L_2006098EN.01000301.xml
| 6.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 98/3 |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 553/2006
of 23 March 2006
imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam
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 (the basic Regulation) (1), in particular Article 7 thereof,
After consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
1. PROCEDURE
1.1. Initiation of the proceeding
| (1) | On 7 July 2005, the Commission announced by a notice (notice of initiation), published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Community of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China (PRC) and Vietnam. |
| (2) | The anti-dumping proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 30 May 2005 by the European Confederation of the Footwear industry (CEC) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 40 %, of the total Community production of certain footwear with uppers of leather. |
1.2. Parties concerned and verification visits
| (3) | The Commission officially advised the exporting producers in the PRC and Vietnam and the importers/traders known to be concerned, the representatives of the exporting countries concerned, the complainant Community producers and their associations of the initiation of the proceeding. The 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. |
| (4) | In view of the high number of Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers and Community producers, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation for the determination of dumping and injury, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. It should be noted that no sampling was applied for the importers and the traders in the Community, which were all asked to cooperate. |
| (5) | In order to allow exporting producers in the PRC and Vietnam to submit a claim for market economy treatment (MET) or individual treatment (IT), if they so wished, the Commission sent claim forms to the exporting producers known to be concerned and to the authorities of the two countries concerned. |
| (6) | The Commission sent questionnaires to the 10 Community producers selected in the sample, to the exporting producers in the samples selected for the countries concerned, to all importers known to be concerned and to all importers that made themselves known within the deadlines set out in the notice of initiation. In addition, questionnaires were sent to the national footwear associations of the Member States of the Community where manufacturing companies are concentrated in order to obtain general information on the development of their situation, and to a consumer association. |
| (7) | Questionnaire replies were received from 12 of the sampled Chinese exporting producers, with one of the Chinese exporting producers in the sample choosing not to cooperate further, from four Chinese exporting producers requesting individual examination in accordance with Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation, from the eight sampled Vietnamese exporting producers and from another four Vietnamese exporting producers requesting individual examination in accordance with Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation. Replies were also received from the 10 sampled Community producers, 39 importers not related to an exporting producer. Submissions were also received from three associations of importers. |
| (8) | The Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for the purpose of a preliminary determination of dumping, resulting injury and Community interest. Verification visits were carried out as follows:
| (a) | Community producers Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the ten sampled Community producers, located in five different Member States. The sampled Community producers as well as other cooperating Community producers requested, on the grounds of the provisions of Article 19 of the basic Regulation, that their identities be kept confidential. They claimed that the disclosure of their identity could lead to a risk of significant adverse effects. Certain complainant Community producers supply customers in the Community that also source their products from PRC and Vietnam, thus benefiting directly from these imports. Those complainants are therefore in a sensitive position since some of their clients may not be satisfied with their lodging or supporting a complaint against alleged injurious dumping. For these reasons they considered that there was a risk of retaliation by some of their clients, including the possible termination of their business relationship. The request was granted as it was sufficiently substantiated. The representatives of certain exporting producers and one unrelated importer claimed that they could not properly exercise their right of defence because the identity of the complainants had not been disclosed. They argued that, in those circumstances, they could not verify that the complainants were truly representative. However, it is noted that the individual production volume of each complainant was made available for inspection by the interested parties, thus even if the names of those companies were blanked out, their representative quality could be verified. The claim was therefore rejected. |
| (b) | Unrelated importers in the Community
| — | Adidas Salomon AG, Germany, |
| — | C&J Clark International Limited, United Kingdom, |
| — | George Clothing Ltd, United Kingdom, |
| — | Nike European Operations BV, The Netherlands, |
| — | Puma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport, Germany, |
| — | Timberland Europe BV, The Netherlands. | |
| (c) | Exporting producers in PRC
| — | Apache Footwear Ltd (APE I), |
| — | Apache Footwear II Ltd (APE II), |
| — | FED International Corp. (FED), |
| — | FuGuiNiao Shoes Development Co. Ltd (FS), |
| — | Golden Step Industrial Co. Ltd (GS), |
| — | Growth-Link Overseas Co. Ltd (GLO), |
| — | Heng Tai Hong Wei Shoes Co. Ltd (Heng Tai), |
| — | Laikong Footwear Co. Ltd (Laikong), |
| — | Laitin Footwear Co. Ltd (Laitin), |
| — | Poong Won Chehwa Co. Ltd (PWC), |
| — | Sun Sang Kong Yuen Shoes FTY (Hui Yang) Co. Ltd (SSKY), |
| — | Yue Yuen Group (Yue Yuen). | |
| (d) | Exporting producers in Vietnam
| — | Pou Yuen Vietnam Enterprise Ltd, Yuen Yuen, |
| — | Pou Chen Vietnam Enterprise Ltd, Yuen Yuen, |
| — | Taekwang Vina Industrial Co. Ltd, |
| — | Haiphong Leather Products and Footwear Company |
| — | Dona Biti's IMEX Corp. Pte. Ltd, |
| — | Binh Tien Imex Corp. Pte. Ltd, |
| — | Kai Nan Joint Venture Co. Ltd. | In view of the need to establish a normal value for exporting producers in the PRC and Vietnam 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 companies:
| — | Bison Indústria de Calçados Ltda, |
| — | H. Bettarello Curtidora e Calçados Ltda. | | |
1.3. Investigation period
| (9) | The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005 (the investigation period or IP). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2001 to the end of the IP (the period considered). |
2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
2.1. General
| (10) | The product under investigation is footwear with uppers of leather or composition leather (footwear with uppers of leather), other than:
| — | sports footwear within the meaning of subheading note 1 to Chapter 64 of the Combined Nomenclature, i.e. (i) footwear which is designed for a sporting activity and has, or has provision for, the attachment of, spikes, sprigs, stops, clips, bars or the like, and (ii) skating boots, ski-boots and cross-country ski footwear, snowboard boots, wrestling boots, boxing boots and cycling shoes, |
| — | slippers and other indoor footwear, |
| — | footwear with a protective toecap. | |
| (11) | The product scope therefore mainly includes sandals, boots, urban footwear and city shoes. |
(i) Special technology athletic footwear
| (12) | Various exporting producers and importers claimed that certain specific types of sports footwear, other than those mentioned above, should also be excluded from the product scope. This claim is based on the allegation that, in view of their specificities, such types of footwear and other types of footwear with uppers of leather could not be considered as forming one single product. |
| (13) | More specifically, this claim concerns footwear for use in sporting activities and involving a special technology called ‘STAF’, i.e. special technology athletic footwear. In this context, footwear for use in sporting activities should be taken to mean tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like. The footwear concerned (i.e. STAF) is currently classified within CN codes: ex 6403 91 11, ex 6403 91 13, ex 6403 91 16, ex 6403 91 18, ex 6403 91 91, ex 6403 91 93, ex 6403 91 96, ex |
...
