(3)

The Commission received from the parties listed in table 1 below all the information required for the determination of the admissibility of their requests. The information provided was examined and verified, where necessary, at the premises of the parties concerned. Based on this information, the Commission found that the requests submitted by the parties listed in table 1 below are admissible pursuant to Article 4(1) of the exemption Regulation.

Table 1

(4)

The facts as finally ascertained by the Commission show that for all these applicants’ bicycle assembly operations, the value of the parts originating in the People’s Republic of China which were used in their assembly operations was lower than 60 % of the total value of the parts used in these assembly operations, and they, therefore, fall outside the scope of Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation.

(5)

For the above reason, and in accordance with Article 7(1) of the exemption Regulation, the parties listed in the above table should be exempt from the extended anti-dumping duty.

(6)

In accordance with Article 7(2) of the exemption Regulation, the exemption of the parties listed in table 1 from the extended anti-dumping duty should take effect as from the date of receipt of their requests. In addition, their customs debt in respect of the extended anti-dumping duty is to be considered void as from the date of receipt of their requests for exemption.

(7)

It is to be noted that the following five parties listed in table 1 informed the Commission services of a change in their name and/or in their legal seat, or transfer of economic activity, during the examination period:

(8)

It has been established that these changes in the name and/or legal seat and transfer of economic activity did not affect the assembly operations with regard to the stipulations of the exemption Regulation and therefore the Commission does not consider that these changes should affect the exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty.

(9)

The parties listed in table 2 below also submitted requests for exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty.

Table 2

(10)

The on-the-spot verifications at the premises of one party revealed that it failed to keep certain specific records and to provide detailed information necessary to the granting of the exemption. In particular, information related to the origin of the bicycle parts used in the assembly operations, as required by Article 6(2) of the exemption Regulation, could not be verified. The party was informed that it was intended to reject its request, and subsequently submitted comments in writing. However, it did not provide any additional verifiable evidence to support its arguments.

(11)

Another party withdrew its request for exemption and informed the Commission accordingly.

(12)

Another party failed to submit the requested information required for the examination of its request. For this reason, and in accordance with Article 7(3) of the exemption Regulation, the Commission informed this party that it intended to reject its request for exemption. This party was given an opportunity to comment. No comments were received.

(13)

Another party did not use the bicycle parts for the production or assembly of bicycles during the examination period, which constitutes a breach of the obligations set out in Article 6(2) of the exemption Regulation. The party was informed accordingly and submitted comments in writing. However, since this information related to a period subsequent to the examination period, it could not be taken into account pursuant to Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation.

(14)

Since the parties listed in table 2 failed to meet the criteria for exemption set by Article 6(2) of the exemption Regulation, the Commission has to reject their requests for exemption, in accordance with Article 7(3) of the Regulation. In the light of this, the suspension of the payment of the extended anti-dumping duty referred to in Article 5 of the exemption Regulation must be lifted and the extended anti-dumping duty must be collected as from the date of receipt of the requests submitted by these parties.

(15)

The parties listed in table 3 below also submitted requests for exemption from the payment of the extended anti-dumping duty.

Table 3

(16)

It is to be noted that ‘ROG Kolesa, d.d., Letališka 29, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia’ listed in table 3 informed the Commission services of a change in name from ‘ELAN Bikes, d.d.’ to ‘ROG Kolesa, d.d.’. It has been established that this change in the name did not affect the request for exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty.

(17)

With regard to these requests, it should be noted that, because of particular circumstances relating to the changed corporate structure of some of the companies, it was not possible for the Commission to determine whether the assembly operations of these parties fell outside the scope of Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation for the period of examination.

(18)

As regards one party, the Commission services could not verify the questionnaire data on the spot since the essential accounting documents necessary to the granting of the exemption were kept by the Settlement Senate of the District Court. This Court received the accounting records of this party in the framework of a compulsory settlement plan.

(19)

Two of the parties merged into a new legal entity. Since this event occurred after the submission of the questionnaire response, the Commission was not in a position to verify whether the assembly operations of the new legal entity fell outside the scope of the Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation.

(20)

Another party has imported parts during the period of examination, but it had only started its assembly operations after the period of examination.

(21)

With regard to the three remaining parties, it was not possible during the verification visit to determine the ratio of the value of the bicycle parts originating in the People’s Republic of China in the total value of the bicycle parts used in the assembly operations for the period of examination since, the parties used a very large number of parts purchased prior to enlargement in their assembly operations.

(22)

In light of the above, the parties listed in table 3 should be maintained in the list of parties under examination. The payment of the anti-dumping duty in respect of the imports of essential bicycle parts declared for free circulation by these parties should remain suspended.

(23)

The parties listed in table 4 also submitted requests for exemption from the payment of the extended anti-dumping duty:

Table 4

(24)

With regard to these parties, it should be noted that their requests did not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Article 4(1) of the exemption Regulation.

(25)

Two applicants use essential bicycle parts for the production or assembly of bicycles in quantities below 300 units per type on a monthly basis.

(26)

Three applicants did not provide prima facie evidence that their assembly operations fall outside the scope of Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation, notably the value of the parts originating in the People’s Republic of China, which were used in their assembly operations, was higher than 60 % of the total value of the parts used in these assembly operations.

(27)

These parties were informed accordingly and were given an opportunity to comment. No comments were received. Accordingly, no suspension was granted to these parties.

(28)

Interested parties are hereby informed of the receipt of further requests for exemption, pursuant to Article 3 of the exemption Regulation, from parties listed in table 5. The suspension from the extended duty, following these requests, should take effect as shown in the column headed ‘Date of effect’:

Table 5