1997R1950 — EN — 10.10.1997 — 000.001 — 1
This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents
►B COUNCIL REGULATION (EC)No 1950/97
of 6 October 1997
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of sacks and bags made of polyethylene or
polypropylene originating in India, Indonesia and Thailand and collecting definitively the provi-
sional duty imposed
(OJ L 276, 9.10.1997, p. 1)
Corrected by:
►C1Corrigendum, OJ L 192, 28.7.2000, p. 44 (1950/97)
1997R1950 — EN — 10.10.1997 — 000.001 — 2
▼B
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC)No 1950/97
of 6 October 1997
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of sacks and
bags made of polyethylene or polypropylene originating in India,Indonesia and Thailand and collecting definitively the provisional
duty imposed
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
1995on protection against dumped imports from countries not membersof the European Community (
1), hereinafter referred to as ‘the Basic
Regulation', and in particular Article 9 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after
consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
I.PROVISIONAL MEASURES
(1)By Commission Regulation (EC) No 45/97 (2) (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Provisional Duty Regulation') provisionalduties were imposed on imports into the Community of sacks andbags falling within CN codes 630532 81 and 630533 91 andoriginating in India, Indonesia and Thailand. The provisionalanti-dumping duty was extended for a maximum period of threemonths by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1168/97 (
3).
II.SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE
(2)Following the imposition of provisional anti-dumping measures,
several interested parties submitted comments in writing.
(3)The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to beheard by the Commission.
(4)The Commission continued to seek and verify all the informationit deemed necessary for the purpose of its definitive findings.
(5)Parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations onthe basis of which it was intended to recommend the impositionof definitive anti-dumping duties and the definitive collection ofamounts secured by way of provisional duties. They were alsogranted a period within which to make representations subse-quent to this disclosure.
(6)The oral written comments submitted by the interested partieswere considered and, where deemed appropriate, taken intoaccount in the definitive findings.
III.PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
(7)Some exporters contested the finding in the Provisional Duty
Regulation that leno bags were considered as product concerned.They reiterated the arguments set out in recital 8 of the Provi-sional Duty Regulation. In this respect it should be noted that thefact that leno bags are not completely interchangeable with all theother types of the product concerned is not required in order toconsider them as single product. Rather, it is sufficient that theseproduct types have the same basic physical characteristics and thesame basic uses. This is clearly the case for leno bags as
(1) OJ L 56, 6. 3. 1996, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No
2331/96 (OJ L 317, 6. 12. 1996, p. 1).
(2) OJ L 12, 15. 1. 1997, p. 8.
(3) OJ L 169, 27. 6. 1997, p. 14.
1997R1950 — EN — 10.10.1997 — 000.001 — 3
▼B
compared with other types of polyolefin bags subject to invest-igation. The provisional conclusions concerning the descriptionof the product concerned are therefore confirmed.
(8)In addition, the allegation made by these exporters that theCommunity industry did not produce leno bags is unfounded.While it is recalled that it is not necessary for a product type tobe produced by the Community industry in order to be coveredby the scope of an anti-dumping proceeding, the investigation hasrevealed, nevertheless, that three of the cooperating Communityproducers also manufacture and sell leno bags. Therefore, theCommunity industry does produce the like product as defined byArticle 1 (4) of the Basic Regulation.
(9)One importer requested that flexible intermediate bulk containersof fabric weighing 120 g/m
2or less (so-called big bags) should
not be covered by the proceeding. In this respect it was submittedthat, until the beginning of 1995, big bags could only beproduced by using fabrics weighing 120 g/m
2or more. However,
in the meantime, technological progress has meant that fabricweighing only 100 g/m
2can now be used for the production of
big bags. Moreover, the importer in question pointed out that bigbags weighing 120 g/m
2or less are easily identifiable because
they fall under a separate CN code.
(10)This request could not be accepted. First, the complaint coveredall bags made of polyethylene or polypropylene strip, not knittedor corcheted, of a fabric weighing 120 g/m
2or less. It did not
distinguish between big bags and other types of bag. Second, bigbags and other types of bag subject to the investigation have thesame basic physical/chemical characteristics and the same uses,i.e. they are made of the same raw material and used for pack-aging and transporting goods. In this respect it should be notedthat even if a specific type of the product concerned did not existor was not widely used during the investigation period, the defi-nition of the product also covers product types which have beendeveloped subsequently provided these types have the same basicphysical/chemical/technological characteristics and the sameuses.
(11)The Provisional Duty Regulation mentioned, in recital 6 thereof,that the product concerned falls within CN codes 630532 81 and630533 91. However, the Commission became aware that thesacks and bags concerned in the present investigation can beclassified under CN codes 3923 21 00, 9323 29 10 and3923 29 90 while still meeting the description of the productconcerned if made from a fabric which is either woven from astrip wider than 5mm or laminated on both sides to an extentvisible to the naked eye. Therefore, sacks and bags falling underthe description of the product concerned and classified under CNcodes other than those provisionaly disclosed should also becovered by the present investigation. Therefore, the conclusionsset out in the Provisional Duty Regulation concerning the defini-tion of the product concerned and the like product are confirmed.
IV.DUMPING
1.Normal value
(a)India
(12)Three Indian exporting producers have objected to the methodo-
logy used to determine whether their sales had been made in theordinary course of trade. They argued that since the cost of rawmaterials increased sharply during the period of investigation, themonthly cost of production, rather than the annual cost, shouldhave been used to determine the volume of sales made at a loss.Considering that raw materials constitute the most importantelement of the total costs of production for the productconcerned, the volume of sales below unit cost was recalculated
1997R1950 — EN — 10.10.1997 — 000.001 — 4
▼B
on the basis of the monthly cost of production for the companieswhich provided such information.
(13)Several Indian exporting producers objected to the way in whichArticle 2 (4) of the Basic Regulation has been applied by theCommission. They requested that the weighted average salesprices should have been compared with the weighted averagecosts of the product types concerned without eliminating thosesales which were made at a loss. Although some prices werebelow cost at the time of sale, the average selling price of theproduct concerned was above the weighted average cost.
It should be noted that it is consistent practices, in accordance
with the third paragraph of Article 2 (4) of the Basic Regulation,only to base normal value on all sales, including those made at aloss, if the following two conditions are cumulatively met, i.e.
— the weighted average cost of production is lower than the
weighted average selling price for a given product, and
— the domestic sales volume made at a loss is less than 20 % of
the total sales volume.
As any other approach would be in conflict with Article 2 (4), the
request made by the Indian exporters therefore had to be refused.
(14)One Indian exporting producer which sold the product concernedin insufficient quantities on its domestic market and whichexported product types which were sold by other producers/exporters in the country concerned, argued that the calculation ofnormal value should have been constructed rather than based onthe prices charged by other producers in India.
In accordance with Article 2 (1) of the Basic Regulation, normal
value is normally based on domestic prices. If an exporter doesnot make sufficient domestic sales in the ordinary course of trade,normal value must be established on the basis of other exporters’sales prices for the comparable product, because it can beassumed that the use of other exporters’ prices produces a moreaccurate normal value than construction from the cost of produc-tion. Only in the absence of representative domestic sales byother producers, or if such sales prices are not suitable, willnormal value be constructed in accordance with Article 2 (3) ofthe Basic Regulation. However, the exporter in question did notadvance any argument as to why the use of other exporters’prices should not have been suitable.
(b)Indonesia
(15)An Indonesian exporting producer claimed that the weighted
average of the normal values established for the other Indonesianproducers should not be applied to him since it was not repres-entative for a certain type of bag and suggested that this producttype be excluded from the calculation of normal value, or that thenormal value be constructed. This claim could not be acceptedfor the same reasons as set out in recital 10 of the ProvisionalDuty Regulation.
(c)Conclusion
(16)The other findings made in recitals 14 to 24 of the Provisional
Duty Regulation concerning the determination of normal valueare hereby confirmed.
2.Export price
(17)No new arguments have been brought forward concerning the
determination of export prices. The findings set out in recital 20of the Provisional Duty Regulation are therefore confirmed.
1997R1950 — EN — 10.10.1997 — 000.001 — 5
▼B
3.Comparison
(a)India
(18)Four Indian exporting producers contested the inclusion of bank
charges in the cost of credit for the adjustment of the exportprices. They claimed that these charges were not taken intoaccount by them when determining the export prices charged. Itshould be noted that in these cases the bank charges are intrinsi-cally linked to the cost of credit and as such must therefore betaken into consideration when determining the cost of credit.Therefore, the claim could not be accepted.
(19)A majority of producers/exporters claimed that insufficient allow-ance had been granted for duty drawback on the grounds that alldomestically purchased raw materials bore import duties forwhich a duty drawback allowance should have been granted andthat they would receive duty drawback whenever they exportedthe product concerned, irrespective of whether the raw materialsused originated in the domestic markets of the countriesconcerned or were imported from third countries.
In this respect it should be noted that the producers/exporters
failed to submit conclusive evidence to substantiate the claim thatall polyethylene and prolypropylene used for the production ofsacks and bags, including those sold domestically, containedimported raw materials for which duties were paid in accordancewith Article 2 (10) (b) of the Basic Regulation. Therefore, as wasset out in recital 24 of the Provisional Duty Regulation, adjust-ment for duty drawback has been granted only where it wasfound that the like product and the materials physically incor-porated therein sold by the producers/exporters in question ontheir domestic markets and intended for consumption withinthose countries, did bear import charges.
(b)Indonesia
(20)The Indonesian exporting producers claimed that an allowance
for duty drawback should be granted on the basis of past practiceand the fact that the exemption of duties for polyethylene andpolypropylene resin used in the production of exported bags isallegedly reflected in the fact that import charges are borne byresin physically incorporated in the bags sold on the domesticmarket.
The exporting producers failed to submit conclusive evidence to
demonstrate that all polyethylene and polypropylene resins usedfor the production of sacks and bags, including those sold domes-tically, contained imported raw materials for which duties werepaid in accordance with Article 2 (10) (b) of the Basic Regula-tion. Therefore, the adjustment for duty drawback has not beengranted.
(c)Thailand
(21)The Thai exporting producers claimed that, in view of the signifi-
cant price differences between the raw materials originating, onthe one hand, on the domestic market and used for domestic salesof the product concerned and, on the other hand, those origin-ating on the export market and used for exports to third countries,an allowance should be granted pursuant to Article 2 (10) (k) ofthe Basic Regulation. The Thai exporting producers argued thatthe duty drawback system operated in Thailand resulted in asignificant difference between the raw material costs for theexported product and those for the product sold domestically andthus affected price comparability between domestic sales pricesand export sales prices.
It should be noted that the adjustment requested is related to duty
drawback and import charges and is exhaustively governed byArticle 2 (10) (b) of the Basic Regulation. However, theexporting producers failed to submit conclusive evidence todemonstrate that all polyethylene and polypropylene used for theproduction of sacks and bags, including those sold domestically,
1997R1950 — EN — 10.10.1997 — 000.001 — 6
▼B
contained imported raw materials for which duties were paid in
accordance with Article 2 (10) (b) of the Basic Regulation.
4.Dumping margin
(a)General
(22)In the absence of any other new arguments concerning the deter-
mination of the dumping margin, the methodology set out inrecitals 25to 36 of the Provisional Duty Regulation is herebyconfirmed.
(b)India
(23)One Indian exporting producer contested the conclusions of
recital 27 of the Provisional Duty Regulation, which were thatonly one dumping margin should be established for two relatedcompanies. It was alleged that the company is a distincteconomic entity, with separate production, administration andmarketing, manufacturing a different product.
However, in view of the facts set out in the Provisional Duty
Regulation, most of which were not disputed by the company,and in order to avoid the risk of circumvention of the anti-dumping measures, the decision to establish only one dumpingmargin for the two Indian producers/exporters in question wasmaintained.
(24)The weighted average dumping margins definitively establishedfor the cooperating Indian producers/exporters, expressed as apercentage of the free-at-Community-frontier price are asfollows:
—►
C1Gilt Pack Limited ◄ 0,0 %
— Neo Sack Ltd 0,0 %— Buildmet Private Ltd 15,6 %— Kanpur Plastipack 4,3 %— Polyspin Export Ltd and Polyspin Private Ltd 13,8 %— Shankar Packaging Ltd 6,1 %.
(25)The dumping margin definitively established for Indian exporters
other than those cooperating in this investigation, expressed as apercentage of the free-at-Community-frontier price, is 36,0 %.
(26)The Plastics and Linoleums Export Promotion Council in Indiacontested the observation in recital 29 of the Provisional DutyRegulation that there was a high level of non-cooperation. Takinginto account the fact that the cooperating exporters accounted forapproximately 57 % of total exports, it follows that 43 % of theexporters did not cooperate. In line with consistent practice this isconsidered a high level of non-cooperation. This request couldtherefore not be accepted, and the methodology set out in recital29 of the Provisional Duty Regulation was consequently main-tained.
(c)Indonesia
(27)The dumping margins found for Indonesian producers/exporters
as set out in recitals 31 to 33 of the Provisional Duty Regulationare hereby definitively confirmed. Accordingly the dumpingmargins expressed as a percentage of the free-at-Community-frontier price are as follows:
(i) for cooperating producers/exporters included in the sample:
— PT Budi Indoplast Indah 56,0 %
— PT Hardo Soloplast 28,4 %— PT Kemilau Indah Permana Ltd 31,0 %— PT Poliplas Indah Sejahtera 38,0 %
1997R1950 — EN — 10.10.1997 — 000.001 — 7
▼B
— PT Simoplas 23,5%
(ii) for cooperating producers/exporters not included in the
sample: 28,3 %
(iii) for Indonesian producers/exporters other than those cooper-
ating in this investigation: 56,0 %.
(d)Thailand
(28)One Thai exporting producer objected to the comparison of the
weighted average normal value with the export price on a trans-action-by-transaction basis, pointing out that there were only afew transactions which differed considerably from the weightedaverage sales price, and that these few transactions concernedprices that were significantly higher than the weighted averageexport price. A review of the calculations confirmed this and theweighted average normal value was therefore compared with theweighted average export price. The method of comparison wasalso reviewed for the other Thai exporters and, since a similarsituation was found for two other companies, it was decided tocompare the weighted average normal value with the weightedaverage export price for these companies as well.
(29)The weighted average dumping margins definitively establishedfor the cooperating Thai producers/exporters, expressed as apercentage of the free-at-Community-frontier price are asfollows:
— Bangkok Polysack Co. Ltd 13,2 %
— CP Poly-Industry Public Co. Ltd 43,2 %— Laemthong Industry Co. Ltd 60,8 %— Pacific Polysack Co. Ltd 47,8 %— Thai Coating Industrial Public Co. Ltd 21,5%— Thai Plastic Products Co. Ltd 15,8 %.
The dumping margin definitively established for Thai exporters
other than those cooperating in this investigation, expressed as apercentage of the free-at-Community-frontier price, is 60,8 %.
(e)New exporters in India
(30)Three Indian companies which did not export the product
concerned to the Community during the investigation periodrequested to be treated as newcomers. The Commission, afterhaving examined that all the conditions provided for in Article 11(4) of the Basic Regulation were met, concluded that theweighted average dumping margin found for the cooperatingIndian companies, i.e. 10,5%, should be used for these threenewcomer companies.
V.COMMUNITY INDUSTRY
(31)The Plastics and Linoleums Export Promotion Council in India
(PLEPCI) questioned the standing of the complainants on thegrounds that, from the eight original complainants, only four ofthem and another one, which joined the complainant later on,responded to the Commission’s questionnaire and claimed thatthe Commission did not provide a basis for its conclusion on therepresentativeness of the complaining industry as set out inrecital 37 of the Provisional Duty Regulation.
(32)This criticism was not supported by any substantiated evidencethat the Commission’s conclusions in this regard were wrong. Asmentioned in recital 37 of the Provisional Duty Regulation, it hadbeen examined in the course of the investigation whether thecooperating complainant Community producers still represented amajor proportion of the total Community production of theproduct concerned within the meaning of Article 4 (1) of theBasic Regulation. This examination has shown that the cooper-
1997R1950 — EN — 10.10.1997 — 000.001 — 8
▼B
ating producers, listed in recital 4 of the Provisional Duty Regu-
lation, represented around 75% of the estimated totalCommunity production of the like product. Consequently, thequalification of the complaining industry as the Communityindustry for the purposes of the present proceeding, as stated inrecital 37 of the Provisional Duty Regulation, is confirmed.
VI.INJURY
(33)PLEPCI questioned the fact that no figure for the number of
employees dependent on the production of the product concernedwas specified in the Provisional Duty Regulation and requestedclarification on the decrease in employment of 16,9 % mentionedin recital 51 of that Regulation. In response to this claim, it cansimply be noted that the employment figure was established onthe basis of replies to the questionnaires from the Communityindustry. Employment in the Community for the production ofthe like product fell from 767 in 1992 to 637 during the invest-igation period, namely by 16,9 %.
(34)In the absence of any other argument concerning the injurysuffered by the Community industry, the Council confirms theinjury findings and the conclusion that this industry has sufferedmaterial injury within the meaning of Article 3 of the BasicRegulation, as stated in recitals 38 to 52 of the Provisional DutyRegulation, in particular in view of the negative trends in produc-tion, capacity utilization, market share, prices, profitability,investments and employment during the whole period covered bythe injury examination.
VII.CAUSATION OF INJURY
(35)PLEPCI claimed that the Commission had established a decrease
of 3,9 % in the weighted average selling price of the Communityindustry during the period under examination but had failed toexplain the role played in this negative price evolution by thedecrease in the price of raw materials for the production of thelike product, arguing that raw material prices fell by more thanone third between 1991 to 1993. In addition, it contended thatthere is a coincidence between the dramatic fall of raw materialprices in 1993 and the losses incurred by the Community industryduring that year.
(36)During the course of the investigation, the available informationdid not show that the alleged evolution in prices of the rawmaterials played a significant role in the trend in selling prices inthe Community market between 1992 and the first quarter of1995, namely for the whole period under examination. AsPLEPCI did not provide convincing evidence or informationwhich would demonstrate otherwise, this claim cannot be takeninto further consideration.
(37)Furthermore, it should be noted that, contrary to the statementmade by PLEPCI, any decrease in the cost of raw material shouldhave had, somehow or other, a positive impact on the profit-ability of the Community industry, considering in particular thefact that raw materials can represent up to one third of the totalCommunity industry cost of production of the product concerned.The findings reported in recital 49 of the Provisional Duty Regu-lation, however, demonstrate that this was not the case.
(38)PLEPCI also requested clarification on the findings of theCommission as regards stocks, sales and production of thecomplainant producers between 1994 and the investigationperiod, contending that it was inconsistent to state that thevolume of sales and production by the Community industry hadincreased while stocks decreased during the same period.
As regards this argument, it is confirmed that stocks decreased
slightly between 1994 and the investigation period. This isexplained by the fact that sales made by this industry in theCommunity market were by and large stable (–46 tonnes),
1997R1950 —EN—10.10.1997 — 000.001 — 9
▼B
whereas sales intended for export outside the Communityincreased accordingly during the same period of time.
(39)Finally, PLEPCI argued that the imports under investigationcould not be considered to have caused any material injurysuffered by the Community industry because between 1994 andthe investigation period the prices and market share of theCommunity producers had increased, whereas the importersunder investigation were found to have lost a share of the marketdue to a slight increase in their import price.
(40)In this respect, it has to be pointed out that the examination ofinjury covered the period from 1 January 1992 to 31 March 1995,namely a period of over three years. Therefore, any particulartrend within a part of this period should be seen in the light of theglobal trend during the whole period under examination. As theconclusions of PLEPCI are based only on a limited period withinthe injury examination period, regardless of the global trendduring the whole period concerned, its argument has only alimited value.
(41)It is confirmed that the Community industry market shareincreased by 0,2 % and that prices increased slightly during theinvestigation period compared with 1994. Nevertheless, theCommunity industry lost market share and its sales pricesdecreased during the period considered for the examination ofinjury, i.e. 1992 to the end of the investigation period as stated inrecitals 47 and 48 of the Provisional Duty Regulation. Further-more, although the imports in question lost 1,8 % of the marketshare while their prices increased by 2,5% in the investigationperiod compared with 1994, it should be recalled that from 1992to the investigation period, namely the whole period under exam-ination for the assessment of injury, their market share gained13,8 percentage points or increased by 46 % and their importprice decreased by 3,3 %. Their argument, therefore, could not beaccepted.
(42)As no new material arguments were received in connection withthe findings in recitals 53 to 72 of the Provisional Regulation, theprovisional conclusion on the causation of material injury to theCommunity industry is confirmed.
VIII.COMMUNITY INTEREST
(43)It should be recalled from recital 73, et seq., of the Provisional
Duty Regulation that an appreciation of the various interests,including the interests of the Community industry, users andimporters, was made, and that there were no compelling reasonsagainst the introduction of anti-dumping measures. Rather it wasconcluded that the Community’s reasonable interests require thatthe Community industry be protected against the unfair tradingpractices of dumped imports originating in India, Indonesia andThailand.
(44)As no new arguments were received in connection with theCommunity interest analysis made in the Provisional Duty Regu-lation, the provisional findings are hereby confirmed.
IX.ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
(45)Based on the above conclusions on dumping, injury, causal link
and Community interest, it was considered what form and levelof anti-dumping measures would have to be taken in order toremove the trade-distorting effects of injurious dumping and torestore effective competitive conditions to the Communitymarket.
(46)Since the level of prices at which the injurious effects of theimports would be removed was higher than the dumping marginof all the countries concerned in the investigation, the dumpingmargin was used in order to determine the level of the measures.
1997R1950 — EN — 10.10.1997 — 000.001 — 10
▼B
(47)On the above basis, definitive duties, in the form of ad valorem
duties, should be imposed.
(48)Pursuant to Article 11 (4) of the Basic Regulation, a new expor-ter’s review to determine individual dumping margins cannot beinitiated in this proceeding with regard to Indonesia, as samplingwas used in the original investigation. However, in order toensure equal treatment between any new exporters and thecompanies cooperating in this investigation, it is considered thatprovision should be made for the weighted average duty imposedon the latter companies to be applied to any new exporters whichwould otherwise be entitled to a review pursuant to Article 11(4).
X.COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTIES
(49)In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found for the
exporting producers and in the light of the seriousness of injurycaused to the Community industry, it is considered necessary thatthe amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping dutiesfor transactions involving the product concerned should be defin-itively collected at the level of the definitive duties,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. Definitive anti-dumping duties are hereby imposed on imports of
woven sacks and bags of a kind used for the packaging of goods notknitted or crocheted, obtained from a polyethylene or polypropylenestrip or the like of woven fabrics, weighing 120 g/m
2or less and
originating in India, Indonesia and Thailand. The product as describedfalls within CN codes 630532 81, 630533 91, ex 3923 21 00 (Tariccode: 3923 21 00*10), ex 3923 29 10 (Taric code: 3923 29 10*10) andex 3923 29 90 (Taric code: 3923 29 90*10).
2. For the purpose of this Regulation, the rate of duty applicable to
the net free-at-Community-frontier price before duty shall be as follows:
(a) 36,0 % for sacks and bags originating in India (Taric additional
code 8900) with the exception of imports manufactured by thefollowing companies, which shall be subject to the following ratesof duty:
India:
Rate of
duty (%)Taric
additional
code
Buildmet Private Ltd 15,6 8944
►C1Gilt Pack Limited ◄ 0,0 8945
Kanpur Plastipack 4,3 8946Neo Sack Ltd 0,0 8947Polyspin Export Ltd and Polyspin Private Ltd 13,8 8948Shankar Packaging Ltd 6,1 8949Aditya Bags (India) Limited 10,58424TPI India Limited 10,58424Virgo Polymers (India) Limited 10,58424;
(b) 56,0 % for sacks and bags originating in Indonesia (Taric additional
code 8900) with the exception of imports manufactured by thefollowing companies, which shall be subject to the following ratesof duty:
1997R1950 — EN — 10.10.1997 — 000.001 — 11
▼B
Indonesia:
Rate of
duty (%)Taric
additional
code
P.T. Adhi Kara Suryatama 28,3 8950
P.T. Aster Dharma Industri 28,3 8950P.T. Hardo Soloplast 28,4 8951P.T. Kemilau Indah Permana Ltd 31,0 8952P.T. Peiasnal 28,3 8950P.T. Poliplas Indah Sejahtera 38,0 8953P.T. Simoplas 23,5895 4P.T. Wirapetro 28,3 8950;
(c) 60,8 % for sacks and bags originating in Thailand (Taric additional
code 8900) with the exception of imports manufactured by thefollowing companies, which shall be subject to the following ratesof duty:
Thailand:
Rate of
duty (%)Taric
additional
code
Bangkok Polysack Co. Ltd 13,2 8955
CP Poly-Industry Public Co. Ltd 43,2 8956Thai Coating Industrial Public Co. Ltd 21,5895 8Thai Plastic Products Co. Ltd 15,8 8959Pacific Polysack Co. Ltd 47,8 8994.
3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning
customs duties shall apply.
4. Where any Indonesian party provides sufficient evidence to the
Commission that it did not export the goods described in Article 1 (1)during the investigation period, that it is not related to any exporter orproducer subject to the measures imposed by this Regulation and that ithas exported the goods concerned after the investigation period, or thatit has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export asignificant quantity to the Community, the Council, acting by simplemajority on a proposal submitted by the Commission, after consultingthe Advisory Committee, may amend Article 1 (2) (b) by attributing tothat party the duty applicable to cooperating producers/exporters not inthe sample, i.e. 28,3 %.
Article 2
The amount secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty under the
Provisional Duty Regulation shall be definitively collected at the dutyrate definitively imposed.
Amounts secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping duty
and related to imports of sacks and bags shall be released.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publica-
tion in the Official Journal of the European Communities .
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in
all Member States.