20.12.2003 Official Journal of the European Union L 333/3 COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2239/2003 of 17 December 2003 terminating the partial interim review and the expiry review concerning the anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 on imports of cotton-type bedlinen originating, inter alia, in India THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (') (the ‘basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9 and Article 11(2) and (3) thereof, Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: A. MEASURES IN FORCE (1)  In 1997, by Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 (3, the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duties ranging from 2,6 % to 24,7 % on imports of cotton-type bedlinen originating, inter alia, in India. Following a Panel report as modified by the Appellate Body report adopted in March 2001 on the case ‘EC-anti-dumping duties on imports of cotton-type bedlinen from India’ by the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisa- tion (WTO), the Council, in August 2001, by Regu- lation (EC) No 1644/2001 (*), amended Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 by reducing the duty rate for India and certain Indian companies to a level of between 0 and 9,8 % and suspending their application. In April 2002, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 696/2002 (%), confirmed the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of cotton-type bedlinen originating in India by Regulation (EC) No 2398/97, as amended and suspended by Regulation (EC) No 1644/2001. B. REQUEST FOR REVIEWS 2)  In January 2002, the Commission received a request for an interim review of Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation. The request was lodged by the Committee of the Cotton (") OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1; Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1972/2002 (O] L 305, 7.11.2002, p. 1). () OJ L 332, 412.1997, p. 1; Regulation as last amended by Regu- lation (EC) No 160/2002 (OJ L 26, 30.1.2002, p. 1). () OJ L 219, 14.8.2001, p. 1. () OJ L 109, 25.4.2002, p. 3. and Allied Textile Industries of the European Union (Eurocoton’ or the ‘applicant’), on behalf of producers representing a major proportion of the total Community production of cotton-type bedlinen. The request was based on the fact that the applicant claimed a significant change in circumstances with regard to dumping. In September 2002, following the publication of a notice of impending expiry (°) of the anti-dumping measures in force, the Commission received a request for review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation from Eurocoton, representing a major proportion of the total Community production of cotton-type bedlinen. The request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would most likely result in continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the Community industry. C. INVESTIGATION 1. PROCEDURE The Commission examined the evidence submitted by the applicant and considered it sufficient to justify the initiation of an interim review and an expiry review in accordance with the provisions of Article 11(2) and (3) of the basic Regulation. After consultation of the Advi- sory Committee, the Commission initiated two investiga- tions by notices published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (°). The interim review was limited in scope to the examination of dumping. The Commission officially advised the applicant, the producers in the exporting country and their representa- tives of the initiation of the interim review and the expiry review, and gave all parties directly concerned the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing. A number of exporting producers in India, as well as Community producers, Community users and importers| traders, made their views known in writing. All parties who so requested within the time limits specified in the notices of initiation referred to in recital 4 and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard were granted the opportunity to be heard. 432002, p. 11. 3.2.2002, p. 17 and OJ C 300, 4.12.2002, p. 10. —_—