advansa GmbH, Hamm, Germany

Wellman International Ltd., Kells, Ireland

La Seda de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

(b)

Unrelated importer

SIMP SPA, Verrone, Italy

(c)

Users

Tharreau Industries, Chemillé, France

Libeltex, Meulebeke, Belgium

(d)

Exporting producers in Malaysia

Hualon Corporation (M) Sdn. Bhd., Kuala Lumpur

Penfibre Sdn. Bhd., Penang

(e)

Exporting producers in Taiwan

Far Eastern Textile Ltd., Taipei

Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Taipei

Tung Ho Spinning Weaving & Dyeing Co., Ltd., Taipei

Tuntex Distinct Corporation, Hsichih, Taipei County, and its related company Tuntex Synthetic Corporation, Hsichih, Taipei County

4.   Investigation period

(12)

The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2005 (‘ period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of trends in the context of the injury analysis covered the period from 1 January 2002 to the end of the IP (‘period considered’ or Injury Investigation Period ‘IIP’).

B.   PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

5.   Product concerned

(13)

The product concerned is synthetic staple fibres of polyester, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning and is currently classifiable within CN code 5503 20 00. It is commonly referred to as polyester staple fibres.

(14)

The product is a basic material used at various stages of the manufacturing process of textile products. The Community consumption of PSF is either used for spinning, i.e. manufacturing filaments for the production of textiles, mixed with other fibres such as cotton and wool or for non-woven applications such as filling, i.e. stuffing or padding of certain textile goods such as cushions, car seats and jackets.

(15)

The product is sold in different product types which can be identified through different specifications such as weight, tenacity, lustre and silicon treatment or through their classification into product families such as round, hollow, bi-component fibres and specialities such as coloured and tri-lobal fibres. From a production point of view, a distinction can be made between virgin PSF, produced from virgin raw materials, and regenerated PSF, produced from recycled polyester. Finally, quality may be substandard or first grade.

(16)

The investigation has shown that all types of the product concerned as defined in recital 13, despite differences in a variety of factors as defined in the preceding recital, have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and are used for the same purposes. Therefore, and for the purpose of the present anti-dumping proceeding, all types of the product concerned are regarded as one product.

6.   Like product

(17)

The product concerned, and the PSF produced and sold in the Community by the Community industry and the PSF produced and sold on the domestic market of both exporting countries were found to have essentially the same physical and chemical characteristics and the same uses. They are therefore provisionally considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

C.   DUMPING

7.   General methodology

(18)

Below, the general methodology is described. The subsequent presentation of the findings on dumping for the countries concerned therefore only describes issues specific to each exporting country.

7.1   Normal value

(19)

In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, it was first examined for each co-operating exporting producer whether its domestic sales of PSF were representative, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales represented at least 5 % of the total export sales volume of the producer to the Community.

(20)

The Commission subsequently identified those types of PSF sold domestically that were identical or directly comparable with the types sold for export to the Community. With regard to the examination on a product type basis, and as indicated in recital 17, the Commission considered domestically sold and exported product types, which had similar origin, denier, composition, cross-section, lustre, colour, silicon treatment, quality and use, as being directly comparable.

(21)

For each type sold by the exporting producers on their domestic markets and found to be directly comparable with the type of PSF sold for export to the Community, it was established whether domestic sales were sufficiently representative for the purposes of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular type of PSF were considered sufficiently representative when the total domestic sales volume of that type during the IP represented 5 % or more of the total sales volume of the comparable type of PSF exported to the Community.

(22)

The Commission subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of each type of PSF, sold domestically in representative quantities could be regarded as having been made in the ordinary course of trade in accordance with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation, by establishing the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers of the PSF type in question.

(23)

In cases where the sales volume of the PSF type, sold at a net sales price equal to or above the calculated cost of production, represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume of that type, and where the weighted average price of that type was equal to or above the cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of that type made during the IP, irrespective of whether these sales were profitable or not.

(24)

Where the volume of profitable sales of the PSF type represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below the cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of profitable sales of that type only, provided that these sales represented 10 % or more of the total sales volume of that type.

(25)

Where the volume of profitable sales of any product type represented less than 10 % of the total sales volume of that type, it was considered that this particular type was sold in insufficient quantities for the domestic price to provide an appropriate basis for the establishment of the normal value.

(26)

Wherever domestic prices of a particular product type sold by an exporting producer could not be used in order to establish normal value, another method had to be applied. In such cases, and in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, normal value was constructed on the basis of each exporting producer’s own cost of manufacturing plus a reasonable amount for selling, general and administrative (‘SG&A’) expenses and a reasonable margin for profit.

(27)

Therefore, the Commission examined whether the SG&A incurred and the profit realised by each of the exporting producers concerned on the domestic market constituted reliable data.

(28)

Actual domestic SG&A expenses were considered reliable where the domestic sales volume of the company concerned could be regarded as representative as defined in Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. The domestic profit margin was determined on the basis of domestic sales made in the ordinary course of trade.

(29)

In all cases where these conditions were not met, the Commission examined whether data of other exporters or producers in the domestic market of the country of origin could be used in accordance with Article 2(6)(a) of the basic Regulation. Where reliable data were only available for one exporting producer, no average as set out in Article 2(6)(a) of the basic Regulation could be established and it was examined whether the conditions of Article 2(6)(b) were fulfilled, i.e. the use of data with regard to the production and sales of the same general category of products for the exporter or producer in question. Where such data regarding SG&A and profit were not available or were not provided by the exporting producer, SG&A and profit were established in accordance with Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation, i.e. on the basis of any other reasonable method.

7.2.   Export price

(30)

As all exports were made to independent customers in the Community, the export prices were established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, namely on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable.

7.3.   Comparison

(31)

The normal value and export prices were compared on an ex-works basis. For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Appropriate adjustments were granted in all cases where applicable, accurate and supported by verified evidence.

7.4.   Dumping margins

(32)

According to Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation the dumping margins for each exporting producer were established on the basis of a comparison between the weighted average normal value by product type with the weighted average export price by product type as established above.

(33)

It is the consistent practise of the Commission to consider related exporting producers or producers belonging to the same group as one single entity for the determination of a dumping margin and thus to establish one single dumping margin for them. This is in particular because calculating individual dumping margins might encourage circumvention of anti-dumping measures, thus rendering them ineffective, by enabling related exporting producers to channel their exports to the Community through the company with the lowest individual dumping margin.

(34)

In accordance with this practise, the related exporting producers belonging to the same groups were regarded as one single entity and attributed one single dumping margin which was calculated on the basis of the weighted average of the dumping margins of the cooperating producers in the respective group.

(35)

The dumping margin for cooperating exporting producers, which made themselves known in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, but were not part of the sample, has been established on the basis of the weighted average of the dumping margins of the companies selected in the sample, pursuant to Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation.

(36)

For those exporting producers which did not cooperate, the dumping margin was established on the basis of facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. To this end, the level of non-cooperation was first established by comparing the volume of exports to the Community reported by the cooperating exporting producers with the equivalent Eurostat import statistics during the investigation period.

(37)

As the level of cooperation was low for both exporting countries, i.e. exports by cooperating exporting producers of each exporting country represented less than 80 % of the import volume from that country, the residual dumping margin was determined on the basis of the average of the highest dumped transactions, in representative quantities, of the cooperating exporting producers. This approach was also considered necessary in order to avoid giving a bonus for non-cooperation and in view of the fact that there were no indications that a non-cooperating party had dumped at a lower level.

7.5.   Malaysia

(38)

Questionnaire replies were received from two exporting producers.

7.5.1.   Normal value

(39)

One of the co-operating exporting producers did not have sufficient representative sales of the like product in its domestic market.

(40)

Therefore, normal value was constructed as described in recital 26 above.

(41)

The investigation revealed that the company's reported cost of manufacturing was underestimated as factory overheads costs (including depreciation, rent expenses, salaries and maintenance) actually incurred during the IP were reclassified to SG&A expenses. The company argued that this practice was made in order to reflect the low capacity utilization rate of its production facilities. However, actual costs incurred do include also the reclassified factory overhead costs. The fact that the company operated at a fraction of its full capacity of production does not mean that costs arising from such facilities are not incurred. Indeed, such costs were booked in the company's accounting records and since they were directly linked to production of the like product, a correction of the reported cost of manufacturing had to be done.

(42)

In the absence of domestic sales of the like product and data on the same general category of products, during the investigation period, SG&A expenses were determined in accordance with Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation. In particular, SG&A expenses were based on total sales of all products on the domestic market. Such expenses were added to the company's own average cost of manufacturing, of each exported type, during the investigation period.

(43)

With regard to profit, and in the absence of any other reasonable basis, a profit margin of 5 % was used. No information was available which would indicate that such profit margin exceeds the profit normally realized by other exporters or producers on sales of products of the same general category in the domestic market of Malaysia, as required by Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation.

(44)

A second co-operating exporting producer had representative domestic sales of the like product in its domestic market. However, sales in the ordinary course of trade were not made in sufficient quantities for normal value to be based on actual domestic prices. Therefore, normal value had to be constructed. In accordance with Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation, SG&A expenses were based on the company's actual data pertaining to production and sales, of the like product. For profit, in line with the other exporting producer, a 5 % margin was used.

7.5.2.   Export price

(45)

Both exporting producers sold directly to independent customers in the Community. Therefore, export prices were established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable in the Community in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

7.5.3.   Comparison

(46)

To ensure a fair comparison, allowances were made for differences in transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, credit costs and commissions where applicable and justified.

7.5.4.   Dumping margins

(47)

The provisional dumping margins established, expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the Community frontier duty unpaid are the following:

Hualon Corporation (M) Sdn. Bhd., Kuala Lumpur 12,4 %

Penfibre Sdn. Bhd., Penang 14,7 %

All other companies 23,0 %

7.6.   Taiwan

(48)

Questionnaire replies were received from the four exporting producers selected in the sample, as well as from one related company in the exporting country.

(49)

One Taiwanese producer replied to the sampling form and requested that an individual duty be established. However, this company had no exports of PSF to the Community during the IP and thus could not be considered as an exporting producer. Consequently, no individual dumping margin could be established for this company and it has to be subject to the provisional residual duty established for all other Taiwanese producers. The company was informed of this approach and did not react.

7.6.1.   Non-cooperation

(50)

The investigation revealed that two exporting producers selected in the sample provided false and misleading information to the Commission.

(51)

One exporting producer reported domestic sales quantities and sales values which did not correspond to the actual quantities and values shipped to domestic customers of the like product. Indeed, for many transactions it was found that the reported quantities were higher and values were lower than those ordered by the domestic customers, as reflected in the company's register in the shipping department. It thus had to be concluded that the quantities actually sold were those as ordered by the domestic customer and booked in the shipping register, rather than those reported and contained in the invoices shown to the Commission.

(52)

Moreover, with regard to the sales values reported, it was also found that the company added fictitious transactions to pretend that the total amount of all invoices under one order matched the total amount of that order. These additional transactions had to be fictitious since they were not reported in the company's actual shipping register.

(53)

It should be noted that for the reported domestic transactions, showing falsified quantities and values and including the fictitious transactions, the company has provided delivery notes and invoices claiming that these were the genuine underlying documents. Given the fact that the reported data was found to be faked it has to be concluded that also the underlying documents were forged in order to be brought in line with the reported falsified information.

(54)

By thereby manipulating the domestic unit prices and quantities, the company provided false and misleading information to the Commission.

(55)

The other exporting producer was also found to have reported false and misleading information with regard to its domestic sales. In particular, the company reported certain product types of domestic transaction that were not the same as the one contained in the customer order and registered in the order book kept by the company's sales department. This was done for the most widely exported types of PSF, therefore misleading the Commission into using domestic prices although the sales concerned were not representative in the sense of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, given their low volumes.

(56)

Moreover, in order to justify a difference found for one specific transaction which would show that the product type delivered did correspond to the one reported to the Commission, the company provided a falsified document, which was a copy of a signed delivery note which had allegedly been faxed by a customer, at the company's request. This document did not correspond to the original which had previously been provided by the company. Indeed, the product types were not the same which indicates that the alleged supporting evidence was fabricated for the purpose of misleading the Commission.

(57)

In addition, the investigation revealed that it is common practice for companies in Taiwan to keep the delivery notes signed by the customer, as a proof that the quantities ordered were actually delivered. This was confirmed by the exporting producer in question and by the other exporting producers visited. However, even though the Commission specifically requested those delivery notes for the IP, no such documents were made available during the verification visit. The company thus did not only refuse to provide necessary documents, but also significantly impeded the investigation.

(58)

Given the fact that both companies were able to provide forged delivery notes and invoices to justify domestic transactions, and that such documents are part of an integrated system, it has to be concluded that any document which ties to such system can be manipulated and is therefore unreliable. Furthermore, the nature and extent of the false and misleading information also casts doubt on the integrity of all the data submitted by the companies. Therefore, it has been decided to entirely disregard the information provided by these companies, in line with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.

(59)

The companies were informed forthwith of the basis on which it was intended to disregard the information provided and were given the opportunity to provide further explanations, in accordance with Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation. However, the explanations given by the companies were unsatisfactory and could not refute the evidence showing that they had submitted falsified and misleading information.

(60)

The dumping margins were therefore provisionally determined on the basis of facts available, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.

7.6.2.   Normal value

(61)

For two co-operating producers, domestic sales of the like product were representative.

(62)

One exporting producer sold in the domestic market to both related and unrelated customers. Sales to the related customer were resold to independent customers. Given the fact that these two related companies shared functions with regard to production and sales it was considered appropriate to consider them as one single economic entity. Therefore, wherever possible, normal value was established on the basis of the price paid or payable, in the ordinary course of trade, by the first independent customer.

(63)

For most product types sold by those cooperating producers there were no sufficient domestic sales made in the ordinary course of trade and normal value had to be constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation. In this case, SG&A and profit were based on actual data pertaining to production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product by the exporting producer under investigation, in accordance with the chapeau of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation.

7.6.3.   Export price

(64)

For the two co-operating exporting producers export prices were established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable by unrelated customers in the Community in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

7.6.4.   Comparison

(65)

To ensure a fair comparison, allowances were made for differences in transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, credit cost, technical assistance costs and commissions where applicable and justified.

7.6.5.   Dumping margins

(66)

For cooperating companies not included in the sample, the dumping margin was established on the basis of a weighted average of the dumping margins calculated for the companies selected in the sample, representing more than 12,0 % of Taiwanese exports to the Community. For this purpose, the dumping margins established for the non-cooperating exporting producers, which were based on the facts available according to Article 18 of the basic Regulation, were not included in the average, as stipulated by Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation.

(67)

The provisional dumping margins established, expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the Community frontier duty unpaid are the following:

Far Eastern Textile Ltd., Taipei 29,5 %

Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Taipei 29,5 %

Tung Ho Spinning Weaving & Dyeing Co., Ltd., Taipei 14,7 %

Tuntex Distinct Corporation, Hsichih, Taipei County 18,2 %

Tuntex Synthetic Corporation, Hsichih, Taipei County 18,2 %

Cooperating companies not included in the sample 16,5 %

All other companies 29,5 %

D.   INJURY

1.   Community production

(68)

During the IP, PSF was manufactured by 18 companies in the Community:

eight complainant Community producers, out of which three fully co-operated with the Commission during the investigation,

six producers, which fully supported the complaint but did not co-operate in the proceeding,

four producers which remained silent at the complaint stage and did not co-operate in the proceeding.

(69)

On the above basis, it was considered that the PSF produced by all the above mentioned companies constitute the total Community production within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.

2.   Community industry

(70)

As explained in recital 9 above, three Community producers made themselves known, provided the information requested in the notice of initiation in due time and were ready to reply to the questionnaire. Questionnaires have therefore been sent to these three Community producers who supported the complaint and fully co-operated in the investigations. These producers account for more than 25 % of Community production of the product concerned and are therefore deemed to constitute the Community industry within the meaning of Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of the basic Regulation.

3.   Community consumption

(71)

Community consumption was established on the basis of the volume of imports of the product concerned from the countries concerned based on reported data and complemented by Eurostat data and from all other third countries known to produce and export the product concerned to the Community based on Eurostat, plus the volume of sales in the Community market of both the Community industry and other Community producers. For these latter, data reported in mini questionnaires that were sent as explained in recital 143 and regarding those Community producers which did not cooperate at all, data contained in the complaint was used.

(72)

On this basis, the Community consumption slightly increased over the period considered, i.e. by 3 % between 2002 and the IP. It first decreased by 5 % between 2002 and 2003 and then rose by more than 8 % to reach 834 093 tonnes during the IP.

Table 1

Consumption in the EU (volume)

 

2002

2003

2004

IP = 2005

Consumption (tonnes)

810 226

771 298

825 969

834 093

Index

100

95

102

103

4.   Cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports concerned

(73)

It was first examined whether imports from Taiwan and Malaysia should be assessed cumulatively, in accordance with Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation.

(74)

It was found that:

the dumping margins established in relation to the imports from each of the countries concerned were above the de minimis threshold as defined in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation,

the volumes of imports from each of these countries were not negligible in the sense of Article 5(7) of the basic Regulation, as market shares for these countries ranged from 2 % to 13 % during the investigation period and,

the cumulative assessment was found to be appropriate in view of the conditions of competition both between imports originating in these countries, and between these imports and the like Community product. To this end, the market behaviour of the exporters was analysed in terms of trends of export prices and volumes. It was found that the level of undercutting, ranging from 43 % to 50 % is relatively similar, and that the sales prices of both countries follow the same trends as the like product produced and sold by the Community industry. It was also found that exporters from the countries concerned use similar sales channels as the Community industry, namely directly to independent customers. Moreover, the investigation has shown that the imports concerned and the like product share the same physical and chemical characteristics, and are thus competing against each other on a type by type basis.

As illustrated in the table below the volume of imports both from Taiwan and Malaysia showed a significant increase in particular between 2004 and the end of the IP.

(75)

For these reasons, it is provisionally concluded that all the criteria set out in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation are met and that imports originating in Taiwan and Malaysia should be assessed cumulatively.

5.   Imports from the countries concerned

5.1.   Volume and market share of the imports concerned

(76)

The volume of imports from the countries doubled between 2002 and the IP. While these imports amounted to 62 574 tonnes in 2002 they reached a level of 127 890 tonnes during the IP. They first decreased by 5 % between 2002 and 2003 and then rose by 115 % until the end of the IP. The increase of imports was particularly marked between 2004 and the IP since they rose by 76 %.

Table 2

Imports from the countries concerned

Imports (tonnes)

2002

2003

2004

IP

Taiwan

58 679

54 869

66 915

111 390

Index

100

94

114

190

Malaysia

3 894

4 494

5 825

16 500

Index

100

115

150

424

Total countries concerned

62 574

59 363

72 740

127 890

Index

100

95

116

204

(77)

The market share held by the countries concerned almost doubled between 2002 and the IP: from 8 % to 15 % i.e. plus 7 percentage points. The increase was particularly marked between 2004 and the IP when it went up by 73,8 %.

Table 3

Market share of the countries concerned

Market shares

2002

2003

2004

IP

Taiwan

7,2 %

7,1 %

8,1 %

13,4 %

Malaysia

0,5 %

0,6 %

0,7 %

2,0 %

Total countries concerned

7,7 %

7,7 %

8,8 %

15,3 %

5.2.   Prices

(78)

From 2002 to the IP, prices of the imports from the countries concerned increased by 9 %. They first decreased by 7 % between 2002 and 2003 and then rose by 16 % between 2003 and the IP when they reached 1 156 Euros per metric tonne.

(79)

This increase should be seen in the light of the raw material price which as explained in recitals 124 to 129 increased by more than 30 % between 2002 and the IP at worldwide level.

Table 4

Prices of the imports concerned

Unit prices (Euro / tonne)

2002

2003

2004

IP

Taiwan

1 078

1 000

1 055

1 171

Index

100

93

98

109

Malaysia

846

872

989

1 051

Index

100

103

117

124

Total countries concerned

1 063

990

1 050

1 156

Index

100

93

99

109

5.3.   Price undercutting

(80)

For the determination of price undercutting the price data referring to the IP was analysed. The relevant sales prices of the Community industry were net prices after deduction of discounts and rebates. Where necessary, these prices were adjusted to an ex-works level, i.e. excluding freight cost in the Community. The import prices of the countries concerned were also net of discounts and rebates and were adjusted where necessary to CIF Community frontier.

(81)

The Community industry's sales prices and the import prices of the countries concerned were compared at the same level of trade, namely to independent customers within the Community market.

(82)

During the IP, weighted average price undercutting margins, expressed as a percentage of the Community industry's sales prices, ranged from 48 % to 50 % for the Taiwanese exporters and from 43 % to 47 % for the Malaysian exporters. The weighted average price undercutting margin was 49 % for Taiwan and 45 % for Malaysia.

6.   Situation of the Community industry

(83)

In accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the Community industry included an evaluation of all economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Community industry during the period considered.

6.1.   Production, capacity and capacity utilisation

Table 5

Production, capacity and capacity utilisation

 

2002

2003

2004

IP

Production (tonnes)

145 279

142 463

139 395

130 998

Index

100

98

96

90

Production capacity (tonnes)

172 334

172 734

174 134

156 734

Index

100

100

101

91

Capacity utilisation

84 %

82 %

80 %

84 %

Index

100

98

95

99