WRITTEN QUESTION E-0619/00 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Rates of reduction for products originating in China.
28. 12. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/119 (2000/C 374 E/140) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0618/00 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (24 February 2000) Subject: Property speculation at Is Arenas In reply to my Question No E-2177/99 (20 January 2000) (1), the Commission stated that the Is Arenas construction project would not be co-financed by the Community under the Structural Funds. On 16 and 17 February 2000, the local press and television reported the declarations of a Sardinian politician whereby Community funding of ITL 4 billion under the Oristano Territorial Pact would be at risk if the Is Arenas construction project were to be blocked. Can the Commission check whether this is true? What has the Oristano Territorial Pact got to do with the Is Arenas companyís project? Are the 4 billion lire perhaps intended to fund this project? If not, can the Commission confirm that the Oristano Territorial Pact would not be compromised if the Is Arenas companyís project were to be blocked? If the funds are indeed intended for the project, does the Commission plan to freeze them, given that the project concerns an area which has been included in the proposed Natura 2000-Italy network and that no environmental impact assessment has been conducted? (1) OJ C 225 E, 8. 8. 2000, p. 66. Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (23 March 2000) Since the Commission replied to the Honourable Memberís Written Question E-2177/99 (1), it has been informed that the project in question was actually selected for inclusion in the Oristano Territorial Pact, which is part-financed by the Community Structural Funds under the Territorial Employment Pacts multiregional operational programme for the Objective 1 regions in Italy. The Is Arenas companyís project, which involves accommodation structures, was definitively approved by the Italian authorities in December 1999 and received part-financing from the European Regional Development Fund amounting to ITL 2 900 million (EUR 1,5 million) on a total investment of ITL 6 500 million (EUR 3,4 million). The Commission is currently taking all the necessary steps to ascertain whether Community law on the environment has been violated. If so, the Commission would suspend Community assistance to the project in question. (1) OJ C 225 E, 8. 8. 2000, p. 66. (2000/C 374 E/141) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0619/00 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission (3 March 2000) Subject: Rates of reduction for products originating in China Since the start of the 1990s, the EU has been administering import quotas for various products originating in China, including porcelain, china and earthenware products coming under tariff heading 691110. Invitations to tender for the quotas are issued annually, and the formula for allocation of the quota for each product between traditional and new importers varies from year to year. For 2000 a basis for allocation for earthenware of 75 % of the total quota for traditional importers and 25 % for new importers C 374 E/120 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28. 12. 2000 was applied. In view of the fact that the volume of applications greatly exceeded the quota, a rate of reduction of 51,54 % was initially set for traditional importers (1) and subsequently corrected to 31,37 % (2). In recent years the rate of reduction has ranged between 10 and 19 %. The current rate of reduction in respect of applications is therefore causing major problems for Austrian importers. From the point of view of the logistics of purchasing, these companies now have major gaps in semi-finished goods in the low price sector which need to be closed. What is the reason for the increase in the rate of reduction from 13 % for 1999 to 31 % for 2000? What is the reason for the correction of the rate of reduction from 51 % to 31 % for 2000? How is the quota allocated between the 15 EU Member States? (1) OJ L 268, 16. 10. 1999. (2) OJ L 304, 27. 11. 1999. Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission (6 April 2000) In accordance with the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 520/94 establishing a Community procedure for administering quantitative quotas (1), the annual quota distribution for year 2000 was implemented on the basis of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1369/1999 of 25 June 1999 (2), which established the administrative procedures for the eventual allocation of the quotas between traditional importers and importers other than traditional importers (newcomers). Article 2 § 2 and § 3 and Annex I and II specify the portions of the total available quotas for allocation to these two groups of importers as 70 % for traditional importers and 30 % for newcomers. On the basis of the limits established by the above Regulation and following licence applications from importers and submission by the Member States of the relevant figures, the Commission published Regulation (EC) No 2201/1999 of 15 October 1999 (3) indicating the increase and reduction rates applicable for the different products under quota. In Annex I of this Regulation the reduction rate applicable to tableware, kitchenware of porcelain or china (HS/CN code 691110) for traditional importers is -51,54 %. However, due to the fact that the figures submitted by one Member State, for this product only, were found to be inaccurate and greatly distorted the overall picture, the Commission informed all Member States about the error and, having verified the correct figures from that Member State, proceeded with the publication of the required corrigendum amending the reduction rate, for the product concerned, from -51,54 % to -31,37 % (4). The reduction (or increase) rates as they apply to traditional importers are influenced each year by the chosen reference period of their previous imports and the percentage of the total available quota allocated to them. For the 2000 quota allocation, as compared to the 1999 similar exercise, both factors were different and both influenced negatively the reduction rate applicable to CN code 691110 (the same principle and result applied to all other products under quota). More specifically the reference imports, as reported, were higher for the 2000 allocation by approximately 18 % (reference period: 1997 or 1998 imports) compared to the 1999 allocation (reference period: 1996 or 1997 imports), increasing the reduction rate, and the percentage of the total quotas allocated to traditional importers was reduced from 75 % in 1999 to 70 % in 2000 for all C/N quota lines of products, further increasing the applicable reduction rate for the 2000 quota year. As regards the last question, the quota is allocated on a Community-wide basis, not between Member States. (1) OJ L 66, 10. 3. 1994. (2) OJ L 162, 26. 6. 1999. (3) OJ L 268, 16. 10. 1999. (4) OJ L 304, 27. 11. 1999