91997E3464

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3464/97 by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission (31 October 1997)

Subject: Anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of unbleached cotton fabrics originating in China, Egypt, India, Pakistan and Turkey

On 21 February 1996, Commission proceedings were instigated following a complaint of dumping from the above countries by Eurocoton. A provisional an ti-dumping duty was imposed as of 20 November 1996 to allow investigations to be carried out. In May 1996 to allow investigations to be carried out. In May 1997, the Commission concluded that the proceedings were not substantiated and monies levied under the anti-dumping measures from 20 November 1996 were refunded to the relevant importers. Eurocoton then issued a second, similar complaint-.

Is there any mechanism within the EU for objecting to a complaint being judged competent by the Commission where that complaint is very similar, if not identical, in substance to another very recently investigated complaint?

What was the cost of investigating, deliberating on, and administering the original complaint by Eurocoton?

With reference to the second complaint lodged by Eurocoton, will the Commission repeat all the procedures of the recently completed case?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (4 December 1997)

The Commission would first of all wish to point out that, for definitive determinations the Commission concluded its previous investigation by establishing that there was injurious dumping by the exporting countries concerned. A proposal was subsequently made to the Council that it would be in the Community interest to impose definitive measures. However, since a majority of Member States opposed the Commission's proposal, no definitive anti-dumping duty was imposed and the provisional measures lapsed. Shortly after this, the complainants, Eurocoton, filed a new complaint.

As a result of this new complaint, the Commission decided to open a new anti-dumping proceeding on 11 July 1997. It should be recalled that the Commission is obliged under Community anti-dumping legislation to open an anti-dumping proceeding, should an admissible complaint be lodged by a sufficiently representative proportion of Community producers and showing prima facie evidence of dumping and resulting injury. Since this was the case, the Commission was under the legal obligation to initiate the proceeding. There is in fact no provision in that legislation that allows the Commission to reject a sufficiently substantiated complaint even if the Council did not accept the Commission's proposal to impose definitive duties in a previous proceeding covering a different time period.

The current proceeding will follow the normal procedure established in the Community anti-dumping legislation, that is examination of the dumping, injury, causation and Community interest aspects of the case.

Interested parties, are entitled, in exercising their rights, to comment on any aspect of the proceeding. If the investigation reveals that these comments are well founded, due account is taken by the Commission in reaching its provisional or definitive determinations.

The actual cost of investigating, deliberating on and administering the original complaint by Eurocoton cannot be provided as the Commission does not cost cases on an individual basis and staff costs come out of the Commission's overall staff budget. Assurance can however be given that the case was completed well within the tight statutory deadlines imposed and thus in an efficient and cost effective manner.