In this respect, although a slight improvement occurred between 2000 and the IP, it is far from a 25 % improvement as claimed by the exporting producer and in addition it should be pointed out that the figures from both investigations are not comparable, since the definition of the Community industry is not the same in these investigations.

On the basis of the information collected in the course of the investigation, the Commission decided not to include CN codes 3920 62 11 and 3920 62 13 within the scope of the investigation as no information has been submitted which would suggest that the claim made by the Community industry in the complaint in terms of lack of interchangeability is not correct.

Clinical investigations must be performed on the basis of an appropriate plan of investigation reflecting the latest scientific and technical knowledge and defined in such a way as to confirm or refute the manufacturer's claims for the device;

But, following the disclosure of the findings of the investigation, it claimed that this change of category of the assets was advised by tax consultants and that the purpose of this change was to reduce the taxable profits in order to avoid paying income tax.

One Indian exporting producer claimed that the costs of production for the investigation period (1 January 1997 to 31 March 1998, hereinafter referred to as the 'IP'), should be established on the basis of data relating to the period preceding the IP.

In view of the fact that the first interested party gave no other factors which it considered could be responsible for the injury suffered by the Community industry, this claim adds nothing new to the investigation and should therefore be rejected.

However, this exporting producer's new claim for a further adjustment on import duties for a material imported and paid for by a related company cannot be accepted since this claim was neither made in good time nor demonstrated to affect price comparability and in addition, the new information submitted in this respect was not verifiable at this stage of the investigation.

Furthermore, the company claimed that it had not exported the product concerned to the Community during the original period of investigation (1 March 1994 to 28 February 1995) but that it had exported the product concerned to the Community subsequently.

The exporting producer claims that it opted to use its accumulated net losses from the previous years, instead of the corporate income tax exemption, to offset current taxable profit, and consequently no benefit was obtained during the period of investigation.

The GOT and one Community importer claimed that the high level of market share of the Community industry (89 % during the investigation period) showed that the Community industry could not suffer injury caused by imports from Taiwan, with a much smaller market share (6,1 %).

They further claimed that the initiation of a new proceeding against the Republic of Korea two months after the termination of a previous proceeding (see recital 7 of the provisional Regulation), contradicted the finding in that investigation that there was no likelihood of a recurrence of dumping.

The Administrative Commission may arrange for any checks appropriate to the investigation of the statistical and accounting data needed in the drawing up of the statement of claims provided for in paragraph 1, in particular to ensure their compliance with the rules laid down under this Title 2.

The Government of Taiwan (GOT) and one Community importer claimed that the high level of market share of the Community industry (89 % during the investigation period) showed that the Community industry could not suffer injury caused by imports from Taiwan, with a much smaller market share (6,1 %).

In addition to the GOK's claim regarding the non-specificity of the provisions of this Article, the GOK pointed out that the provision of preferential treatment for domestic over imported facilities which was contained in this Article was deleted at the end of 1996 which is before the investigation period.

It was claimed by one of the other operators in the Community (which has been excluded from the definition of a Community producer because it is also one of the exporting producers in the PRC) that the level of cooperation mentioned above (39 %) was not sufficient to justify the continuation of the investigation.

The Community industry claimed that two other Taiwanese producers of microdisks are still active in the business and that these two companies, which had not cooperated in the investigation, would export large quantities of 3,5` microdisks at dumped prices, should measures be repealed in respect of Taiwan.

Some interested parties reiterated their claim concerning the non-inclusion of certain third countries in the investigation, namely Bulgaria, Poland, Turkey and the United States of America in the sense that this non-inclusion would be discriminatory and therefore invalidate the initiation of the proceeding.

An Indonesian exporter claimed that imports originating in Indonesia should not be assessed cumulatively with the other imports concerned, especially in view of the differences in trends in volumes between imports originating in this country and in the other countries subject to the investigation.

The investigation revealed that certain camera models concerned were indeed imported already before an adequate request for exemption had been submitted to the Commission, although initially Ikegami claimed that no imports of the models subject to the request had taken place prior to such request.

It was argued that it would be incorrect to reject the company's claim for a duty drawback adjustment in the context of the anti-dumping investigation, when at the same time the DEPB scheme from which the company benefits had been considered as an export subsidy in the context of the anti-subsidy proceeding.

The investigation confirmed the complainant's legal claim that the C-57 Amendment to the Canadian Trade- Marks Act violates Articles 23.1 and 2 as well as Article 24.3 (the so-called standstill clause) of TRIPS and that such infringements cannot be justified on the basis of the exception under Article 24.6 of TRIPS.

The HKETO claimed, at the initiation of the investigation, that there was only one Hong Kong exporting producer of 3,5" microdisks still active in the market and that the production capacity of this company, if exported, was too limited to cause injury to the Community industry even if the anti-dumping duties were allowed to lapse.

Another interested producer in the Peo` le's Republic of China, which did not cooperate in the investigation, claimed that the Community indus` ry's injury was not due to the imports from the Peo` le's Republic of China, but rather was a result of ` ,5" microdisks being a mature product which would disappear within the next two years.

Moreover, the Indian exporters claimed that the deduction, in accordance with Article 14(1) of the basic Regulation, of the export subsidies accounted for by the existing countervailing duty from the anti-dumping duty was legally not justified as the countervailing duties were determined on the basis of a different investigation period.

It was also claimed by the same importers' association that, since the deterioration of the situation of the Community industry has already been attributed to Poland and Ukraine in the context of another investigation, leading to the imposition of anti-dumping measures, it cannot be considered in relation to the imports of AN originating in Russia as well.

Secondly, as to the development of the Community industry's production volumes, and in particular the aspect of the closure of the manufacturing plant located in Germany, the investigation has confirmed that this plant was indeed closed at the end of 1995 and that the related facilities were not relocated to Austria as claimed by one interested party.

The wording of the description of the relevant CN code was understood correctly by all interested parties to this proceeding except for the users' association mentioned, that repeated a claim that had already been rejected in an earlier investigation on imports of PSF from Australia, Indonesia and Thailand contained in Regulation (EC) No 1522/2000 ().

It also claimed that its actual sales volume for export to the Community was below the de minimis threshold, on the basis that the level of consumption established by the Commission at provisional stage (see recitals 41 to 44 of the provisional Regulation) was highly imprecise, and requested that the investigation should be terminated with respect to China.

However, in accordance with the findings in the initial investigation (Commission Regulation (EC) No 618/ 1999, recital 34, as confirmed by Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999), this claim cannot be granted since the sale of a licence at a price less than the face value is a purely commercial decision which does not alter the countervailable benefit from this scheme.

It was also claimed that measures were against the Community interest as the production capacity of the Community industry was insufficient to meet Community demand and as a possible duopolistic situation based on the two Community producers could result from the closure of the market to imports from India and also from the PRC, which is itself subject to the parallel anti-dumping investigation.

In particular, it claimed that its selling, general and administrative (SG & A) expenses had been overstated and that these same expenses had been taken from a different set of accounts (the audited accounts for 1998) to that used for calculating the manufacturing cost (internal management accounts covering the investigation period, June 1998 to May 1999), thereby distorting the results.

It was also claimed that the interest rate used for the provisional findings should have been the one which is used for comparable loans and that anyway, the interest rate applied by the Commission is not commensurate with the interest rate which the companies are capable of obtaining on the market and that commercial loans were in fact made to the companies during the investigation period.

The exporting producers claimed that the interest rate used for the provisional findings should have been the one which is used for comparable loans and that anyway, the interest rate applied by the Commission is not commensurate with the interest rate which the companies are capable of obtaining on the market and that commercial loans were in fact made to the companies during the investigation period.

'(b) In anti-dumping investigations concerning imports from the Russian Federation, the People's Republic of China, the Ukraine, Vietnam and Kazakhstan and any non-market-economy country which is a member of the WTO at the date of the initiation of the investigation, normal value will be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6, if it is shown, on the basis of properly substantiated claims by one or more producers subject to the investigation and in accordance with the criteria and procedures set out in subparagraph (c) that market economy conditions prevail for this producer or producers in respect of the manufacture and sale of the like product concerned.

Concerning the calculation of the subsidy amount as set out in recitals 72 to 74 of the provisional Regulation, the GOI and the company concerned claimed that the amount of benefit obtained under the tax deferral incentive should be allocated over the total sales during the investigation period ('IP') rather than over the total domestic sales during the IP as it was provisionally allocated, because it is a benefit to the company as a whole and should for this reason not solely be attributed to its domestic sales.

Whereas the Myanmar authorities were formally notified of the opening of the investigation; whereas they denied that the practices referred to in the complaint constituted forced labour, citing the exceptions in Article 2 (2) of ILO Convention No 29, and claiming that those exceptions covered the 1907 Town Act and the 1908 Village Act, which allow the population to be made to carry out works and services; whereas that interpretation has been challenged by the ILO, whose competent bodies have called for the immediate repeal of the laws in question in order to ensure compliance with the letter and the spirit of Convention No 29;

One importer came forward during the investigation claiming that there was production of the product concerned in Taiwan.

interference with private causes of action, including the prevention, investigation or detection of legal claims or the right to a fair trial;

Moreover, the exporter's claim refers to an estimated figure of such rebates, whereas the amounts actually deducted by the Commission were those verified in the investigation.

It was claimed that bleached bed linen sold to institutions should be excluded from the scope of the investigation on the grounds that it should not be treated as a product concerned.

During the investigation, which led to the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties, Republica SA claimed that a substantial volume of its domestic sales was made on the basis of debt compensatory arrangements.

In this respect it was claimed that the volume of imports from Croatia in the investigation period (hereinafter referred to as "IP") was substantially lower than that from Ukraine, while the prices of these imports were higher.

This company claimed that it was not individually investigated during the original period of investigation (i.e. from 1 October 1998 to 30 September 1999) for reasons other than the refusal to cooperate with the Commission.

if the claim does not appear to be justified, the competent Commission department will ask the firm, in the course of the investigation and no later than the time at which the statement of objections is sent, to review its position.

Furthermore, it claimed that it had not exported the product concerned during the original period of investigation (i.e. from 1 October 1998 to 30 September 1999), but had exported the product concerned to the Community since then.

To the contrary, the significant price undercutting by the dumped imports (see recital 60) clearly shows that the imports under investigation were the main cause of injury to the Community industry and, therefore, the claim cannot be accepted.

Following disclosure of the essential findings of the investigation, the importer which cooperated claimed that a Hong Kong Company, Cli-Claque Ltd, allegedly manufacturing flint disposable lighters in the Philippines, should also have been contacted.

One Indian exporting producer claimed that the costs of production for the investigation period (1 January 1997 to 31 March 1998, hereinafter referred to as the "IP"), should be established on the basis of data relating to the period preceding the IP.

A worker, members of his family or his survivors who, during the investigation of a claim, cease to be entitled to benefits in kind under the legislation of the Member State last competent, shall nevertheless receive such benefits under the following conditions:

In view of the above, the claim to exclude certain types of IGH from the scope of the present investigation had to be rejected, and all IGH containing a gear-shifting mechanism with three or more gears are considered as a single product for the purpose of this proceeding.