The European Lighting Companies Federation ('the complainant') claimed that data relating to Philips Lighting B.V. ('Philips') should have been taken into account in the injury analysis, as this company had also suffered injury.

Replies were received from one of the two complainant Community producers, one exporting producer in India, as well as from its related exporter outside the Community, and from one user and two unrelated importers in the Community.

The GOK has claimed that, as the complainant in this proceeding did not make any allegations concerning the tax provisions of certain Articles of TERCL, they should not be included in any determination to be made in this proceeding.

One interested party argued that the time period chosen was unrepresentative and disproportionate and that the analysis should start in 1992, the year when the complainant started its production of black colorformers in the Community.

In addition, as regards specifically the injury margins calculation, the complainant reiterated its statement that the profit margin that the Community industry might achieve in the absence of injurious dumping should be at least 10%.

The following 16 complainant Community producers and four Community producers supporting the complaint and which cooperated in the investigation, made up the 'Community industry' in the meaning of Article 4 of the basic Regulation, i.e.:

(18) Questionnaire replies were received from the five sampled complainant Community producers, from a representative sample of eight exporting producers (plus three related companies) in India and one unrelated importer in the Community.

The Commission has, however, adjusted the dumping margin to be applied to non-cooperating producers in Hong Kong to the weighted average margin for the different product types sold for export to the Community, as alleged by the complainant.

The Commission shall take a decision as soon as possible on the opening of a Community examination procedure following any complaint made in accordance with Articles 3 or 4; the decision shall normally be taken within 45 days of the lodging of the complaint; this period may be suspended at the request, or with the agreement, of the complainant, in order to allow the provision of complementary information which may be needed to fully assess the validity of the complainant's case.

The complainant, the European Fertilisers Manufacturers' Association (EFMA), also made comments on the method of constructing normal value for the Lithuanian producer and claimed that the Commission should have made adjustments in respect of:

- other Community producers which were not complainants and did not cooperate.

One Turkish exporter claimed that one complainant Community producer should be excluded from the Community production, considering that it had moved the bulk of its CTV production outside the Community, i.e. to its factories in Poland and Hungary.

The fact that several non-complainant Community producers have cooperated in the framework of the investigation provided the Commission with the opportunity to examine their status in relation to Article 9(1) of the basic Regulation in more detail.

47 U. S. C. § 206. A complainant who files suit claiming a privacy violation under the cable-specific section 551 of the Cable Act may, in addition to actual damages and attorneys' fees, also be awarded punitive damages and reasonable litigation costs.

47 U. S. C. § 206. A complainant who files suit claiming a privacy violation under the cable-specific section 551 of the Cable Act may, in addition to actual damages and attorneys' fees, also be awarded punitive damages and reasonable litigation costs.

The complainant submitted that there were indications of the emergence of new forms of ammonium nitrate, i.e. mixtures of ammonium nitrate with other products, whose only purpose is to circumvent possible anti-dumping measures concerning ammonium nitrate.

the Republic of Colombia is in breach of its obligations deriving from Article III.2 of GATT 1994. Therefore, the practice contested by the complainant appeared to be an obstacle to trade within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Trade barriers Regulation,

they do not relate to the rights of third parties, and complainants in particular.

The complainant objected strongly to the granting of individual treatment to this producer at the definitive stage, given that the Commission had rejected the request at the provisional stage on the grounds that it was 'not sufficiently free of State influence'.

The Commission officially advised the complainant Community producers, as well as the other known Community producers, the exporting producer, importers and users association known to be concerned and the representatives of India of the initiation of the proceeding.

The Commission considers it essential that the complainant Community industry and these new independent Community producers be given the opportunity to attain, in conditions of fair trade undistorted by dumping, the levels of profitability needed for economic viability.

Under these circumstances the Commission considers that the complainant's allegations are well founded and that the Brazilian practices constitute an obstacle to trade within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Regulation, as they are contrary to the following provisions:

47 U. S. C. § 207. A complainant who prevails in a federal court action against a telecommunications carrier for failure to protect customer proprietary information under the broader section 222 of the Communications Act may be awarded actual damages and attorneys' fees.

47 U. S. C. § 207. A complainant who prevails in a federal court action against a telecommunications carrier for failure to protect customer proprietary information under the broader section 222 of the Communications Act may be awarded actual damages and attorneys' fees.

As to the level of profit of 10 % used, it should be noted that this was the level alleged by the complainant, and was found to be less than that realized by the sole producer with sales of the product concerned on the Hong Kong market, albeit in unrepresentative quantities.

In this context, contrary to what the complainant claims, the Panel report concluded that producers which are not part of the Community industry should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing the situation of the domestic industry of the importing country.

The European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association, on behalf of the European complainant producers of the original investigation, hereinafter referred to as `the Community industry` , requested, within the time limits, to take part in this investigation as an interested party.

The Commission officially advised the complainant Community producers, the exporting producers, the importers, the users (as well as representative associations) known to be concerned and the representatives of the exporting countries concerned of the initiation of the proceeding.

(4) The Commission officially advised the complainant Community producers, exporting producers in the PRC, importers/traders, user industries, and associations of users known to be concerned, as well as the representatives of the Chinese Government of the initiation of the review.

(12) The Commission considers that the complainant's allegation on the granting of subsidies is well-founded and that the Korean practices constitute an obstacle to trade within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Regulation, as they are contrary to Articles 3 and 5 of the SCM Agreement.

Where the Ombudsman inspects the file of the institution concerned or takes evidence from a witness in accordance with Article 5.2 and 5.3 above, the complainant shall not have access to any confidential documents or confidential information obtained as a result of the inspection or hearing.

The Commission officially informed the complainant Community producers, other known Community producers, exporting producers, importers and their associations, the European Office of Consumers (BEUC) and the representatives of the exporting countries about the initiation of the investigations.

The complainant suggested that the Commission recalculate the producer's gas costs on the basis of figures obtained from a Community gas supplier showing what was considered to be the lowest reasonable price the Lithuanian producer could be expected to have paid for gas in the investigation period.

The Commission officially advised the complainant Community producer and its representative association in the Community, the exporters, the producers, the importers, and the users known to be concerned and the representatives of the exporting country concerned of the initiation of the proceedings.

It should be recalled that the two complainant Community producers were heavily injured already in the past by imports of RBMs originating in the PRC and Malaysia which, as described in Regulation (EC) No 119/ 97, led, inter alia, to a 28 % decrease of their workforce between 1992 and October 1995.

It has been claimed that one of the complainant Community producers should not have been taken into account for the purpose of determining the representativity of the applicants since this company allegedly lost its right to produce the product concerned for reasons of intellectual property rights.

The complainant Community producer and its representative association, the exporters, the producers, the importers, the users known to be concerned as well as the representatives of the exporting country were officially informed of the clarification/extension of the product scope of the proceedings.

It should be recalled that the two complainant Community producers were heavily injured already in the past by imports of RBMs originating in the PRC and Malaysia which, as described in Regulation (EC) No 119/ 97(1), led, inter alia, to a 28 % decrease of their workforce between 1992 and October 1995.

(2) The proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged in November 2002 by the Committee of the Cotton and Allied Textile Industries of the European Communities (Eurocoton or "the complainant") on behalf of producers representing more than 25 % of the total Community production of cotton-type bedlinen.

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.

In view of the nature of these subsidies, and in particular the fact that they are granted under the general umbrella of the TERCL (against which the complainant has made a number of subsidy allegations) it is concluded that the Commission is entitled to investigate them and recommend countervailing action if appropriate.

Were this not the case, then, in addition to contributing to the injury, producers related to exporters of otherwise benefiting from dumping would be in a position to hinder complainant Community producers in their attempts, or even block such attempts, to seek legitimate relief against the injury caused by dumped imports.

As regards the price difference between granular and prilled ammonium nitrate, the complainant submitted that after the IP, and in particular by the 2000/2001 season, the apparent price difference between prilled and granular ammonium nitrate had been eradicated in certain markets and therefore no allowance should be granted.

(4) The Commission officially advised the exporting producers and importers known to be concerned as well as their associations, the representatives of the exporting country concerned, the complainant and the other Community producers, known associations of producers as well as known users, of the initiation of the proceeding.

One user expressed its support of the complainant Community industry stating that the long-term benefits from the overall quality of provision and service obtained from the Community industry would outweigh any temporary benefits which could be achieved by purchasing REWS from the exporting countries concerned at dumped prices.

The complainant alleged that the Brazilian non-automatic import licensing and in particular its enforcement through the imposition of compulsory payment terms and compulsory minimum prices are inconsistent with several provisions of the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (hereafter 'the WTO Agreement') and its annexes.

The complainant argued that the transaction-to-transaction methodology should have been used to establish the dumping margin, because the weighted average to weighted average method masked the Lithuanian producer's pricing strategy (which was allegedly designed to avoid anti-dumping measures) and did not reflect the full degree of dumping.

In the absence of cooperation from the Russian exporters, the Commission, in accordance with Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, based its analysis on information provided in the review request as well as on information obtained from an independent specialised market study submitted by the complainant in the course of the investigation.

In this respect, it is confirmed that no proceeding could be initiated as regards Bulgaria and Poland since no dumping existed on the basis of the evidence of normal value and export price information for the Bulgarian and Polish products provided by the complainant in the same manner as for the countries concerned by the present investigation.

Sampling, which is fully compatible with the requirements of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, was necessary in view of the number of complainant/supporting Community producers and the need to limit the investigation to a reasonable number of parties which could reasonably be investigated within the time available (a sample of five companies).