The facts as finally ascertained by the Commission show that for all of these applicants’ bicycle assembly operations, the value of the parts originating in the People’s Republic of China which were used in their assembly operations was lower than 60 % of the total value of the parts used in these assembly operations, and they, therefore, fall outside the scope of Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation.

For this reason, and in accordance with Article 7(1) of the exemption Regulation, the parties listed in the above table should be exempt from the extended anti-dumping duty.

In accordance with Article 7(2) of the exemption Regulation, the exemption of the parties listed in table 1 from the extended anti-dumping duty should take effect as from the date of receipt of their requests. In addition, their customs debt in respect of the extended anti-dumping duty is to be considered void as from the date of receipt of their requests for exemption.

The company Sintema Sport S.R.L. informed the Commission that the postal code of the company will change in April 2011 from 20042 to 20847 due to the change of district of Albiate from Milan district to Monza district.

Two parties did not use bicycle parts subject to anti-dumping duty in their assembly operation during the examination period. One party informed the Commission that they do not need the exemption in the future. Two parties did not submit a questionnaire reply and claimed that they had not used bicycle parts subject to anti-dumping duty in their assembly operation. One party is in liquidation.

Since the parties listed in table 2 failed to meet the criteria for exemption, the Commission has to reject their request for exemption, in accordance with Article 7(3) of the exemption Regulation. In the light of this, the suspension of the payment of the extended anti-dumping duty referred to in Article 5 of the exemption Regulation must be lifted and the extended anti-dumping duty must be collected as from the date of receipt of the request submitted by this party.

These parties were exempted from the extended anti-dumping duty on bicycle parts. The Commission was informed now that one of these parties has already been liquidated and one party is in liquidation. Evidence available to the Commission has shown that another company stopped its assembly operations and resold the imported parts to a not exempted party. Although those imports fall outside the scope of the exemption scheme, the company continued to declare those imports under it. Due to the fact that it has no own assembly operation, the company does not fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of the exemption Regulation, i.e. it does not ensure that its assembly operation remains outside the scope of Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and no conclusive records can be provided showing the use made of the deliveries received. Consequently, the exemption has to be revoked in accordance with Article 10 of the exemption Regulation.

The company Code X Sp. z o.o. received its suspension on 22 January 2010. In the meantime the company changed its legal seat from ul. Krolewska nr 16, 00-103 Warszawa to Olszanka 109, 33-386 Podegrodzie. This change of legal seat does not affect the initial request for suspension. The company JET’LEAN received its suspension on 18 February 2010. In the meantime the legal name of JET’LEAN was changed into JETLANE. This change of name does not affect the initial request for suspension. The company Müller GmbH received its suspension on 30 March 2010. The additional TARIC code A977 initially given to the company Müller GmbH was erroneously attributed twice and was withdrawn. As of 3 June 2010 the company Müller GmbH received the additional TARIC code A978. This change of code does not affect the initial request for suspension.

All companies listed in tables 1 – 4 above were informed and given the opportunity to comment. It was found that contrary to the original information at the Commission’s disposal company IMACycles Bicicletas e Motociclos Lda was not in fact in liquidation. Consequently, the exemption for that company will not be revoked and the name of the company was removed from table 3. None of the other comments received were such as to alter the conclusions set out in this Decision,