Council Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006 of 25 September 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand, and terminating the proceeding on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in Malaysia

• (144) It was also claimed by some parties that the end use application defined in the report as ‘other bags/sacks’, representing 11,9 % ([^E0008]) of the total end uses, should be included in the Community production figures. It is to be noted that these parties did not substantiate this claim in terms of quantities. This category is reported as ‘other film’ in ‘AMI's guide to the polyethylene industry in Europe’ in its country-specific production figures and is not defined as bags or sacks on this level. Whilst it is unclear which products are included by AMI in the category ‘other sacks and bags’, at least all those products not falling under the product description should be excluded from the estimate. In this regard, according to certain parties, the category other ‘sacks and bags’ also includes film used for ‘FFS — packaging’ for food or ‘form, fill and seal — packaging’, which is a type of packaging where a bag is formed, filled and sealed in an integrated process. FFS equipment is typically fully automatic. This product is not sold as bags or sacks nor do imports of this product fall within CN codes 3923 21 00, 3923 29 10. and 3923 29 90. Given that the estimates of the interested parties, concerning the share of the product under investigation in this group, varied between 15 % and 100 % and were not substantiated it was not possible to make an accurate estimation as to which proportion of this group should be included in the product under investigation. Therefore, in view of the fact that there was an absence of any substantiated information in this regard, it was considered reasonable to include 50 % of this product category for the purposes of this calculation. The resulting production in this group would thus be in the range from 363 000 to 387 000 tonnes.

• (145) Certain parties claimed that up to 1 million tonnes of recycled material would be used for the production of the like product. According to AMI approximately 1 million tonnes ([^E0009]) of reclaimed material would indeed be used in polyethylene extrusion. AMI does not specify into which particular product categories this usage can be allocated. Moreover, the on-the-spot verifications showed that there is a very limited supply of post-consumer recycled material on the market, whilst industrial waste created in the production process is efficiently recycled. In this regard, it is to be noted that industrial waste is already included in the production figures when used as virgin material and thus any inclusion of this quantity in the production would result in double counting. The investigation showed that post-consumer recycled material is mainly used for production of refuse sacks. Certain parties argued that up to 25 % of the raw material of this category of the like product would be post-consumer recycled material. Based on the information received from interested parties this could amount to 20 % of the production of these bags. As this quantity is not already included in AMI’s end-use estimate of this product this quantity should be added on top of this production estimate. Therefore, a corresponding adjustment of 20 % was made in the quantity of refuse sacks resulting in additional production of the product concerned in the range from 88 000 to 94 000 tonnes.

• (146) The resulting total production quantity, based on the considerations presented in recitals 135 to 145, is in the range from 1 311 000 to 1 398 000 tonnes of product under investigation. This estimate however contains all refuse bags and it should be recalled that some refuse sacks can be more than 100 microns in thickness and thus outside the product definition. Therefore this range represents rather an overestimate of the production.

• (147) To arrive at the Community production, the production of companies excluded from the Community industry representing 119 000 tonnes of production should be subtracted from the above figures. This results in a Community production in the range from 1 193 000 to 1 279 000 tonnes of production of the product under investigation. The estimate of the Community production at initiation of the proceeding of 1 240 000 tonnes falls within the range of this calculation and the 25 % threshold concerning the support to the case is fulfilled to the upper limit of the range.

• (148) The above analysis clearly shows that the information referred to by certain parties mentioned above in recital 134 is not such as to undermine the estimate of the Community production of the product under investigation prepared by the Commission which is referred to in recital 150.

• (149) On the basis of the above, the arguments concerning the lack of support of the case made by these parties had to be rejected.

DEFINITION OF THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY

• (150) At initiation stage, the accumulated production of the 29 complaining Community producers represented 331 500 tonnes, i.e. 26,7 % in relation to the total Community production of 1 240 000 tonnes measured at the stage of initiation. The accumulated production of Community producers opposing the proceeding amounted to less than half of the aforementioned amount of support.

• (151) In addition, it is noted that another 21 companies with a total production of 302 000 tonnes supported the complaint at initiation stage. Thus, in total the complaint was supported by Community producers representing more than 50 % in relation to the total Community production of 1 240 000 tonnes.

• (152) During the investigation five of the complaining Community producers failed to cooperate with the investigation. At the same time seven other producers supporting the proceeding, cooperated with the investigation.

• (153) Another three cooperating companies were excluded from the definition of the Community industry and their production was thus not included in the production of the Community industry as one company was importing significant quantities from its related exporter in China and two other companies imported significant quantities in relation to their production in the Community from the countries concerned. A fourth company, which opposed the proceeding and which did not cooperate with the investigation as a Community producer, was also excluded from the definition of the Community industry as it had a related exporting producer in one of the countries concerned and it imported significant volumes of the product concerned into the Community in relation to its production in the Community.

• (154) Certain parties claimed that the company opposing the proceeding, British Polyethylene Industries plc (BPI), had been excluded from the definition of the Community industry and thereby from the total Community production, whereas another company supporting the proceeding, Cedo Ltd, had been included, even though both companies had a similar situation having production both in the Community and in the countries concerned. To this end it has to be noted that both companies were treated on an equal basis and both companies were excluded based on the reasons set out in recital 153.

• (155) Certain parties argued that two of sampled Community producers should be excluded from the definition of the Community industry as they imported considerable quantities of the product concerned originating in the PRC and Thailand. In this respect, it should be firstly noted that, whereas it is indeed a long-standing practice that importing Community producers should be excluded from the Community industry if they are either shielded from dumping or benefiting from it, they are not excluded if it is found that the Community producers were forced to have a temporary and very limited recourse to imports, because of the depressed price situation in the Community market. In this case, the total imports of these two companies during the IP represented 1 % and 0,1 % of their respective total production. Given the small quantities at stake, the two Community producers can be considered part of the definition of the Community industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation. On this basis, the argument was rejected.

• (156) The 24 complaining Community producers and the seven other producers having cooperated with the investigation are therefore deemed to constitute the Community industry within the meaning of Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of the basic Regulation. Overall these companies represent approximately 358 000 tonnes or 31 % of the Community production measured during the investigation.

• (157) It is noted that another nine companies, representing 57 000 tonnes of production expressed their support to the investigation, however, these companies did not manage to cooperate fully with the investigation and were thus not included in the definition of the Community industry.

COMMUNITY CONSUMPTION

• (158) The apparent Community consumption was established on the basis of data reported in the complaint lodged by the complainant. The complainant's market intelligence in various markets and data derived from market information provided by two commercial agencies was taken as basis. The information gathered concerning the market in Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Spain was then used to extrapolate the community consumption in the remaining Member States.

• (159) Based on the above analysis, the Community consumption increased throughout the period considered by 6 % from the beginning of the period considered, i.e. from 1 582 000 tonnes in the year 2001 to 1 674 000 tonnes in the IP. Detailed data, expressed in tonnes, is as follows:

Consumption	2001	2002	2003	2004	IP
1 000 tonnes	1 582	1 618	1 653	1 670	1 674
Index	100	102	104	105	106
Source: Complaint	Source: Complaint	Source: Complaint	Source: Complaint	Source: Complaint	Source: Complaint

IMPORTS FROM THE COUNTRIES CONCERNEDCumulative assessment of the effects of the imports concerned

• (160) The Commission examined whether imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in the countries concerned should be assessed cumulatively in accordance with Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation. This Article provides that the effects of imports from two or more countries simultaneously subject to anti-dumping investigations are to be assessed cumulatively only if it is determined that (a) the margin of dumping established in relation to the imports from each country is more than de minimis as defined in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation and that the volume of imports of each country is not negligible and (b) a cumulative assessment is appropriate in the light of the conditions of competition between imported products and the conditions of competition between the imported products and the like Community product.

• (161) As the overall dumping margin for Malaysia was found to be below 2 %, i.e. below de minimis, imports from Malaysia were excluded from the cumulative assessment. In that regard, the dumping margins established in relation to the imports originating in the PRC and in Thailand were found to be above the de minimis level of 2 % set forth in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation. Furthermore, since during the IP imports from the PRC represented a market share of 14,4 % and imports from Thailand a market share of 4 %, the volumes of imports from the PRC and Thailand were not negligible.

• (162) As regards the conditions of competition, the investigation showed that the products imported from the PRC and Thailand were alike in all their essential physical characteristics. Furthermore, on that basis, plastic sacks and bags imported from the PRC and Thailand were interchangeable and were marketed in the Community during the period considered through comparable sales channels and under similar commercial conditions. Imports from both countries showed similar trends of prices and volumes and both showed significant levels of undercutting. Moreover, it is recalled that the imported product was found to be alike to plastic sacks and bags produced in the Community and as such competes with them under the same conditions of competition.

• (163) In the light of the above, it is considered that all the criteria set out in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation were met and that imports from the PRC and Thailand should therefore be examined cumulatively.

VOLUME OF THE IMPORTS CONCERNED AND MARKET SHARE

• (164) The volume of dumped imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC and Thailand as reported by Eurostat increased from approximately 219 000 tonnes in 2001 to 307 000 tonnes in the IP representing an increase of 40 %. The sharp increase in imports over the period concerned has absorbed 96 % of the increase in consumption that occurred in the Community market over the same period.

• (165) All imports of the product concerned were declared under CN code ex392321 00 (sacks and bags of polymers of ethylene). Imports under CN codes ex392329 10 (sacks and bags of polyvinyl chloride) and ex392329 90 (sacks and bags of other plastics) were not included in the calculation, as according to the available information there was no production of sacks and bags where polyethylene does not predominate by weight, and, consequently, there are currently no imports of the product concerned under these CN codes.

Cumulated imports	2001	2002	2003	2004	IP
in 1 000 tonnes	219	239	288	299	307
Index	100	109	132	137	140

• (166) During the period considered, the dumped imports originating in the PRC and Thailand increased their share of the Community market by 33 % from 13,8 % in 2001 to 18,3 % in the IP.

Market share	2001	2002	2003	2004	IP
Cumulated	13,8 %	14,8 %	17,4 %	18,0 %	18,3 %
Index	100	107	126	130	133

PRICES OF THE IMPORTS CONCERNED AND PRICE UNDERCUTTING

• (167) Price information given below was derived from Eurostat data based on the import volumes established using the methodology described above. This information showed that between 2001 and the IP, the average CIF prices of imports originating in the PRC and Thailand decreased by 14 %. Prices hit rock bottom in 2003 and increased slightly until the IP. However, they did not reach the price level of 2001 and 2002 and remained on a low level.

Prices of imports in euro/kg	2001	2002	2003	2004	IP
Cumulated	1,42	1,25	1,09	1,16	1,22
Index	100	88	77	82	86

• (168) For the determination of the price undercutting of the imports concerned, the Commission based its analysis on the information submitted in the course of the investigation by the sampled exporting producers and the sampled Community producers. This analysis compared per product type the actual CIF prices of the exporting producers at Community frontier level adjusted by any post-importation costs with the relevant weighted average sales prices to independent customers of the Community industry adjusted to ex-works level.

• (169) This comparison showed that during the IP, based on product types as defined in the questionnaire and on a weighted average basis, the products concerned originating in the countries concerned were sold in the Community at prices which undercut the Community industry’s prices, when expressed as a percentage of the latter, between 4,1 % to 37,9 % for the PRC and Thailand.

ECONOMIC SITUATION OF THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRYPreliminary remarks

• (170) Pursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the Community industry included an evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Community industry during the period considered. This analysis was carried out for the sampled companies as mentioned above. On this basis, the industry’s performance as measured by factors such as prices, wages, investments, profits, return on investment, cash flow and ability to raise capital has been established on the basis of information from the sampled companies. However, in order to provide a complete picture of the situation of the Community industry, for those indicators for which reliable information was available for the Community industry as a whole, this information has also been provided below. Therefore, injury factors such as market share, sales volume, employment, production capacity, inventories and production have been established for the full Community industry.

Production capacity, production, capacity utilisation

• (171) The Community industry’s production capacity increased during the period considered by 66 000 tonnes or by 17 %. Over the same period production only increased by 9 %. Consequently, the capacity utilisation rate of the Community industry decreased by 6 %.

Production 1 000 tonnes	2001	2002	2003	2004	IP
Production	328	346	353	359	358
Index	100	105	107	109	109
Production capacity	399	423	444	463	465
Index	100	106	111	116	117
Capacity utilisation %	82	82	80	78	77
Index	100	99	97	94	94
Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.

Inventories

• (172) Six non-sampled producers could not provide consistent information on their inventories due to insufficient information supplied by their stock-management systems regarding the like product. Accordingly, data from these companies had to be excluded when carrying out the analysis of stocks for the period considered. This analysis was based on the information provided by the sampled producers and 20 non-sampled producers.

Stocks	2001	2002	2003	2004	IP
Tonnes	24 110	26 446	26 757	25 016	28 994
Index	100	110	111	104	120
Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.

• (173) During the IP, inventories of finished products represented around 8 % of the Community industry’s total production volume. The level of closing stocks of the Community industry first increased by 11 % in 2003 and then marked a decrease of 7 percentage points in 2004, before rising by to 20 percentage points in the IP compared to 2001.

Sales volume, market share and growth

• (174) The sales volume of the Community industry increased by 10 % during the period considered. It reached a peak in 2004, but then declined slightly in the IP. The overall proportional increase was higher than the increase of the total consumption which was 6 %.

Sales volume	2001	2002	2003	2004	IP
tonnes	308 068	330 103	334 818	341 701	338 940
Index	100	107	109	111	110
Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.

• (175) The market share of the Community industry has increased by 4 % over the period considered. After a first increase of 5 % between 2001 and 2002, it remained unchanged until 2004 and showed a slight decrease in the IP. At the same time Community consumption increased by 6 % over the period considered. Therefore, the Community industry was able to take advantage of the growth of the market between 2001 and the IP.

Market share	2001	2002	2003	2004	IP
%	19,5 %	20,4 %	20,3 %	20,5 %	20,2 %
Index	100	105	104	105	104
Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.

Employment, productivity and wages

• (176) The level of employment of the Community industry decreased over the period considered by 1 %. Over the same period, its productivity, measured as output per person employed per year, increased by 10 %.

	2001	2002	2003	2004	IP
Number of employees	3 325	3 353	3 381	3 338	3 302
Index	100	101	102	100	99
Productivity: production per employee	99	103	104	108	108
Index	100	104	105	109	109
Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.

• (177) Over the period considered the total annual cost of labour per employee increased by 7 %. After an increase of 8 % between 2001 and 2004, the average wage decreased by 1 % between 2004 and the IP.

	2001	2002	2003	2004	IP
Total labour cost per employee in euro	32 801	34 507	34 794	35 533	35 217
Index	100	105	106	108	107
Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.

Sales prices

• (178) The sampled Community industry producers' average net sales price decreased from 1,50 euro per kg in 2001 to 1,47 euro per kg in the IP. Prices first decreased by 4 % in 2002 and by a further 2 % in 2003. Between 2003 and 2004 they showed a slight increase of 0,7 % and increased further by 3,5 % in the IP. This rather stable price development should be seen in the light of the development of raw material prices which increased considerably, i.e. by 23 %.

	2001	2002	2003	2004	IP
Sales prices to unrelated customers in the Community in euro/kg	1,50	1,44	1,41	1,42	1,47
Index	100	96	94	95	98
Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.

Profitability

• (179) During the period considered the profitability of the sampled Community industry producers' sales in the Community to unrelated customers fell by 82 %. In the years 2001 to 2002 the sampled Community industry still reached a sustainable level of profitability. However, between 2002 and the IP profitability showed a continuous strong decrease, reaching only 1,1 % in the IP, while several of the sampled companies recorded losses.

	2001	2002	2003	2004	IP
Profitability	6,3 %	6,9 %	4,0 %	2,5 %	1,1 %
Index	100	110	63	40	17
Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.

Investments and return on investments

• (180) The Community industry’s annual investment in the production of the like product declined by 30 % during the period considered from approximately EUR 16 million to less than EUR 12 million.

	2001	2002	2003	2004	IP
Investments (1 000 euro)	16 474	20 956	11 363	16 830	11 507
Index	100	127	69	102	70
Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.

• (181) The sampled Community industry producers' return on investment, which expresses their pre-tax result as a percentage of the average opening and closing net book value of assets employed in the production of the like product, decreased dramatically as a result of decreasing profitability. Whereas the return on investment remained stable between 2001 and 2002, it thereafter declined sharply to 6 % in the IP representing an overall decrease of 84 % between 2001 and the IP.

	2001	2002	2003	2004	IP
Return on investment %	37 %	37 %	20 %	12 %	6 %
Index	100	100	54	32	16
Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.

Cash flow

• (182) The sampled Community industry producers recorded a net cash inflow from operating activities during the period considered. However, when expressed as a percentage of turnover, the net cash inflow showed a marked decline in percentage terms, especially during the IP, in line with the decrease in profitability.

	2001	2002	2003	2004	IP
Cash flow (in 1 000 euro)	14 965	23 307	17 652	17 598	4 706
Index	100	156	118	118	31
Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.

Ability to raise capital

• (183) Much of the Community industry is made up of small or medium sized enterprises. In consequence, the Community industry’s ability to raise capital was reduced to some extent during the period considered, especially in the latter part thereof, when profitability was extremely low.

Recovery from past dumping or subsidisation

• (184) The Community industry was not in a situation where it had to recover from past effects of injurious dumping or subsidisation.

Magnitude of dumping margin

• (185) As concerns the impact on the Community industry of the magnitude of the actual margin of dumping, given the volume and the prices of the imports from the PRC and Thailand, this impact is substantial.

CONCLUSION ON INJURY

• (186) The examination of the above mentioned factors shows that between 2001 and the IP, the dumped imports increased sharply in terms of volume and market share. In fact, their volume increased by 40 % during the period considered and they achieved a market share of 18,3 % in the IP. It is to be noted that in the IP they accounted for approximately 57 % of total imports of the product concerned into the Community. Moreover, in the IP, the sales prices of the Community industry were substantially undercut (from 4,1 % to 37,9 %) by those of the imports of the product concerned. As a consequence, the Community industry's prices were depressed and reached close to break even level.

• (187) A deterioration of the Community industry situation was found during the period considered. The Community industry suffered a dramatic decline of 5,2 percentage points in profitability to reach close to break even level in the IP. Its return on investment decreased at the same time by 31 percentage points and there was a significant decrease of 69 % in its cashflow. Moreover its capacity utilisation decreased by 5 %, its sales prices decreased by 2 %, employment decreased by 1 %, closing stocks increased by 20 %, its investment decreased by 30 % and its ability to raise capital gradually deteriorated.

• (188) Production capacity of the Community industry increased to a certain extent during the period concerned. However, this has to be considered in the context of the total Community production which was hit by the closure of a number of companies having a production capacity of more than 140 000 tonnes. The Community industry increased its capacity by acquiring production assets from the companies subject to these shutdowns.

• (189) In the light of the foregoing, it is concluded that the Community industry is in a difficult economic and financial situation and has suffered material injury, within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.

CAUSATIONINTRODUCTION

• (190) In accordance with Articles 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether the dumped imports originating in Thailand and the PRC have caused injury to the Community industry to a degree that may be considered as material. Known factors other than the dumped imports, which could at the same time have injured the Community industry, were also examined to ensure that the possible injury caused by these other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports.

EFFECT OF THE DUMPED IMPORTS

• (191) Between 2001 and the IP, dumped imports originating in the PRC and Thailand increased by 40 % in volume. At the same time the market share of these imports increased from 13,8 % in 2001 to 18,3 % in the IP. The import prices from these countries decreased substantially during the period considered and undercut the Community industry’s prices in the IP between 4,1 % to 37,9 %.

• (192) This undercutting is resulting, on an average basis, from pricing that does not cover all costs in the commercialization chain.

• (193) The substantial increase in volume of the imports at very low and dumped prices and their gain in market share over the period considered coincided with the deterioration of the situation of the Community industry during the same period, in particular in terms profitability, sales prices, closing stocks, investment, capacity utilisation, cash flow, ability to raise capital and return on investment.

• (194) It is therefore concluded that the pressure exerted by the imports concerned, played a determining role in the injurious situation of the Community industry.

EFFECT OF OTHER FACTORSPerformance of other Community producers

• (195) As regards the sales volumes of the other Community producers, they decreased by 7,1 % in terms of volume between 2001 and the IP and decreased by 7,8 % in terms of market share during the same period. No indication was found that the prices of other Community producers were lower than those of the cooperating Community industry, or that their overall situation would be different. Therefore, it is concluded that the products produced and sold by the other Community producers did not contribute to the injury suffered by the Community industry.

Imports from other third countries

• (196) According to information derived from Eurostat, the volume of imports originating in other third countries (e.g. Malaysia, Turkey, India and Indonesia) increased by 22 % over the period considered and reached a level of approximately 231 000 tonnes in the IP. This corresponds to a market share of 13,8 %. Over the same period, the prices of these imports decreased by 11 % (from 1,66 EUR/kg in 2001 to 1,48 EUR/kg in the IP). However, it is to be noted that the average price of these imports was above that of the imports originating in the PRC and Thailand during the IP and even slightly higher than that of the Community Industry. It is therefore concluded that imports from other third countries have not materially contributed to the injury suffered by the Community industry.

Raw material prices

• (197) It was alleged by some parties that the price of polyethylene has been historically lower in Asia than its price in the EU. However, the evolution of the polyethylene prices reveals that the raw material prices in Asia fluctuated both below and above the corresponding European prices during the period considered. Based on the figures presented by these parties concerning the situation in the PRC, the average price differential in raw materials in the PRC compared to the EU decreased from 20,3 % to 12,3 % between 2001 and 2004 whilst at the same time the average price differential in the final product increased from 0,7 % to 14,8 %. As the development of prices of the raw material should have led to a decrease in the price differential of the final product rather than an increase in this price differential, the investigation showed that there was no logical correlation between the development of the raw material price and the price of the final product exported to the Community. On the contrary, the Community industry was in relatively good shape in 2001 although the price differential was at its highest, and showed an injurious situation in 2004 and the IP when the price differential was much smaller. Therefore, it must be concluded that the differential in the raw material prices cannot be considered to have contributed to the material injury of the Community industry in a significant way.

• (198) Some parties further alleged that the injury suffered by the Community industry was not caused by the dumped imports but by the increase in the polyethylene prices during the period considered in the Community. To this end it has to be noted that the polyethylene prices have on an average basis indeed increased during the period considered. However, the Community industry could not increase their respective sales prices accordingly. This inflexibility in prices has been caused by the simultaneous surge of dumped imports originating in the PRC and Thailand, at prices significantly undercutting those of the Community industry and, on an average basis, not even covering the cost of production in the PRC and Thailand. Under these circumstances it has to be concluded that the Community industry has been exposed to heavy price pressure by these dumped imports and consequently has had no possibility to compensate for the increase in the raw material prices by increasing their sales prices respectively.

• (199) Finally, it is recalled that in the context of the investigation of a causal link, it has to be examined whether the dumped imports (in terms of prices and volumes) have caused material injury to the Community industry or whether such material injury was due to other factors. In this respect, with regard to prices, Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation refers to a demonstration that the price level of the dumped imports causes injury. It therefore merely refers to a difference between price levels of dumped imports and those of the Community industry. Thus, there is no requirement to analyse the factors affecting the level of the import prices, such as for example the level of labour costs, the level of prices of raw materials or the level of the SG&A costs.

• (200) The above is also confirmed by the wording of Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation, which refers to known factors other than dumped imports. Indeed, the list of the other known factors in this Article does not make reference to any factor affecting the price level of the dumped imports. In sum, if the exports are dumped, and even if they benefited from a favourable development in prices of raw materials, it is difficult to see how the favourable development of such input prices could be another factor causing injury.

• (201) Thus, the analysis of the factors affecting the level of the prices of the dumped imports, be it differences in prices in raw materials or something else, cannot be conclusive and such analysis would go beyond the requirements of the basic Regulation. Equally on this basis, the arguments concerning the raw material prices are rejected.

CONCLUSION ON CAUSATION

• (202) The injurious situation of the Community industry coincided with a sharp increase in imports from the PRC and Thailand and a substantial price undercutting by these imports.

• (203) As to the imports from other third countries, in view of their lower market share during the IP than that of the imports concerned, and especially in view of the higher average price than that of the imports concerned during the IP and, even more important, higher than that of the Community industry, it is concluded that the effect of these other factors could not have materially contributed to the injury suffered by the Community industry. Furthermore, the effect of the differential in raw material prices in the Community and the countries concerned on the Community industry's negative developments in terms of profitability, performance and decrease in market share was negligible and in fact should have contributed positively to the situation of the Community industry.

• (204) No other factors, which could at the same time have injured the Community industry, were raised by interested parties or identified during the course of the investigation.

• (205) Given the above analysis which has properly distinguished and separated the effects of all the known factors on the situation of the Community Industry from the injurious effects of the dumped imports, the investigation confirmed that these other factors as such do not reverse the fact that the injury assessed must be attributed to the dumped imports.

• (206) It is therefore concluded that the dumped imports originating in the PRC and Thailand have caused material injury to the Community industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.

COMMUNITY INTEREST

• (207) In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether, despite the conclusion on injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed for concluding that it is not in the Community interest to adopt measures in this particular case. The impact of possible measures on all parties involved in this proceeding and also the consequences of not taking measures were considered.

INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY

• (208) The imposition of measures is expected to prevent further distortions and restore fair competition on the market. The Community industry is a competitive and viable industry which is evidenced by its situation in 2001 where it was in a relatively good shape despite sharp worldwide competition. Thus, the imposition of measures should allow it to increase market share and its sales prices, and thereby reach reasonable profit levels necessary to improve the industry’s financial situation. This will also allow them to continue investments in their production facilities, thus guaranteeing the Community industry's survival.

• (209) On the other hand, should anti-dumping measures not be imposed, it is likely that the deterioration of the already poor situation of the Community industry would continue. It would not be able to carry out the necessary investments in order to compete effectively with the dumped imports from the third countries concerned. This will force some companies to cease production and lay off their employees in the near future. The 3 300 direct jobs in the cooperating Community industry would be put at stake. The total Community production of sacks and bags involves approximately 12 000 jobs which are mainly in small and medium sized companies. With the closure of the Community production the Community would become more dependent on suppliers outside the Community.

• (210) Accordingly, it is concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping measures would allow the Community industry to recover from the effects of injurious dumping suffered and that it therefore is in the interest of the Community industry.

INTEREST OF UNRELATED IMPORTERS/TRADERS AND RETAILERS

• (211) The Commission sent questionnaires to four sampled importers/traders representing 9 % of total sales of imports from the countries concerned. However, only two importers/traders, representing 3 % of total imports from the countries concerned, replied to the questionnaire. The cooperating unrelated importers submitted that, were measures imposed, the sales price of the product concerned would rise and that the consumers would have to pay more for the product concerned and that the effect of the duty would thus be transferred to the consumers. Therefore, there would be a limited negative impact on the unrelated importers in this regard.

• (212) The product concerned is, to a large extent, distributed by retail businesses. Certain types of the product, such as grocery bags and carrier bags are distributed for free to individual customers in some countries in the Community whereas certain other types, such as freezer bags, nappy bags and bin liners, are sold to the customers. It is to be noted that at present consumers are not charged for single trip carrier bags in certain Member States such as in the United Kingdom.

• (213) The investigation showed that the claims concerning the financial impact of an anti-dumping duty on different operators, especially the retail sector, were considerably exaggerated. Some retailers put forward that a duty of 10 % would generate a supplemental cost of EUR 220 million per annum for the retail sector alone. Based on the investigation, as the total customs value of the imports concerned is around EUR 375 million, the maximum effect of an average duty of 10 % would be EUR 38 million on an annual basis across the Community. Moreover, based on the two questionnaire responses received from retailers, the average purchases of the product concerned amounted to less than 0,1 % of the turnover of these retailers. Therefore, the impact of an anti-dumping duty of the above mentioned level would contribute only to a marginal increase in their cost. In addition, some of this supplemental cost would be spread across various levels of the supply chain. The argument of these retailers was therefore rejected.

• (214) The same retailers alleged also that there is not only no supply of certain types of the product concerned by the EC industry, but that the EC industry would also not have the capacity to satisfy Community demand as a whole. In this regard it should firstly be noted with regard to the supply of sacks and bags that the imposition of anti-dumping measures would not stop the supply of the product from the countries concerned but would only restore a level playing field in the market. The imports of sacks and bags will continue to satisfy some of the supply in the Community market. Moreover, the Community industry has existing production capacity to satisfy any increase in demand. In any event, further supply of all types of plastic sacks and bags remains also possible from third countries not subject to measures. These arguments were therefore rejected.

• (215) An association representing retailers acquiring funding for charity purposes alleged that any duty would disproportionately harm their fundraising activities as they purchased bags which were distributed to their clients for free. They also said that bags used for collection of recycled items for charity purposes would also be hit should an anti-dumping duty be imposed. In this regard it is to be noted that this type of fundraising, even if for charity purposes, is made on a commercial basis. It is therefore subject to the same risks as any other commercial activity and should be assessed on the same basis. The effect of a duty concerning these retailers would not be significantly different from that of any other retailers. Therefore this argument was rejected.

INTEREST OF CONSUMERS

• (216) No consumer associations made themselves known within the time-limit set in the notice of initiation.

• (217) Some importers argued that the imposition of anti-dumping measures would lead to a rise in the prices charged to the final customer as the level of sales prices would be adjusted in accordance with the duties.

• (218) However, as stated above, some retailers distribute parts of the product for free to their clients. Unless these retailers change their well-established policy, the consumers will not feel the effect of the anti-dumping measure imposed in these cases.

• (219) An average duty of 10 % would increase the price of each imported bag on an average basis by 0,086 cents and the price of each bag sold in the Community by 0,016 cents (assuming a hypothetical weight of 7g per bag). This increment is negligible even if it would be borne only by consumers. In fact, the effect of the duty borne by the consumers will be even lower as this cost will be spread across various levels of the supply chain.

COMPETITION AND TRADE DISTORTING EFFECTS

• (220) With respect to the effects of possible measures on competition in the Community, the exporting producers concerned will be able to continue to sell certain plastic bags and sacks, as they have a strong market position. This taken with the large number of producers in the Community and imports from other third countries will ensure that users and retailers will continue to have a wide choice of different suppliers of the like product at reasonable prices.

• (221) Thus, there will be an important number of actors in the market, which will be able to satisfy the demand. On the basis of the above, it is therefore concluded that competition will most likely remain strong after the imposition of anti-dumping measures.

CONCLUSION ON COMMUNITY INTEREST

• (222) The imposition of measures on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in the People's Republic of China and Thailand would clearly be in the interest of the Community industry. It will allow the Community industry to grow and 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 sacks and bags will still be available in the market, including imports from other third countries.

• (223) In view of the above, it is concluded that there are no compelling reasons not to impose anti-dumping duties against imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand.

DEFINITIVE MEASURES

• (224) In view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, resulting injury and Community interest, and in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, definitive anti-dumping measures should be imposed on imports originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand in order to prevent further injury being caused to the Community industry by the dumped imports.

• (225) 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 and to obtain an overall profit before tax that could be reasonably 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 6 % of turnover of the sales of the like product representing a healthy profit level attributable to the industry under normal conditions of competition, which was attained by the industry before the surge of the dumped imports.

• (226) 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 are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the countries concerned and produced by the companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned.

• (227) As to one Chinese exporting producer denied MET and IT, this company should not receive an individual anti-dumping duty rate, despite having been calculated a dumping margin, as explained in recital 131. Imports of products produced by this company, a cooperating exporting producer, should therefore be subject to the average duty rate determined for cooperating exporters not selected to be part of the samples, as described in recital 228.

• (228) The duty rates for cooperating exporters not selected to be part of the samples are, for each country, the weighted average of the dumping margins found for the sampled companies, as per recital 54. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned with its name and address in the operative part or in the annexes of this Regulation, 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’.

• (229) Any claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company's activities linked to production, domestic sales 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 duties. Pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation, a new exporter review to determine individual dumping margins could not be initiated in this proceeding, as sampling was applied to the exporting producers of the PRC, Malaysia and Thailand. However, in order to ensure equal treatment between any new exporting producer and the cooperating companies not included in the samples, it is considered that a provision should be made to impose the duty applicable to the latter companies to any new exporting producers which can demonstrate that they would be entitled to a review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation.

• (230) Any claim requesting the addition of a new exporting producer in the PRC or Thailand to the lists set out in Annexes I or II of the Regulation should be addressed to the Commission forthwith with all relevant information, in particular the evidence that the company concerned fulfils the three criteria set out in Article 2 of the Regulation. If appropriate, the Regulation will accordingly be amended by updating the lists of companies in Annexes I or II benefiting from the average duty of the sample.

• (231) In view of the findings above, the anti-dumping duty rates should be as follows:

Country	Exporting producer	Dumping margin	Injury margin	AD duty rate
The PRC	Cedo (Shanghai) Ltd and Cedo (Shanghai) Household Wrappings Co. Ltd, Shanghai	7,4 %	39,0 %	7,4 %
The PRC	Jinguan (Longhai) Plastics Packing Co., Ltd, Longhai	5,1 %	74,6 %	5,1 %
The PRC	Sunway Kordis Shanghai and Shanghai Sunway Polysell, Shanghai	4,8 %	37,4 %	4,8 %
The PRC	Suzhou Guoxin Group Co., Ltd, Suzhou Guoxin Group Taicang Yihe Import & Export Co., Ltd, Taicang Dongyuan Plastic Co., Ltd and Suzhou Guoxin Group Taicang Giant Packaging Co., Ltd, Taicang	7,8 %	61,3 %	7,8 %
The PRC	Wuxi Jiayihe Packaging Co., Ltd and Wuxi Bestpac Packaging Co., Ltd, Wuxi	12,8 %	57,8 %	12,8 %
The PRC	Zhong Shan Qi Yu Plastic Products Co Ltd., Zhongshan	5,7 %	34,3 %	5,7 %
The PRC	Huizhou Jun Yang Plastics Co, Huizhou	4,8 %	30,8 %	4,8 %
The PRC	Cooperating exporting producers not in the sample	8,4 %	49,3 %	8,4 %
The PRC	All other companies	28,8 %	34,3 %	28,8 %
Thailand	King Pac Industrial Co Ltd, Chonburi and Dpac Industrial Co., Ltd, Bangkok	14,3 %	37,4 %	14,3 %
Thailand	Multibax Public Co., Ltd, Chonburi	5,1 %	10,6 %	5,1 %
Thailand	Naraipak Co., Ltd and Narai Packaging (Thailand) Ltd, Bangkok	10,4 %	29,7 %	10,4 %
Thailand	Sahachit Watana Plastic Industry Co., Ltd, Bangkok	6,8 %	23,9 %	6,8 %
Thailand	Thai Plastic Bags Industries Co., Ltd, Nakhonpathom	5,8 %	53,5 %	5,8 %
Thailand	Cooperating exporting producers not in the sample	7,9 %	27,6 %	7,9 %
Thailand	All other companies	14,3 %	37,4 %	14,3 %

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Country	Company	AD duty rate (%)	TARIC additional code
The People’s Republic of China	Cedo (Shanghai) Limited and Cedo (Shanghai) Household Wrappings, Shanghai	7,4	A757
The People’s Republic of China	Jinguan (Longhai) Plastics Packing Co., Ltd, Longhai	5,1	A758
The People’s Republic of China	Sunway Kordis (Shanghai) Ltd and Shanghai Sunway Polysell Ltd, Shanghai	4,8	A760
The People’s Republic of China	Suzhou Guoxin Group Co., Ltd, Suzhou Guoxin Group Taicang Yihe Import & Export Co., Ltd, Taicang Dongyuan Plastic Co., Ltd and Suzhou Guoxin Group Taicang Giant Packaging Co., Ltd, Taicang	7,8	A761
The People’s Republic of China	Wuxi Jiayihe Packaging Co., Ltd and Wuxi Bestpac Packaging Co., Ltd, Wuxi	12,8	A763
The People’s Republic of China	Zhong Shan Qi Yu Plastic Products Co. Ltd, Zhongshan	5,7	A764
The People’s Republic of China	Huizhou Jun Yang Plastics Co., Ltd, Huizhou	4,8	A765
The People’s Republic of China	Xinhui Alida Polythene Limited, Xinhui	4,3	A854
The People’s Republic of China	Companies listed in Annex I	8,4	See Annex I
The People’s Republic of China	All other companies	28,8	A999
Thailand	King Pac Industrial Co., Ltd, Chonburi and Dpac Industrial Co., Ltd, Bangkok	14,3	A767
Thailand	Multibax Public Co., Ltd, Chonburi	5,1	A768
Thailand	Naraipak Co. Ltd and Narai Packaging (Thailand) Ltd, Bangkok	10,4	A769
Thailand	Sahachit Watana Plastic Industry Co., Ltd, Bangkok	6,8	A770
Thailand	Thai Plastic Bags Industries Co., Ltd, Nakornpathorn	5,8	A771
Thailand	Companies listed in Annex II	7,9	A772
Thailand	All other companies	14,3	A999

Article 2

Where any new exporting producer in the PRC or Thailand provides sufficient evidence to the Commission that

• —it did not export to the Community the products described in Article 1(1) during the investigation period (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005),

• —it is not related to any of the exporters or producers in the PRC or Thailand which are subject to the anti-dumping measures imposed by this Regulation, and

• —it has actually exported to the Community the products concerned after the investigation period on which the measures are based, or it has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Community,

then the Council, acting by simple majority on a proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,  may amend Article 1(2) by adding that new exporting producer to the lists in Annexes I or II.

Article 3

The proceeding concerning imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in Malaysia is hereby terminated.

Article 4

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following 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.

ANNEX I

CHINESE COOPERATING EXPORTING PRODUCERS NOT SAMPLED

Company	City	TARIC additional code
BAO XIANG PLASTIC BAG MANUFACTURING (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD	Shenzhen	B014
BEIJING LIANBIN PLASTIC & PRINTING CO., LTD	Beijing	B015
CHANGLE BEIHAI PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD	Zhuliu	B016
CHANGLE UNITE PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD	Changle	B017
CHANGLE HUALONG PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD	Changle	B018
CHANGLE SANDELI PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD	Changle	B019
CHANGLE SHENGDA RUBBER PRODUCTS CO., LTD	Changle	B020
CHANGZHOU HUAGUANG PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD	Wujin	B021
CHEONG FAT PLASTIC BAGS (CHINA) PRINTING FACTORY	Shenzhen	B022
CHUN HING PLASTIC PACKAGING MANUFACTORY LTD	Hong Kong	B023
CHUN YIP PLASTICS (SHENZHEN) LIMITED	Shenzhen	B024
CROWN POLYETHYLENE PRODUCTS (INT’L) LTD	Hong Kong	B025
DALIAN JINSHIDA PACKING PRODUCTS CO., LTD	Dalian	B026
DONG GUAN HARBONA PLASTIC & METALS FACTORY CO., LTD	Dongguan	B027
DONGGUAN CHERRY PLASTIC INDUSTRIAL, LTD	Dongguan	B028
DONGGUAN FIRSTWAY PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD	Dongguan	B029
DONGGUAN MARUMAN PLASTIC PACKAGING COMPANY LIMITED	Dongguan	B030
DONGGUAN NAN SING PLASTICS LIMITED	Dongguan	B031
DONGGUAN NOZAWA PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD	Dongguan	B032
DONGGUAN RUI LONG PLASTICS FACTORY	Dongguan	B033
FOSHAN SHUNDE KANGFU PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD	Shunde	B034
FU YUEN ENTERPRISES CO.	Hong Kong	B035
GOLD MINE PLASTIC INDUSTRIAL LIMITED	Jiangmen	B036
GOOD-IN HOLDINGS LTD	Hong Kong	B037
HANG LUNG PLASTIC FACTORY (SHENZHEN) LTD	Shenzhen	B038
HUIYANG KANLUN POLYETHYLENE MANUFACTURE FACTORY	Huizhou	B039
JIANGMEN CITY XIN HUI HENGLONG PLASTIC LTD	Jiangmen	B040
JIANGMEN TOPTYPE PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD	Jiangmen	B041
JIANGMEN XINHUI FENGZE PLASTIC COMPANY LTD	Jiangmen	B042
JIANGYIN BRAND POLYTHENE PACKAGING CO., LTD	Jiangyin	B043
JINAN BAIHE PLASTIC CO., LTD	Jinan	B044
JINAN CHANGWEI PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD	Jinan	B045
JINAN CHENGLIN PLASTIC PRODUCTS COMPANY LTD	Jinan	B046
JINAN MINFENG PLASTIC CO., LTD	Jinan	B047
JINYANG PACKING PRODUCTS (WEIFANG) CO., LTD	Qingzhou	B048
JUXIAN HUACHANG PLASTIC CO., LTD	Liuguanzhuang	B049
JUXIAN HUAYANG PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD	Liuguanzhuang	B050
KIN WAI POLY BAG PRINTING LTD	Hong Kong	B051
LAIZHOU JINYUAN PLASTICS INDUSTRY & TRADE CO., LTD	Laizhou	B052
LAIZHOU YUANXINYIE PLASTIC MACHINERY CO., LTD	Laizhou	B053
LICK SAN PLASTIC BAGS (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD	Shenzhen	B054
LINQU SHUNXING PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD	Linqu	B055
LONGKOU CITY LONGDAN PLASTIC CORPORATION LTD	Longkou	B056
NEW CARING PLASTIC MANUFACTORY LTD	Jiangmen	B057
NEW WAY POLYPAK DONGYING CO., LTD	Dongying	B058
NINGBO HUASEN PLASTHETICS CO., LTD	Ningbo	B059
NINGBO MARUMAN PACKAGING PRODUCT CO., LTD	Ningbo	B060
POLY POLYETHYLENE BAGS AND PRINTING CO.	Hong Kong	B061
QINGDAO NEW LEFU PACKAGING CO., LTD	Qingdao	B062
QUANZHOU POLYWIN PACKAGING CO., LTD	Nanan	B063
RALLY PLASTICS CO., LTD ZHONGSHAN	Zhongshan	B064
RIZHAO XINAO PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD	Liuguanzhuang	B065
DONGGUAN SEA LAKE PLASTIC PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING CO., LTD	Dongguan	B066
SHANGHAI HANHUA PLASTIC PACKAGE PRODUCT CO., LTD	Shanghai	B067
SHANGHAI HUAYUE PACKAGING PRODUCTS CO., LTD	Shanghai	B068
SHANGHAI LIQIANG PLASTICS INDUSTRY CO., LTD	Zhangyan	B069
SHANGHAI MINGYE PLASTICS GOODS COMPANY LIMITED	Shanghai	B070
SHANGHAI QUTIAN TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD	Shanghai	B071
SHANTOU ULTRA DRAGON PLASTICS LTD	Shantou	B072
SHAOXING YUCI PLASTICS AND BAKELITE PRODUCTS CO., LTD	Shangyu	B073
SHENG YOUNG INDUSTRIAL (ZHONGSHAN) CO., LTD	Zhongshan	B074
SUPREME DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED	Hong Kong	B075
TAISHING PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD ZHONGSHAN	Zhongshan	B076
TIANJIN MINGZE PLASTIC PACKAGING CO., LTD	Tianjin	B077
UNIVERSAL PLASTIC & METAL MANUFACTURING LIMITED	Hong Kong	B078
WAI YUEN INDUSTRIAL AND DEVELOPMENT LTD	Hong Kong	B079
WEIFANG DESHUN PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD	Changle	B080
WEIFANG HENGSHENG RUBBER PRODUCTS CO., LTD	Changle	B081
WEIFANG HONGYUAN PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD	Changle	B082
WEIFANG HUASHENG PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD	Changle	B083
WEIFANG KANGLE PLASTICS CO., LTD	Changle	B084
WEIFANG LIFA PLASTIC PACKING CO., LTD	Weifang	B085
WEIFANG XINLI PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD	Weifang	B086
WEIFANG YUANHUA PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD	Weifang	B087
WEIFANG YUJIE PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD	Weifang	B088
WEIHAI WEIQUAN PLASTIC AND RUBBER PRODUCTS CO., LTD	Weihai	B089
WINNER BAGS PRODUCT COMPANY (SHENZHEN) LIMITED	Shenzhen	B090
WUI HING PLASTIC BAGS PRINTING (SHENZHEN) COMPANY LIMITED	Shenzhen	B091
XIAMEN EGRET PLASTICS CO., LTD	Gaoqi	B092
XIAMEN GOOD PLASTIC CO., LTD	Xiamen	B109
XIAMEN RICHIN PLASTIC CO., LTD	Xiamen	B093
XIAMEN UNITED OVERSEA ENTERPRISES LTD	Xiamen	B094
XIAMEN XINGYATAI PLASTIC INDUSTRY CO., LTD	Xiamen	B095
XINTAI CHUNHUI MODIFIED PLASTIC CO., LTD	Xintai	B096
YANTAI BAGMART PACKAGING CO., LTD	Yantai	B097
YANTAI LONGQUAN PLASTIC AND RUBBER PRODUCTS CO., LTD	Yantai	B098
YAU BONG POLYBAGS PRINTING CO., LTD	Hong Kong	B099
YINKOU FUCHANG PLASTIC PRODUCTS. CO., LTD	Yingkou	B100
YONGCHANG (CHANGLE) PLASTIC INDUSTRIES CO., LTD	Weifang	B101
ZHANGJIAGANG YUANHEYI PAPER & PLASTIC COLOR PRINTING & PACKING CO., LTD	Zhangjiagang	B102
ZHONGSHAN DONGFENG HUNG WAI PLASTIC BAG MFY.	Zhongshan	B103
ZHONGSHAN HUANGPU TOWN LIHENG METAL & PLASTIC FACTORY	Zhongshan	B104
ZHUHAI CHINTEC PACKING TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISE CO., LTD	Zhuhai	B105
ZIBO WEIJIA PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD	Zibo	B106

ANNEX II

THAI COOPERATING EXPORTING PRODUCERS NOT SAMPLED

TARIC Additional Code A772

APPLE FILM CO., LTD.	Samutprakarn Province
C P PACKAGING INDUSTRY CO., LTD.	Bangkok
K. INTERNATIONAL PACKAGING CO., LTD.	Samutsakorn
POLY PLAST (THAILAND) CO., LTD.	Samutsakorn
POLY WORLD CO., LTD.	Bangkok
SIAM FLEXIBLE INDUSTRIES CO., LTD.	Samutsakorn
THAI GRIPTECH CO. LTD. et SUPER GRIP CO., LTD.	Bangkok
THANTAWAN INDUSTRY PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED	Nakornphathom
UNITY THAI PRODUCTS CO., LTD. et UNITY THAI PRODUCTS (1999) CO., LTD.	Bangkok
UNIVERSAL POLYBAG COMPANY LTD.	Chonburi
ZIPLAS INTERNATIONAL CO LTD.	Bangkok

[^E0001]: OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ L 340, 23.12.2005, p. 17).

[^E0002]: OJ C 159, 30.6.2005, p. 19.

[^E0003]: Applied Market Information Ltd, web address: www.amiplastics.com

[^E0004]: AMI (web address: www.amiplastics.com), Polyethylene film extruders, 6th edition (ISBN 1 904188 12 5), p. 12.

[^E0005]: AMI (web address: www.amiplastics.com), Polyethylene film extruders, 6th edition (ISBN 1 904188 12 5), p. 10.

[^E0006]: AMI (web address: www.amiplastics.com), Polyethylene film extruders, 6th edition (ISBN 1 904188 12 5), p. 7.

[^E0007]: AMI (web address: www.amiplastics.com), Polyethylene film extruders, 6th edition (ISBN 1 904188 12 5), p. 12.

[^E0008]: AMI (web address: www.amiplastics.com), Polyethylene film extruders, 6th edition (ISBN 1 904188 12 5), p. 6.

[^E0009]: AMI (web address: www.amiplastics.com), Polyethylene film extruders, 6th edition (ISBN 1 904188 12 5), p. 10.