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.

Where the countervailing duties imposed are less than the amount of countervailable subsidies found, an interim review may be initiated if the Community producers or any other interested party submit, normally within two years from the entry into force of the measures, sufficient evidence that, after the original investigation period and prior to or following the imposition of measures, export prices have decreased or that there has been no movement, or insufficient movement of resale prices of the imported product in the Community.

Prices, profitability and employment (47) Prices of the Community industry have, on average, dropped when comparing the original investigation period with the current investigation period.

During the investigation period, unused capacity at the exporter's Japanese plant accounted for a bigger quantity than the 56,6 million disposable flint lighters Tokai Corporation exported from Japan in 1989 (i.e. the investigation period of the original investigation.

On this basis, the total consumption has grown between 1989 (i.e. the investigation period of the original investigation) and 1993 by 15 %.

Since the original investigation period the financial situation of the Community industry as a whole - after a certain improvement in 1991 - deteriorated up to the end of the current investigation period.

Production and sales of the Community industry remained stable between the original investigation period and the current investigation period, despite a certain improvement noticeable in 1990 and 1991.

The movement of prices in the Community was assessed by comparing, for the same delivery conditions, the average price, including duties, referred to in recital 13, of the new IP with that determined in the original IP, plus the duties.

The investigation confirmed that the company concerned had not exported the product concerned during the original period of investigation and that it had begun exporting to the Community only after this period.

The applicant alleges that it did not export the product concerned to the Community during the period of investigation on which the anti-dumping measures were based, i.e. the period from 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998 (the original investigation period).

In the context of this review investigation, it is extremely important to note that the export price of the Chinese lighters dropped by around 23 % in the current investigation period when compared to the original investigation period (1989).

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.

The current investigation revealed that, since the end of the original period of investigation, no change occurred that would alter the conclusions that the above schemes are still countervailable.

It was finally examined whether the new exporters had made use of any subsidy schemes that were established after the end of the original investigation period, or had received ad hoc subsidies after this date.

Imports from Japan and the People's Republic of China during the period covered by the original investigation amounted to around 130 million units and collectively accounted for around 30 % of the apparent Community consumption.

It should be noted that imports from the countries concerned during the investigation period represented only a fraction of the quantities which were exported during the original investigation period (1 April 1990 - 31 March 1991), i.e. about 10 % in the case of the People's Republic of China and Taiwan and less than 1 % in the case of Japan.

To this end, exhaustive information on aniline prices during the new IP was obtained from the same source that had been used in order to determine the normal value in the original investigation, i.e. a cooperating company in the analogue country, namely India.

In establishing whether the prices in the Community had moved sufficiently, the price levels charged during the new IP were compared to those charged during the original investigation period (original IP) which had covered the period from 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001.

Indeed, between the original investigation period and the current investigation period the market share held by Chinese imports has considerably increased, namely from 1,5 % to 10 %, i.e. 8,5 % of total consumption, while the Community industry's market share decreased by 9 % of total Community consumption.

The Community industry has made considerable efforts to cope with the continuous decrease of prices, notably by reducing the number of its employees between the original investigation period and the current investigation period by 13 % but, at the same time, maintaining production and sales in order to remain viable.

It emerged from the category-by-category analysis that prices in categories A and C (which accounted for most Chinese bicycle imports in the original investigation) increased overall by 13 % during the period considered, although the pattern of the increase was not the same for both types;

As concerns the impact on the situation of the Community industry of the magnitude of the actual margin of dumping found during the IP, it should be noted that the margin found for Russia is higher than that found in the original IP (see recital 37).

Between the original investigation period and 1993, exports to third countries by the Community industry showed an overall stable trend (in volume, index basis 1989 = 100, 1990 amounted to 106, 1991 to 105, 1992 to 95 and 1993 to 100).

By a notice published in March 1992 (3) the Commission initiated a review of Regulation (EEC) No 3433/91 in so far as it concerned certain Chinese companies which alleged, in particular, that they did not export the product concerned during the period covered by the original investigation (a so-called newcomer review).

The remaining three companies which had made themselves known in the original investigation refused to provide any cooperation although it is widely known that they have their head offices, main production and R& D facilities in Japan and that, for at least two of them, TCS with their brand name have been sold in the Community during the IP in substantial quantities.

During the original investigation there was no claim from the CI (nor any indication), that it encountered problems to raise the capital needed for its activity. However, it is clear that the significant deterioration in the financial situation of the CI (see in particular profitability, cash flow and ROI), may negatively affect the ability to raise capital in the near future.

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.

In November 2001, CESA requested the Commission to examine whether adverse effects had been suffered by the Community industry during the period covering the 13 months following the end of the original investigation period (i.e. 1 December 2000 to 31 December 2001).