Council Regulation (EC) No 1095/2005 of 12 July 2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in Vietnam, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1524/2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China

(186) Following disclosure of the definitive findings, some interested parties claimed that the availability of fairly priced bicycles is not the only issue at stake when looking at the interests of retailers in respect of bicycles originating in Vietnam. These interested parties also claimed that they cannot switch from one brand to another easily because of the quality aspects. However, no further evidence was submitted in this regard to show that the bicycles imported from Vietnam are of some particular type or quality which is not produced elsewhere. On the contrary, when comparing the Vietnamese imports with bicycles produced by the sampled Community producers for purposes of calculating the price undercutting margin (see recital 123 above) it was found that there is a substantial matching between the various models. These claims were therefore rejected.

(187) The Commission also received comments from another retailer association representing more than 6 000 retailers, supporting the measures against imports from the PRC, but objecting against the current proceeding concerning Vietnam, claiming that the imports from Vietnam were neither dumped nor causing any injury. However, as it was set out in recitals 95 to 97, the imports of bicycles from Vietnam were found to be dumped and causing injury to the Community industry.

(188) Given the above, it was found that the anti-dumping measures against imports of bicycles from the PRC and Vietnam are not contrary to the interests of the retailers.

(189) One Italian supplier (and its association) made themselves known during the investigation. They argued that in Italy there exist more than 200 factories which are supplying components to the bicycle producers and that the further existence of the supplier industry was therefore inevitably depending on the continuation of the bicycle production in Europe. In this respect, it was found that without the existence of the measures, it is to be expected that further closures of bicycle production in Europe will occur, which would have negative consequences for the Community parts industry and would jeopardise employment in the supplier industry. It is therefore concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping measures would be in the interest of the suppliers.

(190) The Commission did not receive any comments from Community consumers' associations, concerning the measures on PRC or the possibility of imposition of measures on imports from Vietnam. It should be noted, in any event, that the consumers have a wide range to choose from in all segments, even without bicycles originating in the PRC or the Vietnam. The Community industry contributes significantly to the exhaustive product range on offer. The investigation has not brought to light any supply problems. In this regard, it should also be noted that the Commission received comments from the same association as mentioned in recital 185 above. The retailers represented by the association purchase the major part of their bicycles from European producers and they have lost a considerable part of their market share to other distribution channels, notably the mass-merchandisers market. Although they claim that the imported bicycles from the PRC do not appear in the retailer chain, the low prices in the mass-merchandisers market affect the end consumers preferences despite the quality differences between the bicycles available with the retailers compared with the mass-merchandisers. For all these reasons, it was found that, any of the anti-dumping measures against the PRC and Vietnam is not contrary to the interests of the consumers.

(191) The continuation of measures on imports of bicycles originating in the PRC and the imposition of measures on imports of bicycles originating in Vietnam would clearly be in the interest of the Community industry and in the interest of the Community suppliers of bicycle parts. It will allow the Community industry to grow and fully recover from the injury caused by the dumped imports. If, however, measures are not imposed, it is likely that the Community production will continue to decline and more operators will go out of business. Furthermore, the importers and the retailers will not be substantially affected since fairly priced bicycles will still be available in the market. As regards consumers, the Commission did not receive any comments from these parties.

(192) In view of the above, it is concluded that there are no compelling reasons not to impose anti-dumping duties against imports of bicycles originating in the PRC and Vietnam.

(193) In view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, resulting injury and Community interest, measures on imports from Vietnam should be imposed in order to prevent further injury being caused to the Community industry by the dumped imports. As regards imports from the PRC, the existing measures, as maintained by Council Regulation (EC) No 1524/2000, should be modified in order to take account of the findings in this interim review. Pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the modified measures should be imposed for a new period of five years.

(194) 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 an to obtain overall a profit before tax that could be reasonable 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 8 % of turnover of the sales of bicycles. It is the same as in the previous investigation since there was no indication found that this rate should be changed.

(195) Several cooperating exporters in the PRC and Vietnam argued that 8 % is very high and referred to the percentage indicated in the complaint, 3,3 %, as a profit attributable to a healthy industry. In addition they made reference to the previous investigation where it was found that the Community industry was suffering losses of – 0,6 %. It was considered however, that the profitability found (3,5 %) during the IP of this investigation, only indicates that the Community industry has partly recovered from past dumping, and cannot be considered as a profit level that could be achieved in the absence of dumped imports. In this regard, it is noted that, despite the existence of measures on imports from the PRC, imports from the PRC have increased considerably over the period considered while there has been a huge growth in imports from Vietnam at dumped prices. In these circumstances, a profit level of 8 %, as used in the previous investigation, is considered appropriate since there was no indication found that this rate should be changed. On this basis, a non-injurious price was calculated for the Community industry of the like product.

(196) The necessary price increase was then determined on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average import price, as established for the undercutting calculations, with the weighted average total cost of production of the sampled producers, increased by a profit margin of 8 %.

(197) Since the injury margins are higher than the dumping margins found, the anti-dumping duties should be based on the dumping margins in accordance with the provisions of Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation.

(198) The CCCME expressed its willingness to offer an undertaking together with cooperating exporting producers in the PRC. In this respect, it should be noted that the acceptance of undertakings for consumer products has historically, not usually been accepted due inter alia, to the complexity of the models, the number of different types and the variety and the regularity with which they are upgraded or otherwise modified. This makes it practically impossible to establish meaningful minimum import prices. In addition, these considerations lead to virtually insurmountable difficulties in monitoring, which render acceptance of such undertakings impracticable. These general considerations also apply to the present case. It was therefore considered by the Commission that the acceptance of an undertaking was not appropriate in this particular investigation and the offer had to be rejected. The Commission informed the CCCME accordingly.

(199) 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 Regulation 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’.

(200) Any claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change of name of the entity or following the setting-up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (8) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company's activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with e.g. that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.

(202) In accordance with Article 20 of the basic Regulation, all parties concerned were informed of the essential facts and considerations, on the basis of which it was intended to propose amendment of the level of the existing measures in the PRC and to impose measures on imports of bicycles from Vietnam. They were given the opportunity to comment and to request a hearing. Comments were received and taken into consideration where appropriate,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 2

Article 1 (1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1524/2000 shall be replaced by the following:

‘Article 1

Article 3

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

Done at Brussels, 12 July 2005.

For the Council The President G. BROWN

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 12).

(2) OJ L 228, 9.9.1993, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 16, 18.1.1997, p. 55.

(4) OJ L 175, 14.7.2000, p. 39.

(5) OJ C 103, 29.4.2004, p. 76.

(6) OJ C 103, 29.4.2004, p. 80.

(7) Decision by the Nederlandse Mededingingsautoritet No 1615/691 of 21 April 2004.

(8)