HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
5.6.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
153/1
II
(Non-legislative acts)
REGULATIONS
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 501/2013
of 29 May 2013
extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011
on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles
consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in
Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
(2) Following
an
expiry
review
pursuant
to
Article
11(2)
of
the basic Regulation, the Council, by Regulation (EC)
No 1524/2000 ( 5 ), decided that the abovementioned
measures should be maintained.
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union,
(3) Following
an
interim
review
pursuant
to
Article
11(3)
of
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of
the basic Regulation, the Council, by Regulation (EC)
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports
No 1095/2005 ( 6 ), increased the anti-dumping duty in
from countries not members of the European Community ( 1 )
force to 48,5 %.
(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 13 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European
(4) In
October
2011
following
an
expiry
review
pursuant
to
Commission (‘the Commission’) after having consulted the
Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the Council, by
Advisory Committee,
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 ( 7 ), decided
that the abovementioned measures should be maintained
(‘the existing measures’).
Whereas:
(5) In
March
2012
the
Commission
announced
by
a
notice
1. PROCEDURE
published in the Official Journal of the European Union ( 8 )
the initiation of an interim review of the anti-dumping
1.1. Existing measures
measures concerning imports into the Union of bicycles
originating in the PRC pursuant to Articles 11(3) and
(1) By
Regulation
(EEC)
no
2474/93
( 2 ) the Council imposed
13(4) of the anti-dumping basic Regulation.
a definitive anti-dumping duty of 30,6 % on imports of
bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China
(‘the PRC’). Following an anti-circumvention investigation
in accordance with Article 13 of the basic Regulation,
this duty was extended by Council Regulation (EC)
(6) In
May
2013
the
Council,
by
Regulation
(EU)
No 71/97 ( 3 ) to imports of certain bicycles parts orig
No 502/2013 ( 9 ), amended Implementing Regulation
inating in the PRC. In addition, it was decided to
(EU) No 990/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping
create an ‘exemption scheme’ on the basis of Article 13(2)
duty on imports of bicycles originating in the PRC
of the basic Regulation. The details of the scheme
following an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3)
were provided for in Commission Regulation (EC)
of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.
No 88/97 ( 4 ).
( 5 ) OJ L 175, 14.7.2000, p. 39.
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
( 6 ) OJ L 183, 14.7.2005, p. 1.
( 2 ) OJ L 228, 9.9.1993, p. 1.
( 7 ) OJ L 261, 6.10.2011, p. 2.
( 3 ) OJ L 16, 18.1.1997, p. 55.
( 8 ) OJ C 71, 9.3.2012, p. 10.
( 4 ) OJ L 17, 21.1.1997, p. 17.
( 9 ) See page 17 of this Official Journal.

---

L 153/2
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.6.2013
(7) In
April
2012
the
Commission
announced
by
a
notice (14) The
prima
facie
evidence
at
the
Commission’s
disposal
published in the Official Journal of the European Union ( 1 )
showed a significant change in the pattern of trade
the initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding with regard
involving exports from the PRC, Indonesia, Malaysia,
to imports into the Union of bicycles originating in the
Sri Lanka and Tunisia to the Union following the
PRC pursuant to Article 10 of Council Regulation (EC)
increase of the anti-dumping duty on imports of the
No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 ( 2 ).
product concerned by Council Regulation (EC)
No 1095/2005 mentioned in recital 3. The change in
the pattern of trade appeared to have occurred without
sufficient due cause or justification other than the
(8) In
November
2012
the
Commission
announced
by
a
increase of the duty.
notice published in the Official Journal of the European

Union ( 3 ) that the findings in the present investigation
may be used in the anti-subsidy investigation
mentioned in recital 7 above.
(15) This
change
appeared
to
stem
from
the
transhipment
of
bicycles originating in the PRC via Indonesia, Malaysia,
(9) In May 2013 the Commission by Decision
Sri Lanka and Tunisia to the Union and from assembly
2013/227/EU ( 4 ), terminated the anti-subsidy proceeding
operations in Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia.
mentioned in recital 7 above without imposing measures.
1.2. Request
(16) Furthermore, the evidence pointed to the fact that the
(10) On
14
August
2012
the
Commission
received
a
request
remedial effects of the existing anti-dumping measures
pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regu
on the product concerned are being undermined both
lation to investigate the possible circumvention of the
in terms of quantity and price. Significant volumes of
anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of bicycles
imports of the product under investigation appeared to
originating in the PRC and to make imports of bicycles
have replaced imports of the product concerned orig
consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and
inating in the PRC. In addition, there was sufficient
Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia,
evidence that imports of the product under investigation
Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not, subject to regis
were made at prices below the non-injurious price estab
tration.
lished in the investigation that led to the existing
measures.
(11) The
request
was
lodged
by
the
European
Bicycle
Manu
facturers Association (EBMA) on behalf of In Cycles —
Montagem e Comercio de Bicicletas Lda., S.C.
EUROSPORT DHS S.A. and MAXCOM Ltd, three
(17) Finally,
there
was
evidence
that
the
prices
of
the
product
Union producers of bicycles.
under investigation were dumped in relation to the
normal value previously established for the product
concerned.
1.3. Initiation
(12) Having determined, after consulting the Advisory
Committee, that sufficient prima facie evidence existed
for the initiation of an investigation pursuant to
1.4. Investigation
Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, the
Commission decided to investigate the possible circum
(18) The
Commission
officially
advised
the
authorities
of
the
vention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on
PRC, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, the
imports of bicycles originating in the PRC and to make
producers/exporters in those countries, the importers in
imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia,
the Union known to be concerned and the Union
Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in
industry of the initiation of the investigation.
Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not, subject
to registration.
(13) The
investigation
was
initiated
on
25
September
2012
(19) Exemption
forms
were
sent
to
the
producers/exporters
in
by Commission Regulation (EU) No 875/2012 (
Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia known to the

5 ) (‘the
initiating Regulation’).
Commission or through the Missions of Indonesia,
Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia to the European Union.
Questionnaires were sent to the producers/exporters in
( 1 ) OJ C 122, 27.4.2012, p. 9.
the PRC known to the Commission or through the
( 2 ) OJ L 188, 18.7.2009, p. 93.
Mission of the PRC to the European Union. Question
( 3 ) OJ C 346, 14.11.2012, p. 7.
( 4 ) OJ L 136, 23.5.2013, p. 15.
naires were also sent to the known unrelated importers
( 5 ) OJ L 258, 26.9.2012, p. 21.
in the Union.

---

EN
5.6.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
153/3
(20) Interested
parties
were
given
the
opportunity
to
make
2. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION
their views known in writing and to request a hearing
within the time limit set in the initiating Regulation. All
2.1. General considerations
parties were informed that non-cooperation might lead
to the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation
(24) In
accordance
with
Article
13(1)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
and to findings being based on the facts available.
the assessment of the existence of circumvention was
made by analysing successively whether there was a
change in the pattern of trade between the PRC, the
four countries concerned and the Union; if this change
(21) Four producers/exporters in Indonesia, one in Malaysia,
stemmed from a practice, process or work for which
six in Sri Lanka and two in Tunisia submitted replies to
there was insufficient due cause or economic justification
the exemption forms. There was no cooperation from
other than the imposition of the duty; if there was
the Chinese producers/exporters. Three unrelated
evidence of injury or that the remedial effects of the
importers in the Union submitted a questionnaire reply.
duty were being undermined in terms of the prices
and/or quantities of the product under investigation;
and whether there was evidence of dumping in relation
to the normal values previously established, if necessary
(22) The
Commission
carried
out
the
verification
visits
at
the
in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the
premises of the following companies:
basic Regulation.
— P.T. Insera Sena, Buduran, Sidoarjo, Indonesia,
— Wijaya Indonesia Makmur Bicycles Industries,
2.2. Product concerned and product under investi
Driyorejo, Gresik, Jawa Timur, Indonesia,
gation
— P.T. Terang Dunia Internusa, Slipi, Jakarta Barat,
(25) The
product concerned is bicycles and other cycles
Indonesia,
(including delivery tricycles, but excluding unicycles),
not motorised, originating in the PRC, currently falling
— P.T. Chin Haur, Tangerang, Indonesia,
within CN codes 8712 00 30 and ex 8712 00 70 (‘the
product concerned’).
— Tan Lan Venture Corporation Sdn Bhd, Kampar,
Perak, Malaysia,
— Asiabike Industrial Limited, Henamulla, Panadura, Sri
(26) The product under investigation is the same as that
Lanka,
defined above but consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia,
Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in
— BSH Ventures Limited, Colombo, Sri Lanka,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not,
currently falling within the same CN codes as the
— City Cycle Industries, Colombo, Sri Lanka,
product concerned (‘the product under investigation’).
— Firefox Lanka (Pvt) Ltd, Weliketiya Pamunugama, Sri
Lanka,
— Kelani Cycles Pvt Ltd, Katunayake, Sri Lanka,
(27) The
investigation
showed
that
bicycles,
as
defined
above,
exported from the PRC to the Union and those
consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and
— Samson Bikes (Pvt) Ltd, Colombo, Sri Lanka,
Tunisia to the Union have the same basic physical and
technical characteristics and have the same uses, and are
— Mediterranean United Industries, Bouhajar Monastir,
therefore to be considered as like products within the
Tunisia,
meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
— euro Cycles, Sousse, Tunisia.
2.3. Degree of cooperation and determination of the
1.5. Reporting period and investigation period
trade volumes
(23) The investigation period covered the period from
2.3.1. Indonesia
1 January 2004 to 31 August 2012 (‘the IP’). Data
were collected for the IP to investigate, inter alia, the
(28) The
four
Indonesian
companies
that
submitted
a
request
alleged change in the pattern of trade following the
for exemption in accordance with Article 13(4) of the
increase of the anti-dumping duty in 2005. More
basic Regulation represented 91 % of the total imports
detailed data were collected for the reporting period
from Indonesia to the Union during the RP. The overall
from 1 September 2011 to 31 August 2012 (‘the RP’)
import volumes from Indonesia were established on the
in order to examine the possible undermining of the
basis of the data from Comext ( 1 ).
remedial effect of the measures in force and existence
of dumping.
( 1 ) Comext is a database on foreign trade statistics managed by Eurostat.

---

L 153/4
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.6.2013
(29) The
data
submitted
by
one
company
was
unverifiable
as
Regulation represented between 20 % and 30 % of the
the company claimed that it kept no working sheets used
total imports from Malaysia to the Union during the RP.
to fill in the exemption form. Therefore, the company
Total imports of bicycles from Malaysia into the Union
was unable to explain and demonstrate how the reported
were established on the basis of the data from Comext.
figures were obtained. Moreover, the data submitted by
The company was considered cooperating.
the company proved to be unreliable as the reported
figures that were tested and recalculated on the basis of
the bookkeeping available at the company’s premises
2.3.3. Sri Lanka
were found inaccurate (e.g. purchases, production

volume). The investigation revealed furthermore that
(35) The
six
Sri
Lankan
companies
that
submitted
a
request
the sales manager of the company was in fact in the
for exemption in accordance with Article 13(4) of the
same time employed by a Chinese producer of bicycles
basic Regulation represented 69 % of the total imports
which was the main supplier of the raw material (bicycle
from Sri Lanka to the Union during the RP. The overall
parts) of the Indonesian company.
import volumes from Sri Lanka were established on the
basis of the data from Comext.
(30) Therefore,
in
accordance
with
Article
18(4)
of
the
basic
(36) One of the companies withdrew its request for
Regulation, the company was informed of the intention
exemption during the investigation on the grounds that
to disregard the information submitted by it and was
it had stopped the production of bicycles in Sri Lanka.
granted a time limit to provide its comments.
Therefore, data with regard to this company were
disregarded.
(31) The
company
stated
that
it
was
very
cooperative
by
providing all the documents requested apart from the
(37) The
cooperation
of
the
second
company
was
found
to
be
working sheets which allegedly were not requested
insufficient. The data submitted was unverifiable as the
before. However, the working sheets were requested in
value and volume of parts of Chinese origin purchased
the pre-verification letter sent to the company prior to
by the company could not be reliably determined.
the on-spot verification. Moreover, the company claimed
Moreover, the value and volume of the parts used in
that the calculation of the production and purchases
the manufacturing process could not be verified as they
values was affected by wrong explanations from a
were purchased by a third party and only consigned to
worker and that the checking of the export transactions
the company for assembly.
was accurate. In this regards, it should be pointed out
that in spite of several explanations from the workers, in
the end it was not possible to reconcile the numbers
(38) Therefore,
in
accordance
with
Article
18(4)
of
the
basic
provided on-spot with the numbers submitted in the
Regulation, the company was informed of the intention
exemption form. As concerns the value of the export
to disregard the information submitted by it and was
sales, the reconciliation was indeed accurate.
granted a time limit to provide its comments. The
Furthermore, during the verification visit the workers
company did not provide any comments.
that participated at the verification were not able to
explain the source of the numbers stated in the
exemption form nor how the numbers had been
(39) The cooperation of another company was also
compiled. Moreover, the company confirmed that the
considered insufficient. The information provided could
sales manager was in parallel working for a Chinese
not be verified on-spot as the company withheld essential
producer of bicycles.
information. More specifically, it failed to prepare
information explicitly requested prior to the on-spot
verification, such as the working sheets or the list of
its related companies, thus impeding the verification
(32) Therefore, the information provided by the company in
process. On the other hand, the purchase value of
question had to be disregarded.
parts of local origin as reported by the company was
found unreliable, notably as the investigation revealed
at least some links between the company and its local
supplier of bicycle parts that were going beyond a
(33) Findings
with
regard
to
this
company
were
therefore
normal buyers and sellers relationship and which could
based on facts available in compliance with Article 18
not be clarified by the company.
of the basic Regulation. The other three companies were
considered cooperating.
(40) In
accordance
with
Article
18(4)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
the company was informed of the intention to disregard
the information submitted by it and was granted a time
2.3.2. Malaysia
limit to provide its comments. In response, the company
contested the findings and submitted further evidence
(34) The
sole
Malaysian
company
that
submitted
a
request
for
and explanations. None of the newly submitted
exemption in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic
evidence could have been accepted. Firstly, because it

---

EN
5.6.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
153/5
could not have been verified anymore since provided
(46) At the same time, imports of the product under investi
after the on-spot visit, In most cases the newly
gation from Indonesia into the Union increased from
submitted evidence was found to be inconsistent with
2005 onwards and more than doubled in 2006 as
the explanations and evidence gathered on spot. As
compared to 2004. Imports continued increasing, with
regards the newly submitted explanations, these were
the exception of 2009, albeit remaining at levels well
found to be insufficient as they did not address the
above those of 2004. Since 2009, imports increased
main outstanding issues, in particular, the missing clari
again continuously up to the RP. In the RP imports
fications regarding related companies.
from Indonesia increased by 157 % as compared to
2004.
(41) Therefore
the
information
provided
by
the
company
in
question had to be disregarded.
(47) As concerns the imports of the product under investi
gation from Malaysia into the Union, they were
(42) Findings
with
regard
to
this
company
were
therefore
negligible before the increase of the anti-dumping duty
based on facts available in compliance with Article 18
in July 2005. In 2005, they increased significantly (more
of the basic Regulation.
than two hundred fold) but decreased in 2009 by 46 %,
followed by another increase of 38 % in 2010. Although
imports from Malaysia decreased again in 2011 and
2.3.4. Tunisia
during the RP, the import level from Malaysia during
the RP still exceeded by far the import level from
(43) The two Tunisian companies that submitted a request for
2004 before the increase of the anti-dumping
exemption in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic
measures, i.e. 185 158 bicycles as compared to 10 749
Regulation represented all imports from Tunisia to the
pieces in 2004 or by 1 623 %.
Union during the RP as reported in Comext. They were

considered cooperating.
(48) The
imports
of
the
product
under
investigation
from
Sri
2.3.5. The PRC
Lanka into the Union increased significantly after the
increase of the anti-dumping duties in 2005 and
(44) As mentioned in recital 21 above, there was no
continued increasing in the following years by almost
cooperation from any of the Chinese producers/ex
500 % reaching a peak in 2010. In 2011 and during
porters. Therefore, findings in respect of imports of the
the RP the imports from Sri Lanka of the product
product concerned into the Union, on the one hand, and
under investigation decreased, albeit still exceeding by
exports of bicycles from the PRC to Indonesia, Malaysia,
far the import levels from 2004 before the increase of
Sri Lanka and Tunisia, on the other hand, were based on
the anti-dumping measures, i.e. overall imports from Sri
facts available in accordance with Article 18(1) of the
Lanka increased by 282 % between 2004 and the RP.
basic Regulation. With regards to imports to the Union
import data recorded in Comext were used. Chinese
national statistics were used as regards the determination
(49) Finally,
imports
of
the
product
concerned
from
Tunisia
of export volumes from the PRC to Indonesia, Malaysia,
into the Union increased by almost 30 % in 2005, i.e.
Sri Lanka and Tunisia.
after the increase of the anti-dumping duties, and by
more than 20 % in 2006. They more than doubled
2.4. Change in the pattern of trade
between 2006 and 2007 reaching a peak in 2007.
Imports during 2008 and 2010 were decreasing,
2.4.1. Imports into the Union from the PRC, Indonesia,
increasing again in 2011 and finally decreasing slightly
Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia
during the RP. During the IP imports from Tunisia
increased by 200,3 %.
(45) Imports
of
the
product
concerned
from
the
PRC
into
the
Union decreased by 38,2 % since 2005, i.e. after the
increase of the anti-dumping measures in July 2005,
(50) Table 1 below shows import quantities of bicycles from
and continued decreasing in the following years. In
the PRC, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia into
total, imports from the PRC decreased by over 80 % in
the Union from 1 January 2004 to 31 August 2012, i.e.
the IP.
during the IP.
Table 1
1.9.2011-
(pieces) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
31.8.2012
(RP)
The PRC 2
550
775 1
575
452 995
715 986
514 941
522 597
339 627
066 584
303 411
642
Index (2004 = 100) 100 61,8 39,0 38,7 36,9 23,4 24,6 22,9 16,1
Indonesia 237
648 282
045 500
623 593
769 634
623 437
023 551
847 614
798 612
448

---

L 153/6
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.6.2013
1.9.2011-
(pieces) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
31.8.2012
(RP)
Index (2004 = 100) 100 118,7 210,7 249,9 267,0 183,9 232,2 258,7 257,7
Malaysia 10
749 229
354 497
974 475
463 360
871 193
102 266
164 177
306 185
158
Index (2004 = 100) 100 2
133,7 4
632,7 4
423,3 3
357,3 1
796,5 2
476,2 1
649,5 1
722,6
Sri Lanka 249
491 352
078 534
413 574
153 749
358 1
016
523 1
237
406 975
297 953
169
Index (2004 = 100) 100 141,1 214,2 230,1 300,4 407,4 496,0 390,9 382,0
Tunisia 167
137 212
257 251
054 549
848 527
209 529
734 414
488 519
217 501
853
Index (2004 = 100) 100 127,0 150,2 329,0 315,4 316,9 248,0 310,7 300,3
Source: Comext statistics
2.4.2. Exports from the PRC to Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri
duties in July 2005. They slightly decreased in 2007
Lanka and Tunisia
but more than doubled in 2010 and 2011 as
compared to 2004. Overall, Chinese exports to Sri
(51) Exports
of
bicycles
from
the
PRC
to
Indonesia
increased
Lanka increased by 132,5 % during the IP.
first in 2008 (by 56,2 %). Between 2008 and the RP,
imports continued increasing with the exception of
2009. During the IP exports from the PRC to
(54) Finally
exports
from
the
PRC
to
Tunisia
were
negligible
Indonesia increased in total by 83,8 %.
before the increase of the anti-dumping duties. From
2005 on exports to Tunisia increased significantly
(52) Exports
of
bicycles
from
the
PRC
to
Malaysia
increased
in
reaching a peak in 2008 (from 2 534 pieces in 2004
2005, after the increase of the anti-dumping measures,
to 389 445 pieces in 2008). Although exports from
by almost 30 % and continued increasing until they
the PRC to Tunisia decreased and remained at lower
reached a peak in 2011, i.e. an increase of 110,8 % as
levels after 2008 they still remained at much higher
compared to 2004. In the RP the exports from the PRC
levels than during 2004. Overall, Chinese exports to
to Malaysia, decreased slightly, but remained at levels
Tunisia increased from 2 534 bicycles in 2004 to
largely exceeding those of 2004. Overall, Chinese
170 772 bicycles in the RP.
exports to Malaysia increased by 99,6 % during the IP.
(55) Table
2
shows
exports
of
bicycles
from
the
PRC
to
(53) Exports
of
bicycles
from
the
PRC
to
Sri
Lanka
also
Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia from
increased following the increase of the anti-dumping
1 January 2004 to 31 August 2012, i.e. during the IP.
Table 2
1.9.2011-
(pieces) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
31.8.2012
(RP)
Indonesia 2
128
804 1
731
224 2
121
019 1
906
364 3
325
531 2
287
374 3
644
836 3
773
852 3
912
882
Index (2004 = 100) 100 81,3 99,6 89,6 156,2 107,4 171,2 177,3 183,8
Malaysia 721
335 933
943 890
241 974
860 1
515
886 1
111
251 1
291
766 1
520
276 1
440
132
Index (2004 = 100) 100 129,5 123,4 135,1 210,2 154,1 179,1 210,8 199,6
Sri Lanka 267
371 315
233 345
953 254
774 425
405 383
377 699
328 685
744 621
620
Index (2004 = 100) 100 117,9 129,4 95,3 159,1 143,4 261,6 256,5 232,5
Tunisia 2
534 7
188 37
042 175
761 389
445 171
332 225
369 204
465 170
772
Index (2004 = 100) 100 283,7 1
461,8 6
936,1 15
368,8 6
761,3 8
893,8 8
068,9 6
739,2
Source: Chinese statistics

---

EN
5.6.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
153/7
2.4.3. Production volumes
third country. The existence of assembly operations is
determined in accordance with Article 13(2) of the
(56) The
companies
in
Indonesia
and
Tunisia
increased
their
basic Regulation.
production between 2009 and the RP, by 54 % and 24 %
respectively. The Sri Lankan companies however have
slightly decreased their output during the same period.
2.6.1. Indonesia
T r a n s h i p m e n t
(57) Concerning
Malaysia,
the
sole
Malaysian
company
that
(60) The
exports
of
the
four
initially
cooperating
Indonesian
cooperated started to produce and export bicycles in
companies amounted to 91 % of the total Indonesian
2010. As no other company cooperated, no information
exports to the Union in the RP.
could be obtained on the possible levels of the genuine
production of the product under investigation in this
country.
(61) For
three
out
of
the
four
initially
cooperating
companies,
the investigation did not reveal any transhipment prac
tices.
Table 3
(62) As
concerns
the
fourth
company,
as
stated
in
recitals
29
Production of bicycles of the cooperating companies in
to 33 above, application of Article 18 of the basic Regu
Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia
lation was warranted. The investigation revealed that the
company did not own sufficient equipment to justify the
Production
volumes of exports into the Union in the RP and, in the
volumes in
2009 2010 2011 RP
absence of any other justification, it can be concluded
units
that the company was involved in circumvention
Indonesia 1
217
664 1
631
459 1
877
067 1
877
381
practices via transhipment.
Index 100 134 154 154
(63) For the remaining exports to the Union there was no
cooperation as described in recitals 29 to 33 above.
Sri Lanka 737
632 886
191 688
059 692
454
Index 100 120 93 94
(64) Therefore, in light of the change of the pattern of trade
concluded in recital 58 above between Indonesia and the
Tunisia 430
022 483
135 575
393 532
425
Union within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic
Regulation, the findings of one Indonesian company as
Index 100 112 134 124
stated in recital 61 above, and the fact that not all
Indonesian producers/exporters came forward and
cooperated the existence of transhipment of Chinese-
2.5. Conclusion on the change in the pattern of
origin products via Indonesia is confirmed.
trade
(58) The
overall
decrease
of
the
exports
from
the
PRC
to
the
A s s e m b l y o p e r a t i o n
Union and the parallel increase of exports from
Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia to the
(65) The
sources
of
raw
materials
(bicycle
parts)
and
the
cost
Union and the increase of exports from the PRC to
of production were analysed for each cooperating
Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia after the
company to establish whether any assembly operation
increase of the anti-dumping measures in July 2005
in Indonesia is circumventing the existing measures
constitutes a change in the pattern of trade between
according to the criteria of Article 13(2) of the basic
the countries concerned, on the one hand, and the
Regulation. For three out of the four companies that
Union, on the other hand, within the meaning of
initially cooperated the Chinese-origin raw materials
Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation.
(bicycle parts) did not constitute 60 % or more of the
total value of the parts of the assembled product. It was
not necessary, therefore, to examine whether or not the
value added to the parts brought in, during the assembly
2.6. Nature of the circumvention practices
operation, was greater than 25 % of the manufacturing
cost. Consequently, assembly operations were not estab
(59) Article
13(1)
of
the
basic
Regulation
requires
that
the
lished with regard to these three companies.
change in the pattern of trade stems from a practice,
process or work for which there is insufficient due
cause or economic justification other than the imposition
(66) For the fourth company, Article 18(1) of the basic Regu
of the duty. The practice, process or work includes, inter
lation was applied as mentioned in recitals 29 to 33
alia, the consignment of the product subject to the
above. Since the company could not provide reliable
existing measures via third countries and the assembly
data, it could not be established whether it was
of parts by an assembly operation in the Union or a
involved in assembly operations.

---

L 153/8
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.6.2013
(67) Therefore,
the
existence
of
assembly
operations
within
parts. In this case, the Chinese-origin raw material
the meaning of Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation
(bicycle parts) constituted more than 60 % of the total
was not established.
value of the parts of the final product. Furthermore, the
value added to the parts brought in during the assembly
operation was not found to be greater than 25 % of the
manufacturing cost of this company. The criteria of
2.6.2. Malaysia
Article 13(2)(b) were therefore met.
T r a n s h i p m e n t
(68) The
exports
of
the
sole
cooperating
Malaysian
company
amounted to between 20 % and 30 % of the total
(75) Also,
in
accordance
with
Article
2(11)
and
(12)
of
the
Malaysian exports to the Union in the RP. This
basic Regulation, a comparison of the normal value, as
company started to produce and export to the Union
previously established (see recital 98), and the export
the product concerned only at the end of 2011. No
prices of the company to the Union during the RP,
transhipment practices were found with regard to this
expressed as a percentage of the CIF price at the Union
company. For the remaining exports to the Union
frontier duty unpaid, showed significant dumping by the
there was no cooperation as made clear in recital 34
company in question with regard to the imports of the
above.
product under investigation. The comparison was carried
out per each type of the product under investigation
exported to the Union in the RP. In addition, it was
(69) Therefore, in light of the change of the pattern of trade
found that the export prices of this company were well
concluded in recital 58 between Malaysia and the Union
below the injury elimination level established for the
within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regu
Union industry in the original investigation. The calcu
lation and the fact that not all Malaysian producers/ex
lation was done by main product categories, based on
porters came forward and cooperated it can be concluded
the information available. Thus, the remedial effects of
that the remaining volumes of exports which are not
the duty in force are found undermined in terms of
coming from this company can be attributed to trans
prices. On these grounds, it was concluded that the
hipment practices.
criteria of Article 13(2)(c) of the basic Regulation were
met.
(70) The existence of transhipment of Chinese-origin products
via Malaysia is therefore confirmed.
(76) On
this
basis
the
company
was
found
involved
in
an
assembly operation. Therefore, the existence of
assembly operations within the meaning of Article 13(2)
A s s e m b l y o p e r a t i o n
of the basic Regulation in Malaysia is confirmed.
(71) In case of Malaysia the scope of the investigation was
extended to cover other circumvention practices that
were identified in the course of the investigation, i.e.
2.6.3. Sri Lanka
assembly operations, as provided for in recital 12 to
the initiating Regulation.
T r a n s h i p m e n t
(77) The exports
of the initially cooperating Sri Lankan
companies amounted to 69 % of the total Sri Lankan
(72) The criteria of Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation were
exports to the Union in the RP. For three out of the
analysed for the sole cooperating company to establish
six initially cooperating companies, the investigation did
whether any assembly operation in Malaysia is circum
not reveal any transhipment practices. For the remaining
venting the existing measures. The investigation led to
exports there was no cooperation as explained in recitals
the following findings.
35 to 42.
(73) The
company
started
operating
in
2010
and
therefore
after the anti-dumping measures against the PRC were
(78) Therefore, in light of the change of the pattern of trade
increased. The company was found to be export-
concluded in recital 58 between Sri Lanka and the Union
oriented targeting the Union market, as only negligible
within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regu
sales were made on the domestic market or other third
lation and the fact that not all Sri Lankan producers/ex
countries. Also, the parts used in production were found
porters came forward and/or cooperated it can be
to be sourced primarily from the PRC. The criteria of
concluded that the exports of those producers/exporters
Article 13(2)(a) of the basic Regulation were therefore
can be attributed to transhipment practices.
considered to be met.
(74) In
addition,
this
company
purchased
completely
knocked
(79) The
existence
of
transhipment
of
Chinese-origin
products
down bicycle kits from the PRC, except for three types of
via Sri Lanka is therefore confirmed.

---

EN
5.6.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
153/9
A s s e m b l y o p e r a t i o n
(86) The criteria of Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation were
analysed for the other Tunisian company. The investi
(80) The
sources
of
raw
materials
(bicycle
parts)
and
the
cost
gation led to the following findings.
of production were analysed for each cooperating
company to establish whether any assembly operation
in Sri Lanka is circumventing the existing measures
according to the criteria of Article 13(2) of the basic
(87) The
company
started
operating
as
of
2006
and
therefore
Regulation.
after the anti-dumping measures against the PRC were
increased. The company was found to be export
oriented and targeting the Union market, as only
negligible sales were made on the domestic market or
other third countries. Also, the parts used in production
(81) For three out of the six companies that initially
were found to be sourced primarily from the PRC.
cooperated the Chinese-origin raw materials (bicycle
Therefore, it is considered that the criteria of
parts) did not constitute 60 % or more of the total
Article 13(2)(a) of the basic Regulation were met.
value of the parts of the assembled product. It was not
necessary, therefore, to examine whether or not the value
added to the parts brought in, during the assembly oper
ation, was greater than 25 % of the manufacturing cost.
(88) Also,
the
company
in
question
was
found
to
have
a
Consequently, assembly operations were not established
Chinese manufacturer of bicycles as its majority share
with regard to these three companies.
holder.


(89) Moreover, the company purchased all parts from the PRC
and therefore the Chinese-origin raw material (bicycle
(82) Article
18(1)
of
the
basic
Regulation
was
applied
to
two
parts) constituted more than 60 % of the total value of
other companies as explained in recitals 37 to 42 above,
the parts of the final product. Furthermore, the investi
while one other company withdrew its cooperation
gation revealed that the sole supplier of the services and
during the on-spot verification as mentioned in recital
of the Chinese parts was related to the Chinese majority
36 above. Therefore, the existence of assembly oper
shareholder of the company in question. The added value
ations within the meaning of Article 13(2) of the basic
of the parts brought in during the assembly operations of
Regulation was not established.
the company did not exceed 25 % of the manufacturing
cost of this company either. On this basis the criteria of
Article 13(2)(b) of the basic Regulation were therefore
considered to be met.
2.6.4. Tunisia
T r a n s h i p m e n t
(90) In
addition,
the
verification
revealed
a
large
number
of
(83) The exports
of the cooperating Tunisian companies
mistakes in the list of exports to the Union in the RP
covered the total imports from Tunisia to the Union in
and, therefore, a new file was constructed based on the
the RP.
sampled sales invoices covering around 25 % of the total
exports to the Union market. Consequently, as provided
by Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, in the
absence of detailed information regarding the exports
transactions of the respective company to the Union,
(84) The
verification
of
the
two
cooperating
companies
did
the comparison between the normal value and the
not reveal any transhipment of Chinese-origin products
export price was made on the basis of the weighted
via Tunisia.
average normal value previously established (see recital
98) to a weighted average export price of this
company to the Union. The dumping margin expressed
as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier value was
found to be significant. In addition, it was found that
A s s e m b l y o p e r a t i o n
the export prices of this company were on average well
below injury elimination level established for the Union
(85) The
sources
of
raw
materials
(bicycle
parts)
and
the
cost
of production were analysed for each cooperating
industry in the original investigation. The calculation was
company to establish whether any assembly operation
done on a weighted average basis. Thus, the remedial
in Tunisia is circumventing the existing measures
effects of the duty in force are found undermined in
according to the criteria of Article 13(2) of the basic
terms of prices. Therefore, it was concluded that the
Regulation. For one cooperating company the Chinese-
criteria of Article 13(2)(c) of the basic Regulation were
origin raw material (bicycle parts) constituted more than
met. On this basis the company was found involved in
60 % of the total value of the parts of the assembled
an assembly operation.
product. However, the investigation showed that the
value added to the parts brought in during the
assembly operation exceeded 25 % of the manufacturing
(91) Therefore, the existence of assembly operations in
cost of this company. On this basis the company was
Tunisia within the meaning of Article 13(2) of the
found not to be involved in an assembly operation.
basic Regulation is confirmed.

---

L 153/10
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.6.2013
2.7. Insufficient due cause or economic justification
found to be an appropriate market economy analogue
other than the imposition of the anti-dumping duty
country for the PRC (‘normal value previously estab
lished’).
(92) The
investigation
did
not
bring
to
light
any
due
cause
or
economic justification for the transhipment and assembly
operations other than the avoidance of the existing
measures on the product concerned. No elements were
2.9.1. Indonesia
found, other than the duty, which could be considered as
a compensation for the costs of transhipment and
(99) A
significant
part
of
Indonesian
exports
were
found
to
be
assembly operations in particular regarding transport
genuine Indonesian production exported by three
and reloading of bicycles originating in the PRC via
Indonesian companies that were found not to be
Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia.
involved in circumventing practices as stated in recitals
61 and 65. For this reason, in order to establish the
export prices from Indonesia which are affected by
circumvention practices, only the exports of the non-
2.8. Undermining of the remedial effect of the anti-
cooperating producers/exporters were considered. To
dumping duty
this end, resort was made to the best facts available
and export prices were established on the basis of the
(93) For
the
assessment
of
whether
the
imported
products
average export price of bicycles from Indonesia to the
had, in terms of quantities and prices, undermined the
Union during the RP as reported in Comext.
remedial effects of the existing measures on imports of
the product concerned from the PRC, Comext data was
used as the best available data concerning quantities and
prices of exports by the initially cooperating producers/
(100) For the purpose of a fair comparison between the normal
exporters where Article 18 of the basic Regulation was
value and the export price, due allowance, in the form of
applied and by non-cooperating companies. Where appli
adjustments, was made for differences which affect prices
cable, for the cooperating companies found to be
and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10)
involved in circumvention practices, their reported quan
of the basic Regulation. Accordingly, adjustments were
tities and prices of exports were used. The export prices
made for differences in transport, insurance and packing
so determined were compared to the injury elimination
costs submitted by the Union industry in its request for
level for Union producers last established, i.e. in the
the current investigation.
interim review concluded in 2005, mentioned in
recital 3.
(101) In accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic
Regulation, dumping was calculated by comparing the
weighted average normal value as previously established
(94) The
comparison
of
the
injury
elimination
level
as
estab
and the corresponding weighted average export prices of
lished in the interim review in 2005 and the weighted
Indonesia during the RP, expressed as a percentage of the
average export price during the RP of the current inves
CIF price at the Union frontier duty unpaid.
tigation showed significant underselling for each of the

four countries concerned.
(102) The comparison of the weighted average normal value
and the weighted average export price as established
(95) The
increase
of
imports
from
Indonesia,
Malaysia,
Sri
showed dumping.
Lanka and Tunisia to the Union was considered
significant in terms of quantities as discussed in Section
2.4.1 (recitals 45 to 50).
2.9.2. Malaysia
(103) Due to the low cooperation by the producers of the
(96) It
was
therefore
concluded
that
the
existing
measures
are
product under investigation in Malaysia, the export
being undermined in terms of quantities and prices.
price from Malaysia had to be based on facts available,
i.e. on the average export price of bicycles during the RP
as reported in Comext.
2.9. Evidence of dumping
(97) Finally,
in
accordance
with
Article
13(1)
of
the
basic
(104) For the purpose of a fair comparison between the normal
Regulation it was examined whether there was evidence
value and the export price, due allowance, in the form of
of dumping in relation to the normal value previously
adjustments, was made for differences which affect prices
established for the product concerned.
and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10)
of the basic Regulation. Accordingly, adjustments were
made for differences in transport, insurance and packing
costs. Given that the cooperation was low, the relevant
(98) In
the
interim
review
concluded
in
2005,
mentioned
in
adjustments were based on the information submitted by
recital 3 above, normal value was established on the basis
the Union industry in its request for the current investi
of prices in Mexico, which in that investigation was
gation.

---

EN
5.6.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
153/11
(105) In accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic
made for differences in transport, insurance and packing
Regulation, dumping was calculated by comparing the
costs based on information submitted by the Union
weighted average normal value as previously established
industry in its request for the current investigation.
and the corresponding weighted average export prices of
Malaysia during the RP, expressed as a percentage of the
CIF price at the Union frontier duty unpaid.
(113) In accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic
Regulation, dumping was calculated by comparing the
weighted average normal value as previously established
(106) The comparison of the weighted average normal value
and the corresponding weighted average export prices of
and the weighted average export price as established
Tunisia during the RP, expressed as a percentage of the
showed dumping.
CIF price at the Union frontier duty unpaid.
2.9.3. Sri Lanka
(114) The comparison of the weighted average normal value
and the weighted average export price as established
(107) Since the cooperation from Sri Lanka was low, the
export price was established on the basis of facts
showed dumping.
available, i.e. on the average export price of bicycles
during the RP as reported in Comext which was cross
checked with the available export data from the
3. MEASURES
companies not involved in circumvention practices.
(115) Given the above, it can be concluded that the definitive
anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles orig
inating in the PRC was circumvented by transhipment via
(108) For the purpose of a fair comparison between the normal
value and the export price, due allowance, in the form of
Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and assembly operations
adjustments, was made for differences which affect prices
via Malaysia and Tunisia within the meaning of Article 13
and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10)
of the basic Regulation.
of the basic Regulation. Accordingly, and given the
absence of any other information available, adjustments
were made for differences in transport, insurance and
(116) In accordance with the first sentence of Article 13(1) of
packing costs based on the information submitted by
the basic Regulation, the existing measures on imports of
the Union industry in its request for the current investi
the product concerned originating in the PRC, should
gation.
therefore be extended to imports of the same product
consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and
Tunisia whether declared as originating in Indonesia,
(109) In accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic
Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not.
Regulation, dumping was calculated by comparing the
weighted average normal value as previously established
and the corresponding weighted average export prices of
Sri Lanka during the RP, expressed as a percentage of the
(117) The measures to be extended should be the ones
CIF price at the Union frontier duty unpaid.
currently established in Article 1(2) of Implementing

Regulation (EU) No 990/2011, which are a definitive
anti-dumping duty of 48,5 % applicable to the net,
free-at-Union-frontier price, before customs duty.
(110) The comparison of the weighted average normal value
and the weighted average export price as established
showed dumping.
(118) In accordance with Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic
Regulation, which provides that any extended measure
should apply to imports which entered the Union
2.9.4. Tunisia
under registration imposed by the initiating Regulation,
duties should be collected on those registered imports of
(111) The export price was established on the basis of the
bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka
average export price of bicycles during the RP as
and Tunisia.
reported in Comext which was cross checked with the
export data from the company not involved in circum
vention practices.
4. REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION
4.1. Indonesia
(112) For the purpose of a fair comparison between the normal
value and the export price, due allowance, in the form of
(119) The four companies in Indonesia that requested an
adjustments, was made for differences which affect prices
exemption from the possible extended measures in
and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10)
accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation
of the basic Regulation. Accordingly, adjustments were
submitted a reply to the exemption form.

---

L 153/12
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.6.2013
(120) As stated in recitals 29 to 33, application of Article 18
Regulation were found not to be engaged in the circum
was warranted for one company. Therefore, in view of
vention practices subject to this investigation as stated in
the findings with regard to the change in the pattern of
recitals 80 and 81. Furthermore, these producers could
trade and transhipment as set out in recital 58, the
demonstrate that they are not related to any of the
exemption cannot be granted to this company.
companies found to circumvent nor to any of the
Chinese producers/exporters of bicycles. Therefore, an
exemption from the extended measures could be
granted to these companies.
(121) The other three cooperating companies in Indonesia that
requested an exemption from the possible extended
measures in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic
Regulation were not found to be engaged in the circum
vention practices subject to this investigation as stated in
4.4. Tunisia
recital 65. Furthermore, these producers could demon
strate that they are not related to any of the producers/
(128) The two companies in Tunisia that requested an
exporters engaged in circumvention practices nor to any
exemption from the possible extended measures in
of the Chinese producers/exporters of bicycles. Therefore,
accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation
an exemption from the extended measures could be
submitted replies to the exemption form.
granted to these three companies.
(129) One company was found not to be engaged in the
4.2. Malaysia
circumvention practices subject to this investigation.
Furthermore, this producer could demonstrate that it is
(122) One company in Malaysia that requested an exemption
not related to any of the companies found to circumvent
from the possible extended measures in accordance with
nor to any of the Chinese producers/exporters of
Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation submitted a reply to
bicycles. Therefore, an exemption from the extended
the exemption form.
measures could be granted to this company.
(123) As stated in recitals 72 to 76, the company was found to
be involved in circumvention practices. Therefore, in
(130) As stated in recital 89, the second company was found
view of the findings with regard to the change in the
to be involved in circumvention practices. Therefore, in
pattern of trade and transhipment as set out in recital 58,
view of the findings with regard to the change in the
an exemption cannot be granted to this company.
pattern of trade and transhipment as set out in recital 58,
an exemption cannot be granted.
4.3. Sri Lanka
(124) The six companies in Sri Lanka that requested an
4.5. Special measures
exemption from the possible extended measures in
accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation
(131) It is considered that special measures are needed in this
submitted replies to the exemption form.
case in order to ensure the proper application of such
exemptions. These special measures are the requirement
of the presentation to the customs authorities of the
Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which
(125) As stated in recital 36, one of the companies withdrew
shall conform to the requirements set out in the
its request for exemption during the investigation and
Annex to this Regulation. Imports not accompanied by
therefore, in view of the findings with regard to the
such an invoice shall be made subject to the extended
change in the pattern of trade and transhipment as set
anti-dumping duty.
out in recital 58, an exemption cannot be granted to this
company.
4.6. Newcomers
(126) For the other two companies application of Article 18 of
the basic Regulation was warranted as stated in recitals
(132) Without prejudice to Article 11(3) of the basic Regu
36 to 42 and therefore, in view of the findings with
lation, other producers/exporters in Indonesia, Malaysia,
regard to the change in the pattern of trade and trans
Sri Lanka and Tunisia which did not come forward in
hipment as set out in recital 58, an exemption cannot be
this proceeding and did not export the product under
granted to these companies.
investigation to the Union in the RP and which
consider lodging a request for an exemption from the
extended anti-dumping duty pursuant to Articles 11(4)
and 13(4) of the basic Regulation will be required to
(127) The other three cooperating companies in Sri Lanka
complete a questionnaire in order to enable the
requesting an exemption from the possible extended
Commission to determine whether an exemption may
measures in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic
be warranted. Such an exemption may be granted after

---

EN
5.6.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
153/13
the assessment of the market situation of the product
(138) In addition, the company in question argued that there is
under investigation, production capacity and capacity
no sufficient legal basis for the denial of the company’s
utilisation, procurement and sales and the likelihood of
request for exemption as the conclusions reached are
a continuation of practices for which there is insufficient
based on calculations without taking due account of
due cause or economic justification and the evidence of
the individual situation of the company in question. In
dumping. The Commission would normally also carry
response to this claim the company received further
out an on-spot verification visit. The request should be
explanations reflecting the analysis in recitals 72 to 75.
addressed to the Commission forthwith, with all relevant
information, in particular any modification in the
company’s activities linked to the production and sales.
(139) In addition, the company claimed that the increase of
imports of the product under investigation by the
company in question coincides with the relaxation of
the Generalised System of Preferences for Malaysia and
(133) Where an exemption is warranted, the extended
measures in force shall be amended accordingly.
therefore the increase in company’s exports into the
Subsequently, any exemption granted will be monitored
Union in 2010 had no economic justification in the
to ensure compliance with the conditions set therein.
increase of the anti-dumping measures imposed against
the PRC. In response to this argument it was considered
that while the relaxation of the Generalised System of
Preferences rules could have contributed to the
company’s motivation to export to the Union, it does
5. DISCLOSURE
not contradict the finding that the company started its
operation after the anti-dumping duties against the PRC
(134) All interested parties were informed of the essential facts
were increased and that it sourced the parts mainly from
and considerations leading to the above conclusions and
the PRC (see recital 73). Therefore, the argument of the
were invited to comment.
party was rejected.
(135) One Indonesian company reiterated its claims mentioned
(140) The same company also claimed that the reported data
in recital 31 without bringing any new substantiated
concerning the values of purchased and consumed
evidence. In this regard, as mentioned in recital 29, the
bicycle parts were not duly verified as no distinction
data submitted by the company was unverifiable as no
between purchased and consumed parts was made. In
working files substantiating the figures provided in the
this respect it is noted that based on the figures
exemption form were kept by the company. Moreover,
reported by the company, the values of purchased and
the reported figures that were tested and recalculated on
consumed parts were found to be identical. In addition,
the basis of the bookkeeping available at the company’s
the reported values of purchased parts in 2011
premises i.e. purchases and production volume, were
corresponded to the value of consumed parts reported
found inaccurate. Therefore, these claims are rejected.
in the annual report of the company for 2011. The
figures concerning purchased and consumed parts
reported for RP and 2010 were accepted as declared
by the company. Therefore, the argument was rejected.
(136) One Malaysian company argued that the fact that the
weight of the Chinese origin parts in the manufacturing
cost of the bicycles was only slightly above the 60 %
(141) The company in question submitted further cost
threshold should not lead the Commission to reject its
breakdowns per product model demonstrating its
exemption request. In addition, the company submitted
alleged compliance with the requirement that the parts
certain invoices for purchasing of parts which allegedly
sourced from the PRC shall not exceed 60 % of the total
were wrongly reported as originating from the PRC when
value of the parts of the assembled product. This
in fact they were from Indonesia.
information contradicted the cost breakdowns per
model collected and verified for selected models on
spot for which the failure of the company to comply
with the 60 % threshold was confirmed. The new
(137) In this respect it should be noted that the thresholds set
information submitted by the company in this respect
in Article (13)(2)(b) of the basic Regulation are very clear
was not backed up by any evidence and, in essence,
and, therefore, it is not relevant by how much the weight
contradicted verified information. For this reason the
of the Chinese origin parts in the manufacturing cost of
information was disregarded.
the bicycles exceeds the 60 % threshold but that the
Chinese origin parts should represent less than 60 % in
the manufacturing cost of the bicycles. Moreover, these
invoices could not be traced back in the list of purchases
(142) Further, the company claimed that it acted in good faith
provided by the company and, in addition, the value of
as relying on its alleged compliance with Commission
the invoices submitted were not material as to change
Regulation (EC) No 1063/2010 ( 1 ) laying down the
the original assessment of the Commission. Therefore,
these claims are rejected.
( 1 ) OJ L 307, 23.11.2010, p. 1.

---

L 153/14
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.6.2013
applicable rules of origin. In this context it is noted that
investigation that information could not be verified
the purpose of the anti-circumvention investigation is
anymore. Furthermore, the company argued that it had
not to verify the compliance with the applicable rules
submitted all the information required.
of origin. Such verification was not carried out in the
context of the current anti-circumvention investigation
and therefore the alleged compliance with the rules of
origin cannot be in this case confirmed. For this reasons,
(147) As mentioned in recitals 39 and 40 the company did not
the alleged compliance with the rules of origin in this
submit all the information requested in order to be
case does not exclude in any way the possibility of
verified on-spot. In particular, the purchase value of
circumvention as defined in Article 13(2) of the basic
parts of local origin as reported by the company was
Regulation ( 1 ). Against this background, the argument is
found unreliable. As a result, the compliance with the
therefore rejected.
criteria set out in Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation
could not have been determined.
(143) Finally, the company claimed that the dumping margin
calculation should have been carried out based on the
company specific data. This request was accepted as
(148) In addition, the company claimed irregularities
concerning the on-spot visit in respect of its length
reflected in recital 75 above and the company was
and language issues. In this regard, it should be noted
informed accordingly.
that the company was recently set up and therefore only
one day of verification was scheduled. The verification
was carried out during a full working day. At the end
of the verification, the company did not ask to submit
(144) A company from Sri Lanka disputed the relevance of the
any additional information that was not able to provide
documents requested during the verification visit and
during the verification.
therefore argued that its exemption request should not
be rejected. In this respect it should be noted that the
documents showing the origin of the parts used in the
assembly of the bicycles exported to the Union have
significant importance for the assessment of compliance
(149) Furthermore, before the on-spot verification the company
with the conditions of Article 13(2)(b). Also, as
was informed that the verification will be carried out in
mentioned in recital 37, the data submitted by the
English and the party has not raised any objections.
company was unverifiable. In addition, the company
Moreover, the Commission was accompanied by an
admitted on spot that the parts purchased from the
interpreter during the on-spot verification to facilitate
PRC were actually not recorded in its accounts and
language communication problems, if any. In addition,
consequently the compliance with the criteria set out in
it is highlighted that most of the documents submitted
Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation could not have been
by the company during the verification visit were actually
determined. Therefore, the claims are rejected.
in English, including the accounting related documents.
(145) Another company from Sri Lanka claimed that had it
(150) In view of the above, all the claims of the company are
known that the exports to the Union from Sri Lanka
rejected,
could be subject to the anti-dumping duty as extended
to Sri Lanka as from the initiation of the investigation, it
would have not withdrawn its request for exemption.
However, it is underlined that, at the time of the with
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
drawal of its request for exemption, the company is
considered aware of the possible application of the
anti-dumping duty as extended as from the date of the
registration of imports from Sri Lanka to the Union, i.e.
Article 1
the initiation of the anti-circumvention investigation. The
company has been informed of this consequence in three
1. In light of the purpose of this Regulation, the definitive
instances, through recital 20 of the initiating Regulation,
anti-dumping duty applicable to ‘all other companies’ imposed
during a hearing at the beginning of the investigation
by Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011
and during the on-spot visit. Therefore, the claim could
on imports of bicycles and other cycles (including delivery
not be accepted.
tricycles, but excluding unicycles), not motorised, originating
in the People’s Republic of China, is hereby extended to
imports of bicycles and other cycles (including delivery tricycles,
but excluding unicycles), not motorised, consigned from
(146) Another company from Sri Lanka submitted new
Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia whether declared as
information that it should have submitted before the
originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not,
verification visit and due to the advanced stage of the
currently falling within CN codes ex
8712
00
30 and
ex 8712 00 70
(TARIC
code
8712 00 30 10
and
( 1 ) See also previous cases, e.g. recital 48 of Council Regulation (EC)
8712 00 70 91) with the exception of those produced by the
No 388/2008 (OJ L 117, 1.5.2008, p. 1).
companies listed below:

---

EN
5.6.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
153/15
TARIC
and Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009
Country Company
additional
with the exception of those produced by the companies listed in
code
paragraph 1.
Indonesia P.T.
Insera
Sena,
393
Jawa
Street,
Buduran, B765
Sidoarjo 61252, Indonesia
4. Unless
otherwise
specified,
the
provisions
in
force
concerning customs duties shall apply.
PT Wijaya Indonesia Makmur Bicycle B766
Industries (Wim Cycle), Raya Bambe KM.
20, Driyorejo, Gresik 61177, Jawa Timur
Indonesia
Article 2
1. Requests
for
exemption
from
the
duty
extended
by
P.T. Terang Dunia Internusa, (United Bike), Jl.
B767
Anggrek Neli Murni 114 Slipi, 11480, Jakarta
Article 1 shall be made in writing in one of the official
Barat, Indonesia
languages of the European Union and must be signed by a
person authorised to represent the entity requesting the
Sri Lanka Asiabike
Industrial
Limited,
No
114,
Galle B768
exemption. The request must be sent to the following address:
Road, Henamulla, Panadura,
Sri Lanka
European Commission
Directorate-General for Trade
BSH Ventures (Private) Limited, B769
Directorate H
No 84, Campbell Place, Colombo-10, Sri
Office: N-105 08/20
Lanka
1049 Bruxelles/Brussel
Samson Bikes (Pvt) Ltd, No 110, Kumaran
B770
BELGIQUE/BELGI
Rathnam Road, Colombo 02, Sri Lanka
Fax +32 22956505
Tunisia euro
Cycles
SA,
Zone
Industrielle
Kelaa
B771
Kebira, 4060, Sousse, Tunisia
2. In
accordance
with
Article
13(4)
of
Regulation
(EC)
No 1225/2009 the Commission, after consulting the Advisory
Committee, may authorise, by decision, the exemption of
2. The application of exemptions granted to the companies
imports from companies which do not circumvent the anti-
specifically mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Article or auth
dumping measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU)
orised by the Commission in accordance with Article 2(2) of
No 990/2011, from the duty extended by Article 1 of this
this Regulation shall be conditional upon presentation to the
Regulation.
customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial
invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the
Annex to this Regulation. If no such invoice is presented, the
Article 3
anti-dumping duty as imposed by paragraph 1 of this Article
shall apply.
Customs authorities are hereby directed to discontinue the regis
tration of imports, established in accordance with Article 2 of
Regulation (EU) No 875/2012.
3. The
duty
extended
by
paragraph
1
of
this
Article
shall
be
collected on imports consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia,
Article 4
Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in
Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not, registered
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that
in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 875/2012
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, 29 May 2013.
For the Council
The President
R. BRUTON

---

L 153/16
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.6.2013
ANNEX
A declaration signed by an official of the entity issuing the commercial invoice, in the following format, must appear on
the valid commercial invoice referred to in Article 1(2):
(1) The name and function of the official of the entity issuing the commercial invoice;
(2) The following declaration: ‘I, the undersigned, certify that the (volume) of (product concerned) sold for export to the
European Union covered by this invoice was manufactured by (company name and address) (TARIC additional code)
in (country concerned). I declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct’;
(3) Date and signature.

---

Document Outline

• �

---