The company was informed that it should have made itself known and request the questionnaire at the time of initiation of the investigation.

Those companies selected in the sample which fully cooperated during the investigation were attributed their own subsidy margin and individual duty rate.

More than 80 companies identified themselves, provided the requested information within the three-week period and had exported the product concerned to the Community during the investigation period.

The individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation.

In the present investigation, the EPZ/EOU scheme was used by one company for the import of raw materials, capital goods and for the procurement of goods on the domestic market.

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.

A total of 178 companies provided the requested information, but only 156 companies reported production and sales of the product concerned to the Community during the period between 1 October 2001 and 30 September 2002 ("investigation period" or "IP") and expressed a wish to participate in the sample.

Two out of these five companies, which were among the smaller ones, were not able to submit a complete list of all transactions to unrelated customers during the investigation period and were therefore considered to be only partially cooperating.

In addition, the investigation established that the company concerned procured under central sales tax exemption a number of items which are not consumed in the production of the exported goods.

The six selected companies, which represented more than 32 % of Pakistan's volume of exports of bed linen to the Community during the IP, were requested to submit a reply to the anti-dumping questionnaire as determined by the notice of initiation.

A number of corrections had to be introduced to the cost allocation methods which the companies had elaborated exclusively for the purpose of the present investigation, including the allocation of duty drawback and packing expenses, on the basis of the findings of the on spot verifications and the analysis of the replies.

Pursuant to Article 13(9) of Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 and Article 8(9) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, the rate of the countervailing and anti-dumping duty to be imposed on imports produced and exported by the Company must be based on the facts established within the context of the investigations which led to the undertaking.

Three of these companies cooperated in the present investigation.

Investigations were carried out at the premises of the following companies:

During the IP CD-Rs were manufactured in the Community by the following companies:

In respect of the exporting countries concerned, the following companies cooperated in the investigation:

As mentioned at recital 8 two of these companies cooperated in the present investigation.

Verification visits, with regard to both investigations, were carried out at the following companies:

Therefore, it reflects the situation found during that investigation with respect to this company.

They therefore requested disclosure of the names of the companies which participated in the previous proceeding.

A total of nine companies cooperated in the previous investigation but following the restructuring process in the industry only five companies remained in the investigation period.

However, the second company, which at first had agreed to cooperate in this investigation, withdrew its cooperation.

A total of ten companies cooperated in the previous investigation but following the restructuring process in the industry only six of these companies remained active in the investigation period.

In addition two large companies supported the review request but did not fully cooperate with the investigation.

During the investigation period the company sold most of its production destined for export to a Chinese State-owned trader.

The practice of the European Community in anti-subsidy investigations is to allocate the subsidies over the turnover of the company investigated.

(12) Those companies selected in the sample which fully cooperated during the investigation were attributed their own subsidy margin and individual duty rate.

In the course of the investigation, the Croatian exporter informed the Commission that the company had changed its name to Zeljezara Sisak - Sisak Tubemills Ltd.

The individual company anti-dumping duty rate specified in this Regulation was established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation.

The Commission, however, remains of the view that, by failing to provide information which was accurate, complete, and in the form requested, the Russian companies have forfeited their right to be considered as cooperating parties in the investigation.

Two companies having shareholdings relationships with foreign companies belong to the Community industry whereas they did not during the investigation on Taiwan.

to carry out investigations in third countries, provided the firms concerned give their consent and the government of the country in question has been officially notified and raises no objection.

However, the exports by this latter company of the product concerned to the Community during the IP represented only 0,4 % of total exports originating in India.

The general methodology for establishing the dumping margins for the companies investigated, as described in recital 35 of the provisional Regulation, is confirmed.

The reasons which led the Commission to consider one of the Czech companies as not cooperating with the investigation are set out in recital 14 of the provisional Regulation.

The investigation has, however, shown that there is conflicting information from the company concerning the depreciation of the assets in question.

(8) More than 80 companies identified themselves, provided the requested information within the three-week period and had exported the product concerned to the Community during the investigation period.

The verification also showed that the company had failed to report in its reply its sales to the Community during the investigation period effected via a related company.

(102) In the present investigation, the EPZ/EOU scheme was used by one company for the import of raw materials, capital goods and for the procurement of goods on the domestic market.

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 after this period.

The Commission requested further clarification of the company's figures and reviewed all the information it had obtained since the beginning of the investigation.

This tax benefit was only available for companies which export at least 70 % of their production and the investigation showed that this threshold was fully applied in practice.

The definitive ad valorem subsidy amount established for the exemption from import duties on capital goods for the investigated company during the IP was 7,3 %.

Where necessary the Commission shall, after consultation, carry out investigations in third countries, provided that the firms concerned give their consent and the government of the country in question has been officially notified and raises no objection.

As stated above, normal value was calculated on the basis of the data verified at the premises of the USA company, which cooperated fully with the investigation.

As to the companies left, the investigation established that, as mentioned in recital 49, a company located in the United Kingdom also stopped its production some years ago.

As to the companies left, the investigation established that, as mentioned in recital 71, a company located in the UK also stopped its production some years ago.

These companies were therefore considered as non-cooperating with the investigation and were subsequently informed that the findings would be based on the facts available, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.

Therefore, it is considered that the investigated company did not obtain any countervailable benefit when importing raw materials during the IP in this case.

It was therefore concluded that these three companies had failed to provide, within the time limits set, the information deemed necessary to the investigation and the companies were informed of the Commission's intention to apply Article 18 (1) of the basic Regulation and to base its findings on the facts available.