1996R1074 — EN — 15.06.1996 — 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 1074/96
of 10 June 1996
further amending Regulation (EEC)No 3905/88 as regards definitive anti-dumping duties on
imports of polyester yarn originating in Taiwan and Turkey
(OJ L 141, 14.6.1996, p. 45)
Corrected by:
►C1Corrigendum, OJ L 238, 29.8.1997, p. 48 (1074/96)
1996R1074 — EN — 15.06.1996 — 000.001 — 2
▼B
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC)No 1074/96
of 10 June 1996
further amending Regulation (EEC)No 3905/88 as regards defin-
itive anti-dumping duties on imports of polyester yarn originating
in Taiwan and Turkey
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 membersof the European Community (
1), and in particular Article 23 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July
1988 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from coun-tries not members of the European Economic Community (
2), and in
particular Article 15 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after
consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
A.PREVIOUS PROCEDURE
(1)In December 1988, by Regulation (EEC) No 3905/88 (3), the
Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports ofpolyester yarn originating in the Republic of Korea, Mexico,Taiwan and Turkey.
(2)On 1 October 1991, by Regulation (EEC) No 2899/91 (4), the
Council amended Regulation (EEC) No 3905/88 and repealed thedefinitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports into theCommunity of polyester yarn originating in Mexico.
B.REVIEW PROCEDURE
(3)Following the publication, in June 1993, of a notice(5)o ft h e
impending expiry of the measures in force, the Commissionreceived a request for a review lodged by the International Rayonand Synthetic Fibres Committee (Cirfs) representing the produ-cers of allegedly 85 % of Community polyester yarn output.
In December 1993, a notice(
6) concerning the intention of
reviewing the anti-dumping measures in force on imports ofpolyester yarn originating in the Republic of Korea, Taiwan andTurkey was published.
(4)On 16 June 1994, in a notice published in the Official Journal of
the European Communities (7), the Commission announced the
review of Regulation (EEC) No 3905/88 pursuant to Article 15 ofRegulation (EEC) No 2423/88, the Regulation applicable in thisreview pursuant to Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, andhereinafter referred to as ‘the basic Regulation'.Given the quasiabsence of Korean imports on the Community market, it had notbeen shown in the view of the Commission that the expiry of themeasures would have led again to recurrence of injury. It there-fore decided to exclude from the review the measures concerning
(1) OJ No L 56, 6. 3. 1996, p. 1.
(2) OJ No L 209, 2. 8. 1988, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation
(EC) No 522/94 (OJ No L 66, 10. 3. 1994, p. 10).
(3) OJ No L 347, 16. 12. 1988, p. 10.
(4) OJ No L 275, 2. 10. 1991, p. 21.
(5) OJ No C 175, 26. 6. 1993, p. 9.
(6) OJ No C 340, 17. 12. 1993, p. 15.
(7) OJ No C 164, 16. 6. 1994, p. 4.
1996R1074 — EN — 15.06.1996 — 000.001 — 3
▼B
imports originating in the Republic of Korea which consequently
lapsed(1).
(5)The Commission officially advised the producers, exporters andimporters known to be concerned, the representatives of theexporting countries and the complainant, and gave the partiesdirectly concerned the opportunity to make their views known inwriting and to request a hearing. It also sent questionnaires to allparties known to be concerned.
(6)All complainant producers and another producer in theCommunity replied to the questionnaire and made their viewsknown in writing.
(7)Some Turkish and Taiwanese exporters replied to the question-naire and made their views known in writing. No importer repliedto the Commission’s questionnaire.
(8)The Commission sought and verified all information it deemednecessary for the purposes of a determination and carried outinvestigations at the premises of the following companies:
(a)Community producers:
— Rhône Poulenc, France,— Hoechst AG, Germany,— Nylstar, Germany,— Unifi, Ireland,— Montefibre Spa, Italy,— Akzo Fibres and Polymers Division, Netherlands,— La Seda de Barcelona SA, Spain,— Nurel SA, Spain,— Exsa, United Kingdom;
(b)Producers/exporters in the countries of origin:
TAIWAN
— Chung Shing Textile Co. Ltd, Taipei,— Far Eastern Textiles, Taipei,— Hsin Pao Textile Co. Ltd, Taipei,— Lanfa Textile Co., Taipei,— Lea Lea Enterprise Co. Ltd, Taipei,— Nan-Ya Plastics Corporation, Taipei,— Shinkong Synthetic Fibres Corp, Taipei,— Tuntex Distinct Corp, Taipei,— Zig Sheng Ind Co., Ltd, Tapei;
TURKEY
— Korteks, Bursa,— Nergis Tekstil Sanayi Ve Ticaret, Bursa,— Sasa Artificial and Synthetic Fibres Inc, Adana,— Sifas Sentetik Iplik Fabrikalari A.S., Bursa.
(9)The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 July
1993 to 30 June 1994 (investigation period).
(10)All parties concerned were informed of the essential facts andconsiderations on the basis of which it was intended to recom-mend the amendment of existing definitive measures. They werealso granted a period within which to make representationssubsequent to these disclosures.
(11)Because of the large number of interested parties, the volume ofdata gathered and analysed and the complexity of certain issues,in particular the difficulties inherent to the fact that, as describedin recitals (12) and (13) below, POY is a semi-finished productdestined for the PTY production, the investigation has exceeded
(1) OJ No C 165, 17. 6. 1994, p. 12.
1996R1074 — EN — 15.06.1996 — 000.001 — 4
▼B
the normal period of one year as provided for in Article 7(9) of
the basic Regulation.
C.PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE PRODUCT
I.Description of the product concerned
(12)The products covered by the complaint and for which the review
investigation was initiated are partially oriented polyester yarn(POY) falling within CN code 5402 42 00 and polyester texturedfilament yarn (PTY) falling within CN codes 5402 33 10 and5402 33 90. They are identical to the products which were thesubject of the previous investigation.
POY is a feeder yarn used mainly to produce PTY, which is in
turn used in both the weaving and knitting sectors to makepolyester or polyester/cotton fabrics.
There are different types of POY as well as PTY, depending on
the denier, the number of filaments and the lustre. There are alsodifferent qualities, depending on the efficiency of the productionprocess.
(13)The original investigation was concluded by measures imposedby Regulation (EEC) No 3905/88, on POY and PTY separately.In this respect, the present investigation has confirmed that theessential process to obtain PTY is texturization consisting mainlyof twisting and drawing POY, which imparts to PTY its essentialcharacteristics. However, the necessity for and costs of furtherprocessing indicates that POY does not belong to the samecategory of product as PTY since the added-value required toproduce PTY from POY is substantial. In addition, the end-use ofPOY and PTY is different and the two products are not inter-changeable. Consequently, different markets for each productexist.
It is worthwhile noting that the manufacturing processes
described above can sometimes be integrated in one company orgroup, or be undertaken by two independent companies. Bothsituations (integrated, or independent manufacturing) exist inTaiwan, Turkey and the European Community. Part of theCommunity production of POY is sold on the Community marketto independent texturizers (see recital 22 below).
(14)In view of the above, it has been concluded that POY and PTYdo not belong to the same category of product and, thus, have tobe considered as two distinct products. These findings have notbeen contested by any interested party. Consequently, the twoproducts have been dealt with separately in the framework of thepresent review.
II.Like product
POY
(15)The investigation showed that POY sold on the domestic markets
of Turkey and Taiwan were alike to those exported from thosecountries to the Community. Similarly, the POY manufactured bythe Community industry and sold on the Community market andthose exported to the Community from the countries in questionare alike in all respects as regards their physical, chemical andtechnical characteristics and end-uses.
PTY
(16)The same findings were made with regard to PTY sold on the
domestic markets of Turkey and Taiwan, produced and sold inthe Community and that exported to the Community from thecountries in question.
1996R1074 — EN — 15.06.1996 — 000.001 — 5
▼B
(17)Consequently, in each case, the product sold on the domestic
market of the exporting countries, those exported from thesecountries to the Community and those produced and sold in theCommunity are like products within the meaning of Article 2(12) of the basic Regulation.
D.PARTIALLY ORIENTED POLYESTER YARN (POY)
I.The scope of the review
(18)In Regulation (EEC) No 3905/88, three Taiwanese producers, Far
Eastern Textile Ltd, Nan Ya Plastics Corp and Tuntex DistinctCorp were not subject to the anti dumping duty imposed onimports of POY from Taiwan.
These Taiwanese exporters claimed that the present review
investigation could not cover producers expressly exempted fromthe anti-dumping measures, because no dumping was found intheir case and that the absence of existing anti-dumping measuresled to the conclusion that there were no grounds for includingthese Taiwanese producers in the scope of the ‘sunset' review.
(19)Since the review request was made under the provisions ofArticle 15 of the basic Regulation, it has to be examined whetherthe expiry of the measures in force would lead again to injury.On this basis, and given that the three Taiwanese producersconcerned were exempted from measures on the grounds that nodumping was found for them, they should be kept outside thescope of the present review investigation.
(20)Consequently, this review does not cover imports of POY fromTuntex Distinct Corp., Far Eastern Textile Ltd, Nan Ya PlasticsCorp.
II.Community industry
(21)In defining the Community industry, data obtained from informa-
tion received in the responses to the questionnaires, from Eurostatfigures and from Cirfs concerning output of Communityproduced POY were used since not all the producers active in theCommunity POY market cooperated in the investigation.
(22)The complaining Community producers were found to represent76 % of the total Community POY production intended for salesand thus a major proportion of that production.
(23)On this basis, the complaining Community producers constitutethe Community industry within the meaning of Article 4 (5) ofthe basic Regulation.
III.The situation of the Community industry
(a)Community consumption
(24)The apparent Community consumption increased from 119 000
tonnes in 1991 to 122 000 tonnes in 1992, fell back to 119 000tonnes in 1993, to increase again to 125 000 tonnes in the invest-igation period.
(b)Production, production capacity and capacity utilization
(25)The Community industry’s production for sales increased from
58 000 tonnes in 1991 to 77 000 tonnes in 1992, fell back to72 000 tonnes in 1993, to increase again to 76 000 tonnes duringthe investigation period.
(26)Over the last three years, the production capacity remained thesame and the capacity utilization rate was stable at 80 %.
1996R1074 — EN — 15.06.1996 — 000.001 — 6
▼B (c)Sales volume and market share
(27)The quantity of POY sold on the Community market by the
Community industry dropped from 50 000 tonnes in 1991 to49 000 tonnes in 1992 to 47000 tonnes in 1993 and 46 000tonnes in the investigation period, though the consumptionincreased from 119 000 tonnes in 1991 to 125 000 tonnes in theinvestigation period.
(28)The Community industry’s market share developed as follows:42 % in 1991, 40 % in 1992, 39 % in 1993 and 36,5 % during theinvestigation period. Overall, the market share has declined by5,5 percentage points while the apparent consumption increasedby around five percentage points.
(d)Price of evolution
(29)Prices of the Community industry for POY have fluctuated in
line with the prices of the raw materials PTA (pure terephthalicacid), DMT (dimethylterephthalate) and glycol. The increasingprice trend of POY recorded at the end of the investigation period(first half 1994) is the result of the worldwide shortage of rawmaterials and their subsequent price increases. These priceincreases occurred consequently for all operators in the market atthe same time, but should not hide the fact that the Communityindustry’s prices always remained consistently undercut by theexporters’ prices during the investigation period (see recital 38).
(e)Profitability
(30)The Commission found that, overall and from 1991 onwards, the
POY Community industry has recorded poor financial results.The situation has deteriorated considerably from 1992 with anaverage loss of 22 % on turnover during the investigation period.All complaining Community producers suffered heavy losses.
(f)Employment and investment
(31)Given the integrated nature of the polyester yarn industry, it has
not been possible to isolate employment and investment data forPOY production only. Data available concerning the industryglobally indicates that there has been a steady curtailment inemployment forces of about 15 % since 1991 even if this industryis not labour intensive. Investments by the complainingCommunity producers were reduced in some cases to a levelbelow that needed to ensure optimal production.
(g)Conclusion
(32)In spite of the measures in force, an overall assessment of the
main economic indicators leads to the conclusion that the POYCommunity industry continues to show signs of economic diffi-culties. Its situation has constantly deteriorated since 1991, asdemonstrated in particular by a loss in market share of up to5,5 % over four years, notwithstanding an increase in Communityconsumption over the same period, reduction of employment andsubstantial financial losses.
IV.Recurrence of injury
(33)In accordance with Article 15 of the basic Regulation, the
Commission examined whether the expiry of the measures inforce would lead again to injury or threat of injury to theCommunity industry.
TAIWAN
(34)Import of Taiwanese POY regressed from 2 812 tonnes in 1991
(2,4 % market share) to 1 117tonnes in 1992 (0,9 % marketshare), to 551 tonnes in 1993 (0,5 % market share) and to 448tonnes during the investigation period (0,4 % market share). Itshould be noted in this respect that the three major Taiwanese
1996R1074 — EN — 15.06.1996 — 000.001 — 7
▼B
producers were not subject to any anti-dumping duty. When
excluding the imports from these three producers, which are notconcerned by the review investigation, the Community marketshare held by the remaining imports from Taiwan amounts to0,1 % only. Information available suggests that the Taiwaneseproducers have re-oriented their exports to other third countriesgeographically closer where a steady growth for POY is beingregistered. Furthermore, these producers have apparently movedto a greater extent into the downstream product, PTY. Conse-quently, there is no reasonable indication that the expiry of theanti-dumping measures on imports of POY originating in Taiwanwould lead to a recurrence of injury or threat of injury to theCommunity industry.
TURKEY(a)Volume and Community market share of imports from Turkey
(35)It was found that imports of POY from Turkey have increased
substantially between 1991 and the investigation period from7933 tonnes to 22 436 tonnes. This corresponds to an increase inmarket share over the same period from 6,7% to 17 ,9 %.
(36)This evolution has to be seen in the context of the setting-up of aPTY production facility in the Community by the largest Turkishproducer andexporter of POY and PTY. Nevertheless, a signifi-cant part of the exports of POY to the Community by thisTurkish producer were destined to unrelated customers.
(37)It was claimed that Turkish imports of POY merely filled the gapleft by the decreasing exports of POY yarn from Taiwan. This isfactually incorrect since the Taiwanese imports have continu-ously decreased from less than 3 000 tonnes in 1991, whileTurkish imports increased from around 8 000 tonnes in 1991 to22 400 tonnes during the investigation period.
(b)Prices of the imports
(38)On the basis of price information available, a comparison has
been made between the weighted average Community industry’sselling price and the weighted average price of the importsconcerned at the same level of trade. The Community industry’sprice was at ex-works and, the prices of the imports were atfree-at-Community frontier, customs cleared. This comparisonshowed in the case of Turkey an undercutting margin, persistingthroughout the entire investigation period, higher than that estab-lished in the original investigation.
(c)Impact of other factors on the situation of the Community
industry
(39)Among all imports of POY in the Community from other thirdcountries, only those from the USA and Switzerland were ofsignificant volume, all others taken together were negligible.However, the sales volume and market share in the Communityof the US imports steadily decreased since 1991 (6,9 % marketshare) to the investigation period (1,9 % market share). Importsfrom Switzerland remained relatively stable (around 13 % marketshare) at very high prices, and the main Swiss exporter concernedis a subsidiary of a complaining Community producer.
(40)It was alleged that the Community industry did not make thenecessary investments in order to remain competitive. In thisregard, an industrial rationalization process has been in operationfor some years among several Community producers. Thisprocess, however, requires financial resources which have beenlimited due to the existence of low-priced dumped imports on theCommunity market.
(41)The claim was made that, like other industrial sectors in theCommunity, the producers of POY suffered from the recessionand not from the Turkish imports and, in particular that, because
1996R1074 — EN — 15.06.1996 — 000.001 — 8
▼B
of the recession, the Community producers were not in a positionto reflect the increasing costs of raw materials in their prices ofPOY.
In this respect it has to be noted that the development of the
apparent Community consumption described in recital (24) abovedoes not reflect any recession in the POY market.
(42)Finally, it was asserted by the Turkish exporter that a capacityutilization rate of 70 % allows any ‘fibres-business'to achieve asituation of breakeven. This statement has not been substantiatedby the information gathered in Taiwan and among theCommunity industry’s producers. According to this information,capacity utilization for this industry should normally reach a rateof 90 % in order to achieve breakeven. Indeed, the majority ofTaiwanese producers report utilization rates above 95 %. TheCommunity industry’s utilization rate was, throughout the periodunder consideration, around 80 %.
In any event, the capacity utilization factor has to be examined in
conjunction with other injury factors such as prices and volumesat which production is sold before any decisive conclusions canbe drawn. It is clear that, in cases such as this, even a 90 %utilization rate could result in a loss-making situation if prices ofthe Community producers were severely depressed by the low-priced imports concerned.
(d)Conclusion
(43)In these circumstances, it appears that there are no other factors
but the imports of POY originating in Turkey which may explainthe difficult situation of the Community industry, notwithstandingthe anti-dumping measures in force. It is therefore concluded thatthe expiry of these measures as regards Turkey could onlyworsen the situation of the Community industry through a recur-rence of injury to this industry.
V.Dumping
(44)The continued existence of dumping was verified, to ascertain
firstly whether there were grounds for the continuation of meas-ures against POY from Turkey and, if so, whether any change inthe dumping margin required the existing measures to be adaptedaccordingly.
(a)Normal value
(45)It was first examined whether the volume of sales of the sole
Turkish producer which had exported to the Community duringthe investigation period on the domestic market attained at least5 % of thevolume of the exports of the like product to theCommunity, percentage which has consistently been consideredto constitute sales in sufficient quantities to permit a propercomparison. This producer achieved only a percentage ofdomestic sales of 2,6 % of the quantity exported to theCommunity. Accordingly, those sales were considered as insuffi-cient to establish a representative domestic price, and normalvalue had to be constructed, in accordance with Article2 (3) (b) (ii) of the basic Regulation.
(46)For all the types of the product concerned sold for export to theCommunity by the Turkish producer, a constructed normal valuewas calculated, by adding to the manufacturing costs of theexported types, a reasonable amount for selling, general andadministrative expenses (SG& A) and a profit.
Since there were insufficient sales of POY made by the producer
concerned on the domestic market, and this was the onlyproducer/exporter involved in the investigation which sold POYon that market, the amount for SG& A and profit was calculatedby reference to the sales made by this producer in the same
1996R1074 — EN — 15.06.1996 — 000.001 — 9
▼B
business sector, in Turkey, i.e. in the polyester yarn sector, inaccordance with Article 2 (3) (b) (ii) of the basic Regulation.
(b)Export prices
(47)The Turkish producer shipped POY to independent importers in
the Community and to one related importer in the Community.
(48)Since the POY imported by the related company was transformedinto PTY by the same company and sold to the first independentbuyer as such, it would have been necessary to construct anexport price for POY from the resale price of PTY. Given theinherent difficulties of such an exercise and taking into consid-eration the large quantities sold by the Turkish exporter to inde-pendent importers (more than 60 % of its exports to theCommunity) it was considered that the transactions betweenrelated parties should be disregarded all together and exportprices were determined exclusively on the basis of the pricesrelating to transaction to independent importers.
(c)Comparison
(49)Normal value by product type was compared with the export
price for the corresponding type, on a transaction-by-transactionbasis at the ex-works stage and at the same level of trade.
(50)For the purpose of a fair comparison, normal value was adjustedin accordance with the provisions of Article 2 (9) and 2 (10) ofthe basic Regulation to take account of differences directlyaffecting price comparability. These adjustments concernedimport charges and indirect taxes and differences in sellingexpenses arising from sales made under different conditions andterms of sale, i.e. credit terms and transport costs.
(d)Dumping margins
(51)The above comparison revealed the existence of dumping, the
margins of dumping being equal to the amount by which thenormal value, as established, exceeds the price for export to theCommunity.
(52)The weighted average dumping margin for the Turkish producerconcerned, expressed as a percentage of the free-at-Communityfrontier price, customs duty unpaid, is as follows:
Sasa Artificial and Synthetic Fibres Inc 3,3 %.
(53)In the case of Turkish companies which cooperated in the invest-
igation but were found neither to have sold POY on theirdomestic market nor to have exported during the investigationperiod, the weighted average dumping margin found for the solecompany which did export during the investigation period isconsidered as appropriate, since it takes into account the coopera-tion of the companies concerned by distinguishing them fromthose which did not cooperate in the investigation. Accordingly,the dumping margin of 3,3 % is also applicable to the followingcompanies: Korteks and Nergis Tekstil Sanayi Ve Ticaret.
(54)In the case of Turkish producers which failed to make themselvesknown or did not reply satisfactorily to the Commission’s ques-tionnaire, the dumping margin was determined on the basis of thefacts available in accordance with Article 7(7 ) (b) of the basicRegulation. It was considered that the most reasonable facts werethose established during the investigation and that, in order toavoid giving a premium for non-cooperation, and to ensure thatthe anti-dumping measures introduced constitute effective protec-tion from unfair trade, the dumping margin attributable to theseproducers should be based on the POY type with the highestdumping margin found for the sole cooperating Turkish producerwhich exported to the Community during the investigationperiod.
1996R1074 — EN — 15.06.1996 — 000.001 — 10
▼B
On this basis, the POY type retained represented around 10 % of
all exports to the Community by the Turkish producer concerned,and the dumping margin established for Turkish non-cooperatingcompanies amounts to 6,8 %.
VI.Community interest
(55)A determination as to whether the Community interest calls for
intervention shall be based on an appreciation of all the variousinterests taken as a whole, including those of the producers, usersand consumers in the Community. In such an examination, theneed to eliminate the trade distorting effects of injurious dumpingand to restore effective competition shall be given special consid-eration.
(56)It has to be recalled that in the previous investigation, the adop-tion of measures was considered to be in the interest of theCommunity. It was stated that the measures would have a fairlynegligible effect on the production costs of the user industry andno serious consequences for consumers.
(57)These considerations remain valid in considering the extent towhich it would be in the Community interest to maintain meas-ures in force. No arguments were submitted by the users asconcerns the impact of the price of POY in the end product,although questionnaires were sent to those users made known tothe Commission. In any event, given the range of the measuresproposed and the figures available with regard to the weight ofPOY in the manufacturing of PTY, the impact of the reviewedmeasure on the prices for the end product appears to be negli-gible.
(58)On the contrary, to allow the measures to expire would put theCommunity industry at a risk since it would suffer increasinglyfrom the dumped low prices of the Turkish imports, thus beingunable to redress its precarious financial situation.
It appears therefore that the interests of the Community industry
by far outweigh the possible, and in any case limited, disadvan-tages for users and final consumers.
(59)On this basis it is concluded that Community interest calls formaintaining the anti-dumping measures in force duly amended toeliminate the injurious effects of dumped imports originating inTurkey.
VII.Measures
TAIWAN
(60)On the basis of the reasons given in recital (34) with regard to
Taiwanese imports, the existing anti-dumping measures on thoseimports should be allowed to lapse.
TURKEY
(61)In order to prevent the recurrence of injury and provide adequate
protection from continued injurious dumping by Turkish imports,it is considered that the anti-dumping duty should be establishedin such a way as to allow the Community industry to obtain thereasonable profit it has been deprived of through the negativeimpact of the dumped imports.
(62)When calculating the adequate amount of duty, the Council hadto consider that the precarious situation of the Communityindustry consists mainly of a steady loss of market share andsubstantial financial losses due to depressed prices resulting fromprice undercutting. It is thus necessary that the measures takenallow the Community industry to make a reasonable profit in thefuture.
1996R1074 — EN — 15.06.1996 — 000.001 — 11
▼B
(63)In this respect, the Council has calculated the price level consid-
ered adequate to remove injury on the basis of the weightedaverage cost of production of the Community industry adding aprofit of 6 % estimated reasonable for guaranteeing the industryproductive investment on a long term basis. This price level wasthen compared to the average import prices on a free-at-Community frontier basis, duty paid. Since the result of thiscomparison shows an injury margin higher than the dumpingmargin established, the duty should be based on the dumpingmargin found.
E.POLYESTER TEXTURED FILAMENT YARN (PTY)
I.The scope of the review
(64)In Regulation (EEC) No 3905/88 one Taiwanese producer,
Tuntex Distinct Corp., was exempted from the anti-dumping dutyof 6,2 % on imports of PTY originating in Taiwan because a deminimis dumping margin (0,31 %) was found for this company.
(65)For the same reasons as those developed under chapter D, I,recital (19), this Taiwanese company, Tuntex Distinct Corp., hasto be excluded from the scope of the review as far as PTY isconcerned.
II.Community industry
(66)The production of PTY by companies on behalf of which the
complaint was lodged was found to represent 50 % of the totalPTY output in the Community during the investigation period (1July 1993 to 30 June 1994) and hence a major proportion of thisoutput. Therefore, the complaining companies constitute theCommunity industry in the meaning of Article 4 (5) of the basicRegulation.
These complaining companies produced PTY from in-house POY
production with the exception of one company which purchasedPOY on the market.
(67)A producer in the Community was found to be a wholly-ownedsubsidiary of a Turkish exporter of POY, the upstream product.Although not cited in the initial complaint, this producer cooper-ated in the investigation. It was considered whether this produceroperating in the Community should be excluded from the defini-tion of the Community industry in the meaning of Article 4 (5) ofthe basic Regulation. In this respect, it should be recalled that theprovisions of this Article do not provide for the automatic exclu-sion of Community producers related to the exporters or produ-cers located in exporting countries, or producers which are them-selves importing the allegedly dumped product, but rather imposeon the Community institutions the obligation to consider on acase-by-case basis whether the exclusion of any producer iswarranted.
(68)Following previous practice of the Community institutions, it wasconsidered that this Community producer, through its relationshipwith the producer/exporter concerned in Turkey was shieldedfrom the injurious effects of the dumped imports. It was furtherconsidered, in accordance with that practice, that to include thisproducer in the definition of the Community industry woulddistort the assessment of these effects. Indeed, the fact that theCommunity producer concerned produces PTY from POY boughtat transfer prices from the related Turkish exporter found to havebeen dumping and causing injury to the complainants renders theproduction cost data for the product concerned unreliable. Onthese grounds, it was considered that the producer in theCommunity concerned had to be excluded from the definition ofthe Community industry. For the remainder of chapter E, theterm ‘Community industry' therefore, refers to the complainingCommunity producers of PTY only.
1996R1074 — EN — 15.06.1996 — 000.001 — 12
▼B
III.The situation of the Community industry
(a)Community consumption
(69)The Commission determined that the total apparent Community
consumption of PTY increased from 230 000 tonnes in 1991, to237000 tonnes in 1992 and, after a fall back to 221 000 tonnes in1993, increased again to 241 000 tonnes in the investigationperiod. This represents an overall increase of consumption ofaround 5 % over the period considered.
(b)Production, production capacity, utilization rate
(70)The Community industry’s production of PTY dropped steadily
from 104 000 tonnes in 1991 to 92 000 tonnes in 1993 andrecovered to 95 000 tonnes during the investigation period. Thisrepresents an overall decrease in Community industry’s produc-tion of 8,6 %, while Community consumption increased by 5 %over the same period.
(71)The PTY production capacity of the Community industry hasincreased over the last three years by about 7% from 114 000tonnes in 1991 to 122 000 tonnes during the investigation period.This increase in PTY production capacity is specifically the resultof significant investment in 1992 and 1993 by one company,related to a third country producer. This company reduced drasti-cally its imports of POY from the parent company and as coun-terpart extended its production of POY and consequently its PTYcapacity in the Community.
(72)The utilization rate of production capacity of the Communityindustry globally decreased from 91 % in 1991 to 78 % in theinvestigation period. Given the fact that the polyester yarnindustry is very capital intensive (up to 90 % utilization ratebeing considered to be normal), the decreasing utilization rate hasa significant effect on the allocation of fixed costs.
(c)Sales volume and market share
(73)The quantity of PTY sold in the Community by the complaining
Community producers declined from about 87000 tonnes in 1991and 1992 to 83 000 tonnes in 1993, to increase again to 87000tonnes during the investigation period in a context of growingdemand.
(74)The Community industry’s share of the Community marketdeveloped as follows: 37,7 % in 1991, 36,8 % in 1992, 37,7 % in1993 and 36 % during the investigation period. The overall rela-tive stability of sales led however to a slight decrease of themarket share due to the increase in Community consumption.
(d)Price evolution
(75)Prices of PTY have fluctuated in line with the prices of the raw
materials used for producing the upstream product POY, i.e.PTA, DMT, glycol. The increasing price trend of PTY recordedat the end of the investigation period (first half 1994) ascompared to 1993 (second half), is the result of the worldwideshortage of these raw materials and their subsequent priceincreases. These price increases occurred consequently for alloperators in the market at the same time.
(e)Profitability
(76)It was found that, in general and from 1992 onwards, the
Community industry has recorded deteriorating financial results.The overall profitable situation in 1991 turned into losses and hasparticularly worsened during the investigation period to reachaverage losses of around 10 % on turn-over. All complainingCommunity producers suffered heavy losses, or decreasing profit-ability.
1996R1074 — EN — 15.06.1996 — 000.001 — 13
▼B
(f)Employment and investment
(77)It should be noted that though the polyester yarn industry is not
labour intensive, since 1991 there has been a steady curtailmentin employment by the Community industry.
Investments by the Community industry were reduced in most
cases to levels not allowing optimal production.
(g)Conclusion
(78)In spite of the measures in force on imports of PTY originating in
Turkey and Taiwan, an overall assessment of the main economicindicators leads to the conclusion that the Community industrycontinues to show clear signs of economic difficulties. Its situa-tion has constantly deteriorated since 1991, as demonstrated inparticular by a decline of production capacity utilization andmarket share, notwithstanding a certain increase of consumptionof PTY in the Community, as well as by increasing financiallosses.
IV.Recurrence of injury
(79)In accordance with Article 15 of the basic Regulation, it was
examined whether the expiry of the measures in force would leadagain to injury or threat of injury to the Community industry.
(a)Volume and market share of imports from the exporting
countries concerned
(80)Imports of PTY from Taiwan have remained stable since 1991 atan annual level of around 7000 tonnes. The assessment of theseimports in the light of the development of Community consump-tion shows a market share of 3 % in 1991, 2,9 % in 1992, 3,2 %in 1993 and 2,9 % during the investigation period.
(81)Imports of PTY originating in Turkey decreased from 4 504tonnes in 1991 (1,9 % market share) to 3 406 tonnes in 1992(1,4 % market share) and to 1 546 tonnes in 1993 (0,7% marketshare), but increased to 2 348 tonnes during the investigationperiod (0,98 % market share). The development of these importsand market shares appears to have been somewhat influenced bythe setting-up of a PTY production facility in the Community bythe largest producer and exporter of PTY in Turkey.
(b)Prices of the dumped imports
(82)In order to examine whether price undercutting existed, all the
types manufactured by the Community industry and thoseimported into the Community from the countries concerned havebeen divided into three groups depending on their weight(‘denier'). A weighted average Community industry’s sellingprice of each group was then compared with a weighted averageprice of each exporter concerned for the comparable group at thesame level of trade. The undercutting margins thus obtained pergroup were then weighted in order to reach one margin perexporting company. The Community industry’s prices were takenat an ex-works basis and the exporters’ prices were at free-at-Community frontier, customs cleared. As far as Turkey isconcerned, this comparison showed an overall weighted averageundercutting margin for the entire investigation period of 33,7%.
As regards Taiwan an overall weighted average undercutting
margin of 23,6 % for the entire investigation period was found,ranging from 0,9 % to 34,6 % depending on the exporterconcerned.
1996R1074 — EN — 15.06.1996 — 000.001 — 14
▼B
(c)Impact of other factors on the situation of the Community
industry
Other imports
(83)Imports of PTY from other third countries, i.e. Indonesia, India,
Malaysia, Thailand, the USA, South Africa and Slovakia wereclaimed to have influenced the situation of the Communityindustry.
(84)Anti-dumping investigations concerning imports from India,Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia are currently being carried out.With the exception of imports from India, which have continu-ously decreased since 1992 to reach, during the investigationperiod, a volume considered to be negligible. Community marketshare of the other three countries taken together increased signifi-cantly from 1,7% in 1991 to 9,6 % during the investigationperiod. Prices of these imports into the Community appear to behigher than Turkish prices but lower than Taiwanese prices.However, no conclusions can be made yet on the prices and thepossible dumping by these imports since the anti-dumping inves-tigations are in course.
(85)Imports of PTY from the USA, although still significant (4,1 %market share in the investigation period) dropped by 16 % involume between 1991 and the investigation period. As to importsof PTY from South Africa, they increased in terms ofCommunity market share from 1,07% in 1991 to 1,47% duringthe investigation period. Eurostat figures, however, do notprovide information on the types of PTY imported and, therefore,no conclusions can be made with regard to the prices at whichimports of PTY from the USA and South Africa were made.
(86)As far as Slovakia is concerned, imports of PTY into theCommunity reached a market share in the investigation period of3,1 %. However, it appeared that since 1993 due to an investmentof a Community producer in Slovakia, a major part of importsinto the Community originating in that country was made attransfer prices between related parties. It can reasonably beassumed that such imports cannot have been made by theCommunity producer in question with a view to adversely affectits own profitability. Consequently, it is concluded that theSlovakian imports cannot have had a meaningful impact on thesituation of the Community industry.
(87)It can therefore be concluded that imports of PTY from countriesother than Taiwan and Turkey, for which injurious dumping isbeing investigated following evidence presented by the complai-nants, i.e. Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia, may have exacer-bated the already unfavourable situation of the Communityindustry. For the other abovementioned countries, for which noanti-dumping investigation is in course, any contribution to theinjury suffered by the Community industry cannot be substan-tiated.
Other Community producers
(88)Since the Community industry represents 50 % of the total
Community production of PTY, it was considered necessary toexamine the behaviour of the other Community producers ofPTY in the Community and their possible impact on the situationof the Community industry.
The estimated production capacity of Community producers not
included in the Community industry has remained stable over thelast four years. The same applies to their actual production whichshowed a slight increase similar to the Community industry’sproduction, in the first half of 1994 only. As to the Communitymarket share of these other Community producers, it showedduring the investigation period a slight decrease similar to that ofthe Community industry.
1996R1074 — EN — 15.06.1996 — 000.001 — 15
▼B
(89)Therefore, it does not appear that these producers’ behaviour had
injurious effects on the precarious situation of the Communityindustry, other than that resulting from normal competition.
Investment level and recession
(90)The same arguments as in the case of POY concerning the
influence of insufficient investment and of the recession on thesituation of the Community industry were made by the Turkishexporter with regard to PTY. The reasoning developed in recitals(40) and (41) for POY also applies to PTY. Indeed, investmentsby the Community industry have been limited by the lack of thenecessary financial resources resulting from the low-priceddumped imports of PTY, and the development of the apparentCommunity consumption of PTY does not reflect any recession.
(d)Conclusion
(91)Although the anti-dumping measures in force have had a some-
what positive effect, in terms of the volume of the Turkish andTaiwanese imports of PTY into the Community, they did notprevent the pressure on Community prices to continue. Therefore,even if imports from other third countries subject to anti-dumpinginvestigations may have had some injurious effect on the situa-tion of the Community industry, it remains that, taken in isola-tion, the dumped imports from Taiwan and Turkey, notwith-standing the existence of protective measures, have continued tocontribute materially to the precarious situation of theCommunity industry.
(92)In these circumstances, to allow the measures to expire is likelyto further weaken the Community industry through a recurrenceof injury to this industry.
V.Dumping
(93)The continued existence of dumping was verified, to ascertain
firstly whether there were grounds for the continuation of meas-ures against PTY from Turkey and Taiwan and, if so, whetherany change in the dumping margins required the existing meas-ures to be adapted accordingly.
(a)Normal value
TURKEY
(94)As far as the determination of normal value for the Turkish
producers is concerned, it was first established, for eachproducer, whether its total domestic PTY sales had been made insufficient quantities to permit a proper comparison with its totalPTY exports to the Community.
(95)Only two out of the three Turkish producers, which cooperated inthe investigation exported PTY to the Community during theinvestigation period. These two producers were found to havesold PTY also in their domestic market during that period. Foreach producer, the total domestic PTY sales volume was higherthan 5 % of its total export sales volume to the Community.Accordingly those domestic sales were considered to have beenmade in sufficient quantities.
(96)For each of the PTY types sold by the two Turkish producers onthe domestic market and found to be identical or directly compar-able to types sold for export to the Community, the Commissionalso examined whether domestic sales per type were made insufficient quantities.
(97)Domestic sales of each particular type were found to have beenmade in sufficient quantities, as the volume of each type of PTYsold in Turkey during the investigation period represented 5 % or
1996R1074 — EN — 15.06.1996 — 000.001 — 16
▼B
more of the volume of the comparable type sold for export to the
Community.
(98)It was subsequently examined for both producers whether thedomestic sales of each type of PTY could be considered to havebeen effected in the ordinary course of trade, by looking at theproportion of profitable sales of the types in question.
(99)Given the high inflation rate in Turkey, the methodology toassess the ordinary course of trade of domestic sales was appliedon a monthly basis, as follows:
— in cases where the monthly volume of a type of PTY sold at a
net sales price equal to, or above the calculated monthly costof production, as defined in Article 2 (3) (b) (ii) of the BasicRegulation, represented more than 80 % of the total monthlysales volume of that type, the normal value was established asa monthly weighted average of all domestic sales transactionsof the type concerned made in each month of the invest-igation period, whether profitable or not,
— in cases where the monthly volume of a type of PTY sold at a
net sales price equal to or above the calculated monthly costof production represented less than 80 % but more than 20 %of the total monthly sales volume of that type, the normalvalue was established as a monthly weighted average of theprofitable domestic sales transactions only for the typeconcerned in each month of the investigation period,
— in cases where the monthly volume of a type of PTY sold at a
net sales price equal to or above the calculated monthly costof production represented less than 20 % of the total monthlysales volume of that type, it was considered that the type inquestion was not sold in the ordinary course of trade and thatthe monthly normal value had therefore to be constructed.
(100)As a result of the methodology referred to above for one Turkishproducer, the monthly normal value for the type of PTY exportedto the Community has been based on the monthly domestic priceof the comparable type, after deducting from the sales price alldiscounts and rebates directly linked to the sales under considera-tion, in accordance with Article 2 (3) (a) of the basic Regulation.For the types exported by the other Turkish producer, themonthly normal value was based for the first seven months of theinvestigation period on a monthly constructed normal value, asmore than 80 % of the monthly domestic sales were made at aloss, and for the last five months of the investigation period,normal value was based on the monthly domestic sales price ofthe comparable types, since domestic sales in these latter monthswere found to have been made in the ordinary course of trade.
(101)The constructed normal value was determined by adding to themanufacturing costs of the product types concerned, a reasonableamount for selling, general and administrative expenses (SG& A)and profit.
(102)This amount was established for the Turkish producer concernedby reference to the expenses incurred and the profit realized byeach producer on profitable sales of the like product on thedomestic market.
TAIWAN
(103)In assessing whether domestic sales of the product concerned by
the Taiwanese cooperating producers were made in sufficientquantities to permit a proper comparison and in the ordinarycourse of trade, the Commission applied the same methodologyfollowed with regard to the Turkish producers (see recitals (94)to (98)) but for the whole investigation period instead of on amonthly basis.
(104)It was found that for each of the Taiwanese producers concerned,both the total volume of domestic sales of PTY and the domesticsales volume of each type of PTY, were higher than 5 % of thecorresponding volumes of the like product sold for export to the
1996R1074 — EN — 15.06.1996 — 000.001 — 17
▼B
Community. As a consequence, total domestic sales and domesticsales of each product type were considered to have been made insufficient quantities to permit a proper comparison.
(105)It was also found that out of a total of 32 types of PTY sold forexport to the Community by the Taiwanese producers concerned,only for 16 types had the corresponding like product been sold onthe domestic market in the ordinary course of trade. Normalvalue was therefore established for these types on the basis of thedomestic price of comparable types, after deducting all discountsand rebates directly linked to the sales under consideration, inaccordance with Article 2 (3) (a) of the basic Regulation.
(106)For the remaining 16 types of PTY sold for export to theCommunity, normal value needed to be constructed since thecomparable types were not found to have been sold on thedomestic market in the ordinary course of trade.
(107)For each of the Taiwanese producers concerned, the constructednormal value was determined by adding to the manufacturingcosts of the product types in question a reasonable amount forselling, administrative and general expenses (SG& A) and profit.This amount was established by reference to the expensesincurred and the profit realized by each producer on the profit-able sales of the like products on the domestic market.
(b)Export prices
(108)Since all imports of PTY into the Community originating in
Taiwan and Turkey were made directly by independent impor-ters, export prices were determined on the basis of the pricesactually paid or payable for the product sold for export to theCommunity, in accordance with Article 2 (8) of the basic Regula-tion.
(109)In the case of one of the Taiwanese producers concerned, theCommission was unable to use its reply to the questionnaire asthe basis for establishing export prices. The reply was deemedunreliable because information supplied concerned one salestransaction only which could not be satisfactorily verified. It wastherefore considered that this company did not export the productconcerned to the Community during the investigation period.
(c)Comparison
(110)Weighted average normal value by product type was compared
with the export price for the corresponding type, on a transac-tion-by-transaction basis at an ex-works level and at the samelevel of trade.
(111)For the purpose of a fair comparison, normal value was adjustedin accordance with the provisions of Article 2 (9) and (10) of thebasic Regulation to take account of differences directly affectingprice comparability. These adjustments concerned sellingexpenses arising from sales made under different conditions andterms of sale. Adjustment claimed for the above differences werelimited to those for which satisfactory evidence was submittedthat they had a direct relationship to the sales under considera-tion.
(d)Dumping margins
(112)The above comparison revealed the existence of dumping, the
margins of dumping being equal to the amount by which thenormal value, as established, exceeds the price for export to theCommunity. The weighted average dumping margins byproducer, expressed as a percentage of the free-at-Communityfrontier prices, customs duty unpaid, are as follows:
1996R1074 — EN — 15.06.1996 — 000.001 — 18
▼B
TURKEY
— Korteks: 7,6 %— Sasa-Artificial and Synthetic Fibres Inc.: 8,7%
TAIWAN
— Chung Shing Textile Co. Ltd: 5,5 %— Far Eastern Textiles: 6,6 %— Hsin Pao: 0 %— Nan-Ya Plastics Corporation: 10,6 %— Lea Lea Enterprise Co. Ltd: 12,9 %— Lanfa Textile Co.: 16,1 %
(113)For the reasons given in recital (53), for producers which cooper-
ated in the investigation but were found not to have exportedduring the investigation period, the weighted average dumpingmargin found for the cooperating producers which did export wasconsidered appropriate.
In the case of the Turkish producers hereby concerned, the
margin amounts to 8,3 % and should apply to the companyNergis-Tekstil Sanayi Ve Ticaret.
In the case of the Taiwanese producers hereby concerned, the
margin amounts to 7% and is applicable to the following compa-nies: Shingkong Synthetic Taiwanese Fibres Corp. and Zig ShengInd. Co. Ltd.
(114)For those producers in the exporting countries concerned whichneither replied satisfactorily to the Commission’s questionnairenor otherwise made themselves known, the dumping margin wasdetermined on the basis of the facts available in accordance withArticle 7(7 ) (b) of the basic Regulation.
In this respect, the most reasonable facts available were consid-
ered to be those established during the investigation. In order toavoid giving a premium for non-cooperation and to ensure thatthe measures introduced constitute effective protection for theCommunity industry from unfair trade, it is considered appro-priate to establish the dumping margin for the non-cooperatingproducers in each of the countries concerned at the level of thehighest dumping margin found for the cooperating producers inthe respective country.
On this basis, for Turkey, the highest dumping margin found for
a cooperating producer is 8,7%. However, considering the lowlevel of cooperation of Turkish producers as shown by the factthat imports of non-cooperating producers represent 40 % of totalimports from Turkey during the investigation period, thisdumping margin would constitute a bonus for non-cooperation inthis proceeding. Therefore, it is considered appropriate to calcu-late the dumping margin for non-cooperating producers in Turkeyby reference to the highest dumping found for a type of PTY soldfor export to the Community by the cooperating producers in thatcountry. This dumping margin is 15,2 % and corresponds to aPTY type which represented more than 3 % of total exports to theCommunity during the investigation period by one of the cooper-ating Turkish producers. Consequently, the dumping margin fornon-cooperating producers in Turkey amounts to 15,2 %.
With regard to Taiwan, the highest dumping margin found for a
cooperating producer in that country is 16,1 %. This dumpingmargin is considered appropriate in the light of the high level ofcooperation shown by Taiwanese producers. Indeed, exports ofPTY by these producers represent 90 % of total Taiwaneseexports to the Community during the investigation period. Conse-quently, the dumping margin for non-cooperating producers inTaiwan amounts to 16,1 %.
1996R1074 — EN — 15.06.1996 — 000.001 — 19
▼B
VI.Community interest
(115)A determination as to whether the Community interest calls for
intervention shall be based on an appreciation of all the variousinterests taken as a whole, including those of the producers, usersand consumers in the Community. In such an examination, theneed to eliminate the trade distorting effects of injurious dumpingand to restore effective competition shall be given special consid-eration.
(116)It has to be recalled that in the previous investigation, the adop-tion of measures was considered to be in the interest of theCommunity. It was stated that the measures would have a fairlynegligible effect on the production costs of the user industry andno serious consequences for consumers.
(117)These considerations remain valid in considering the extent towhich it would be in the Community interest to maintain meas-ures in force. No arguments were submitted by the users asconcerns the impact of the price of PTY in the end product.Nevertheless, given the range of the measures proposed, theimpact of the reviewed measures on the prices for the end prod-ucts, mainly fabrics and carpets, has been estimated to bemoderate.
(118)On the contrary, to allow the measures to expire would put theCommunity industry at a risk since it would suffer increasinglyfrom the dumped low prices of Taiwanese and Turkish importsbeing unable to redress its precarious financial situation. It thusappears that the interests of the Community industry by faroutweigh the possible, and in any case limited, disadvantages forusers and final consumers.
(119)It is therefore concluded that Community interest calls for main-taining the anti-dumping measures in force duly amended toeliminate the injurious effects of dumped imports originating inTurkey and Taiwan and that these measures should still take theform of anti-dumping duties.
VII.Measures
(120)In order to provide adequate protection from continued injurious
dumping by Turkish and Taiwanese imports and to prevent therecurrence of injury, it is considered that anti-dumping dutiesshould be established in such a way as to allow the Communityindustry to obtain the reasonable profit it has been deprived ofthrough the negative effects of the dumped imports.
(121)When calculating the adequate amount of duty, consideration wasgiven to the precarious situation of the Community industrywhich consisted mainly of loss of market share and substantialfinancial losses due to depressed prices resulting from priceundercutting. It is thus necessary that the measures taken allowthe Community industry to make a reasonable profit in the future.
(122)In this respect, the Commission has calculated the price levelconsidered adequate to remove injury on the basis of theweighted average cost of production of the Community industry,adding a profit of 6 % estimated reasonable for guaranteeing theindustry productive investment on a long-term basis. The pricelevel was then compared to the average import prices on afree-at-Community frontier basis, duty paid.
(123)Since the result of this comparison, for all producers in thecountries concerned, shows higher injury margins than therespective dumping margins established, the duties should bebased on the dumping margins found,
1996R1074 — EN — 15.06.1996 — 000.001 — 20
▼B
Country Manufacturer Rate of dutyAdditional
Taric code
Country Manufacturer Rate of dutyAdditionalTaric codeHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 3905/
88 on imports of partially oriented polyester yarn (POY) falling withinCN code 5402 42 00 originating in Taiwan shall be repealed.
Article 2
Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3905/88 shall be replaced by the
following:
‘Article 1
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports
of partially oriented polyester yarn (POY) falling within CN code5402 42 00 originating in Turkey.
2. The rate of the duty applicable to the net, free-at-Community-
frontier price, before customs clearance, shall be as follows:
Turkey
Sasa-Artificial and Synthetic
Fibres Inc. Adana 3,3 % 8895
Korteks-Mensucat Sanayi VeTicaret A.S. Bursa
3,3 % 8895
Nergis-Tekstil Sanayi VeTicaret A.S. Bursa
3,3 % 8895
Others 6,8 % 8536
3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning
customs duties shall apply.'
Article 3
Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 3905/88 shall be replaced by the
following:
‘Article 2
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports
of polyester textured filament yarn (PTY) falling within the CNcodes 5402 33 10 and 5402 33 90 originating in Taiwan and Turkey.
2. The rate of the duty applicable to the net, free-at-Community-
frontier price, before customs clearance, shall be as follows:
Taiwan
Lea Lea Enterprise Co. Ltd
Taipei 12,9 % 8893
Nan-Ya Plastics CorporationTaipei
10,6 % 8162
Shingkong Synthetic FibresCorp. Taipei
7% 8163
Zig Sheng Ind. Co. Ltd 7% 8163
Far Eastern Textiles LtdTaipei
6,6 % 8894
Chung Shing Textile Co. LtdTaipei
5,5 % 8161
1996R1074 — EN — 15.06.1996 — 000.001 — 21
▼B
Country Manufacturer Rate of dutyAdditional
Taric code
Country Manufacturer Rate of dutyAdditionalTaric codeOthers 16,1 % 8164
Turkey
Sasa-Artificial and Synthetic
Fibres Inc. Adana 8,7% 8166
Nergis-Tekstil Sanayi VeTicaret A.S. Bursa
8,3 % 8167
Korteks-Mensucat Sanayi VeTicaret A.S. Bursa
7,6 % 8892
Others 15,2 % 8170
with the exception of imports which are manufactured and sold for
export to the Community by the following Taiwanese companieswhich shall not be subject to any anti-dumping duty:
Taiwan
Tuntex Distinct. Corp., Taipei 0 % 8160
►C1Hsin Pao Textile Co.,
Ltd, Taipei ◄ 0% 8160
3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning
customs duties shall apply.'
Article 4
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.