9. 4. 98 Official Journal of the European Communities L 111/19 COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 773/98 of 7 April 1998 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain unbleached cotton fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 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 Com- munity ('), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2331/96 (3, and in particular Article 7(1) thereof, After consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: () O () O 0) O A. PROCEDURE On 11 July 1997, the Commission announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (%), hereinafter referred to as the ‘notice of initiation’, the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Community of certain unbleached cotton fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey and commenced an investigation. The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged by the Cotton and Allied Textile Industries of the EU (Eurocoton) on behalf of Community producers representing a major proportion of Community production of the like product. In this respect, references to ‘Community production’ relate to production destined for the non-captive market of the product concerned. The non-captive market of the product concerned is that constituted by open-market sales of un- bleached cotton fabrics, that is by Community weavers’ sales to independent buyers. In contrast, the captive market is constituted by those transactions that take place within the scope of an integrated group, that is where they weave un- bleached cotton and, in a further production step, finish and/or make up the cloth. It is the practice of the Community institutions, as confirmed by the Court of Justice, to exclude from the analysis of injury sales on the captive market when a clear separation exists between both the captive and the free market. Since the captive 56, 6. 3. 1996, p. 1. J L J L 317, 6. 12. 1996, p. 1. J C 210, 11. 7. 1997, p. 13. production is not sold on the free market, it does not compete directly with imports of the like product. In those instances, since the analysis of injury relates to the Community industry as defined according to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Basic Regula- tion’), that is to say excluding the sales on the captive market, and since Article 4 refers to Article 5(4) which establishes the rules on standing, it follows that the requirement concerning standing must also be assessed by reference to production sold on the free market. The complaint contained sufficient evidence of dumping of the product originating in the coun- tries indicated above, and of material injury re- sulting therefrom; this evidence was considered sufficient to justify initiating a proceeding. The Commission officially advised the procedures, exporters and importers known to be concerned, the represenatives of the exporting countries, and the complainant, and gave the parties concerned the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limits set out in the notice of initiation. A number of producers/exporters in the countries concerned and a number of importers made their views known. All interested parties who so requested were granted a hearing. In view of the large number of Community produ- cers manufacturing the product concerned in the Community and supporting the complaint, and in conformity with Article 17(1) of the Basic Regula- tion, it was considered appropriate to make use of sampling techniques and send questionnaires to and receive information from a representative sample of Community producers. In view of the large number of producers/exporters in the exporting countries concerned, sampling was also used and the Commission sent out question- naires to and received detailed information from a representative sample of producers/exporters. The number of unrelated importers that made themselves known within the deadlines laid down in the notice of initiation and wished to cooperate was too large to be investigated within the time available. Therefore, the Commission decided to resort to a sample of unrelated importers. Interested