1997R1950 — EN — 15.12.2000 — 002.001 — 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
provisional duty imposed
(OJ L 276, 9.10.1997, p. 1)
Amended by:
OfficialJournal
No page date
►M1 CouncilRegul ation (EC) No 96/1999 of 12 January 1999 L 11 1 16.1.1999
►M2 CouncilRegul ation (EC) No 2744/2000 of 14 December 2000 L 316 67 15.12.2000
Corrected by:
►C1 Corrigendum, OJ L 192, 28.7.2000, p. 44 (1950/97)
▼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 CouncilRegul ation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December
1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members
of the European Community (1), hereinafter referred to as ‘the Basic
Regulation’, and in particular Article 9 thereof,
Having regard to the proposalsubmitted 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 ProvisionalDuty Regul ation’) provisional
duties were imposed on imports into the Community of sacks and
bags falling within CN codes 6305 32 81 and 6305 33 91 andoriginating in India, Indonesia and Thailand. The provisional anti-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,
severalinterested 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 essentialfacts and considerations on
the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition
of definitive anti-dumping duties and the definitive collection ofamounts secured by way of provisionalduties. They were al sogranted a period within which to make representations subsequentto this disclosure.
(6) The oralwritten 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 ProvisionalDuty
Regulation that leno bags were considered as product concerned.
They reiterated the arguments set out in recital8 of theProvisional Duty Regulation. In this respect it should be notedthat the fact that leno bags are not completely interchangeablewith all the other types of the product concerned is not required inorder to consider them as single product. Rather, it is sufficient
that these product types have the same basic physicalcharacter-
istics and the same basic uses. This is clearly the case for lenobags as compared with other types of polyolefin bags subject to1997R1950 — EN — 15.12.2000 — 002.001 — 2
(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.
▼B
investigation. The provisionalconcl usions concerning the
description of 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 to be
produced by the Community industry in order to be covered bythe scope of an anti-dumping proceeding, the investigation hasrevealed, nevertheless, that three of the cooperating Communityproducers also manufacture and sell leno bags. Therefore, the
Community industry does produce the like product as defined by
Article 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 be producedby using fabrics weighing 120 g/m
2or more. However, in the
meantime, technological progress has meant that fabric weighing
only 100 g/m2can now be used for the production of big bags.
Moreover, the importer in question pointed out that big bagsweighing 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 knitted
or 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 materialand used for
packaging and transporting goods. In this respect it should be
noted that even if a specific type of the product concerned did notexist or was not widely used during the investigation period, thedefinition of the product also covers product types which havebeen developed subsequently provided these types have the samebasic physical/chemical/technological characteristics and the
same uses.
(11) The ProvisionalDuty Regul ation mentioned, in recital6 thereof,
that the product concerned falls within CN codes 6305 32 81 and6305 33 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 product
concerned if made from a fabric which is either woven from a
strip wider than 5 mm 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 be
covered by the present investigation. Therefore, the conclusions
set out in the ProvisionalDuty Regul ation concerning thedefinition of the product concerned and the like product areconfirmed.
IV.DUMPING
1.Normal value
(a)India
(12) Three Indian exporting producers have objected to the metho-
dology used to determine whether their sales had been made inthe ordinary course of trade. They argued that since the cost of
raw materials increased sharply during the period of investigation,
the monthly 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 product concerned,the volume of sales below unit cost was recalculated on the basis1997R1950 — EN — 15.12.2000 — 002.001 — 3
▼B
of the monthly cost of production for the companies which
provided such information.
(13) SeveralIndian 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 were
below cost at the time of sale, the average selling price of the
product 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 which
exported 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 be
assumed that the use of other exporters' prices produces a moreaccurate normalval ue than construction from the cost ofproduction. Only in the absence of representative domestic salesby other producers, or if such sales prices are not suitable, will
normal value be constructed in accordance with Article 2 (3) of
the Basic Regulation. However, the exporter in question did notadvance any argument as to why the use of other exporters' pricesshould 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 notrepresentative for a certain type of bag and suggested that this
product type be excluded from the calculation of normal value, or
that the normal value be constructed. This claim could not beaccepted for the same reasons as set out in recital10 of theProvisionalDuty Regul ation.
(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 recital20of the ProvisionalDuty Regul ation are therefore confirmed.1997R1950 — EN — 15.12.2000 — 002.001 — 4
▼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 into
account by them when determining the export prices charged. It
should be noted that in these cases the bank charges areintrinsically linked to the cost of credit and as such musttherefore be taken into consideration when determining the costof credit. Therefore, the claim could not be accepted.
(19) A majority of producers/exporters claimed that insufficientallowance had been granted for duty drawback on the groundsthat all domestically purchased raw materials bore import duties
for which a duty drawback allowance should have been granted
and that they would receive duty drawback whenever theyexported the product concerned, irrespective of whether the rawmaterials used 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 accordance
with Article 2 (10) (b) of the Basic Regulation. Therefore, as was
set out in recital24 of the ProvisionalDuty Regul ation,adjustment for duty drawback has been granted only where itwas found that the like product and the materials physicallyincorporated therein sold by the producers/exporters in questionon their domestic markets and intended for consumption within
those 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 practice and
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 domestic
market.
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 solddomestically, contained imported raw materials for which duties
were paid in accordance with Article 2 (10) (b) of the Basic
Regulation. Therefore, the adjustment for duty drawback has notbeen granted.
(c)Thailand
(21) The Thai exporting producers claimed that, in view of the
significant price differences between the raw materials origi-nating, on the one hand, on the domestic market and used fordomestic sales of the product concerned and, on the other hand,
those originating on the export market and used for exports to
third countries, an allowance should be granted pursuant toArticle 2 (10) (k) of the Basic Regulation. The Thai exportingproducers argued that the duty drawback system operated inThailand resulted in a significant difference between the rawmaterialcosts for the exported product and those for the product
sold domestically and thus affected price comparability between
domestic sales prices and 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, the exporting1997R1950 — EN — 15.12.2000 — 002.001 — 5
▼B
producers failed to submit conclusive evidence to demonstrate
that all polyethylene and polypropylene used for the production ofsacks and bags, including those sold domestically, 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
determination of the dumping margin, the methodology set out in
recitals 25 to 36 of the Provisional Duty Regulation is herebyconfirmed.
(b)India
(23) One Indian exporting producer contested the conclusions of
recital27 of the ProvisionalDuty Regul ation, which were thatonly one dumping margin should be established for two relatedcompanies. It was alleged that the company is a distinct economicentity, with separate production, administration and marketing,manufacturing a different product.
However, in view of the facts set out in the ProvisionalDuty
Regulation, most of which were not disputed by the company, andin order to avoid the risk of circumvention of the anti-dumpingmeasures, the decision to establish only one dumping margin forthe two Indian producers/exporters in question was maintained.
(24) The weighted average dumping margins definitively establishedfor the cooperating Indian producers/exporters, expressed as apercentage of the free-at-Community-frontier price are as follows:
—►
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
Ltd13,8 %
— Shankar Packaging Ltd 6,1 %.
(25) The dumping margin definitively established for Indian exporters
other than those cooperating in this investigation, expressed as a
percentage of the free-at-Community-frontier price, is 36,0 %.
(26) The Plastics and Linoleums Export Promotion Council in India
contested the observation in recital29 of the ProvisionalDuty
Regulation 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 could
therefore not be accepted, and the methodology set out in recital
29 of the Provisional Duty Regulation was consequentlymaintained.
(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 %1997R1950 — EN — 15.12.2000 — 002.001 — 6
▼B
— PT Hardo Soloplast 28,4 %
— PT Kemilau Indah Permana Ltd 31,0 %— PT Poliplas Indah Sejahtera 38,0 %— PT Simoplas 23,5 %
(ii) for cooperating producers/exporters not included in the
sample: 28,3 %
(iii) for Indonesian producers/exporters other than those coop-
erating in this investigation: 56,0 %.
(d)Thailand
(28) One Thai exporting producer objected to the comparison of the
weighted average normalval ue with the export price on a
transaction-by-transaction basis, pointing out that there were only
a few 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 the
weighted average normalval ue was therefore compared with the
weighted 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 normalval ue 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 a
percentage of the free-at-Community-frontier price are as follows:
— 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 IndustrialPubl ic 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 the weighted
average dumping margin found for the cooperating Indiancompanies, i.e. 10,5 %, should be used for these three newcomercompanies.
V.COMMUNITY INDUSTRY
(31) The Plastics and Linoleums Export Promotion Council in India
(PLEPCI) questioned the standing of the complainants on the
grounds that, from the eight original complainants, only four of
them and another one, which joined the complainant later on,responded to the Commission's questionnaire and claimed that theCommission did not provide a basis for its conclusion on therepresentativeness of the complaining industry as set out in recital37 of the ProvisionalDuty Regul ation.
(32) This criticism was not supported by any substantiated evidencethat the Commission's conclusions in this regard were wrong. As1997R1950 — EN — 15.12.2000 — 002.001 — 7
▼B
mentioned in recital37 of the ProvisionalDuty Regul ation, it had
been examined in the course of the investigation whether thecooperating complainant Community producers still represented a
major proportion of the totalCommunity production of the
product concerned within the meaning of Article 4 (1) of theBasic Regulation. This examination has shown that the coop-erating producers, listed in recital 4 of the Provisional DutyRegulation, represented around 75 % of the estimated total
Community production of the like product. Consequently, the
qualification of the complaining industry as the Communityindustry for the purposes of the present proceeding, as stated inrecital37 of the ProvisionalDuty Regul ation, 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 ProvisionalDuty Regul ation and requestedclarification on the decrease in employment of 16,9 % mentioned
in recital 51 of that Regulation. In response to this claim, it can
simply 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 of thelike product fell from 767 in 1992 to 637 during the investigation
period, namely by 16,9 %.
(34) In the absence of any other argument concerning the injury
suffered by the Community industry, the Councilconfirms the
injury findings and the conclusion that this industry has suffered
materialinjury within the meaning of Articl e 3 of the BasicRegulation, as stated in recitals 38 to 52 of the Provisional DutyRegulation, in particular in view of the negative trends inproduction, capacity utilization, market share, prices, profitability,
investments and employment during the whole period covered by
the 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 than
one third between 1991 to 1993. In addition, it contended that
there 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 of
1995, namely for the whole period under examination. As
PLEPCI 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 materialshoul dhave had, somehow or other, a positive impact on the profitabilityof the Community industry, considering in particular the fact that
raw materials can represent up to one third of the total
Community industry cost of production of the product concerned.The findings reported in recital49 of the ProvisionalDutyRegulation, 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 the1997R1950 — EN — 15.12.2000 — 002.001 — 8
▼B
volume of sales and production by the Community industry had
increased 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),
whereas sales intended for export outside the Community
increased accordingly during the same period of time.
(39) Finally, PLEPCI argued that the imports under investigation couldnot be considered to have caused any materialinjury suffered bythe Community industry because between 1994 and theinvestigation period the prices and market share of the
Community producers had increased, whereas the importers
under 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 particular
trend within a part of this period should be seen in the light of the
global 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 a
limited value.
(41) It is confirmed that the Community industry market share
increased 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 of
injury, i.e. 1992 to the end of the investigation period as stated in
recitals 47 and 48 of the Provisional Duty Regulation.Furthermore, although the imports in question lost 1,8 % of themarket share while their prices increased by 2,5 % in theinvestigation period compared with 1994, it should be recalledthat from 1992 to the investigation period, namely the whole
period under examination for the assessment of injury, their
market share gained 13,8 percentage points or increased by 46 %and their import price decreased by 3,3 %. Their argument,therefore, could not be accepted.
(42) As no new materialarguments were received in connection withthe findings in recitals 53 to 72 of the Provisional Regulation, the
provisionalconcl usion on the causation of materialinjury to the
Community 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 and
importers, 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 trading
practices of dumped imports originating in India, Indonesia and
Thailand.
(44) As no new arguments were received in connection with theCommunity interest analysis made in the Provisional DutyRegulation, 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 level ofanti-dumping measures would have to be taken in order to removethe trade-distorting effects of injurious dumping and to restoreeffective competitive conditions to the Community market.1997R1950 — EN — 15.12.2000 — 002.001 — 9
▼B
(46) Since the level of prices at which the injurious effects of the
imports would be removed was higher than the dumping margin
of all the countries concerned in the investigation, the dumpingmargin was used in order to determine the level of the measures.
(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 newexporter's review to determine individualdumping marginscannot be initiated in this proceeding with regard to Indonesia,as sampling was used in the original investigation. However, inorder to ensure equaltreatment between any new exporters andthe companies cooperating in this investigation, it is considered
that provision should be made for the weighted average duty
imposed on the latter companies to be applied to any newexporters which would otherwise be entitled to a review pursuantto 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 provisionalanti-dumping duties
for transactions involving the product concerned should be
definitively 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 described
falls within CN codes 6305 32 81, 6305 33 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 additionalcode
8900) with the exception of imports manufactured by the followingcompanies, which shall be subject to the following rates of duty:
India:
Rate of
duty (%)Taric addi-
tional 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 Ltd13,8 8948
Shankar Packaging Ltd 6,1 8949
Aditya Bags (India) Limited 10,5 8424TPI India Limited 10,5 8424Virgo Polymers (India) Limited 10,5 8424
Hyderabad Polymers Pvt. Ltd 0,0 81061997R1950 — EN — 15.12.2000 — 002.001 — 10
▼B
▼M1
▼M1
Rate of
duty (%)Taric addi-
tional code
Pithampur Poly Products Ltd 0,0 8155
Sangam Cirfab Pvt. Ltd 0,0 8156Synthetic Fibres (Mysore) Pvt. Ltd 0,0 8157
Subham Polymers Ltd 10,5 8424
(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 rates ofduty:
Indonesia:
Rate of
duty (%)Taric addi-
tional 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. Peiasnal28,3 8950P.T. Poliplas Indah Sejahtera 38,0 8953P.T. Simoplas 23,5 8954P.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 rates of
duty:
Thailand:
Rate of
duty (%)Taric addi-
tional code
Bangkok Polysack Co. Ltd 13,2 8955
CP Poly-Industry Public Co. Ltd 43,2 8956Thai Coating IndustrialPubl ic Co. Ltd 21,5 8958
Thai Plastic Products Co. Ltd 15,8 8959
Pacific 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 that it
has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a
significant quantity to the Community, the Council, acting by simplemajority on a proposalsubmitted by the Commission, after consul tingthe 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 %.1997R1950 — EN — 15.12.2000 — 002.001 — 11
▼M2
▼B
▼B
Article 2
The amount secured by way of provisionalanti-dumping duty under the
Provisional Duty Regulation shall be definitively collected at the duty
rate 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
publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities .
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in
all Member States.1997R1950 — EN — 15.12.2000 — 002.001 — 12