~~^T~ I COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
*** J 
Brussels, 02.05.1997 
COM(97) 186 final 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (ECS 
amending Council Regulation (EEC) N° 54/93 imposing a definitive anti­
dumping duty on imports of synthetic fibres of polyester originating in India 
and the Republic of Korea 
(presented by the Commission) 

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 
1. By Regulation (EEC) N° 54/93, the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on 
imports of synthetic fibres of polyester originating, inter alia, in India. This Regulation 
imposed a residual duty of 7.2% on Indian exporter, which failed to cooperate or which 
were unknown at the time of the original investigation. 
2. In accordance with Article 11 (4) of Council Regulation (EC) N° 384/96, the Basic Anti­
dumping Regulation, every new exporter has the right to request the calculation of his 
individual dumping margin. Such a request was made to the Commission by the Indian 
producer Viral Filaments Limited., India, (hereinafter referred to as "Viral" or "the 
company") which claimed that it was not in existence at the time of the original 
investigation. 
3. Since the documentary evidence submitted by Viral was considered sufficient, the 
Commission, after consultation of the Anti-dumping Advisory Committee and after the 
opportunity given to the Community industry to comment, opened, by Regulation (EC) 
N° 1285/96, a "new exporter" review, repealed the anti-dumping duty imposed by 
Regulation (EEC) N° 54/93 with regard to imports of the product concerned, produced 
and exported by Viral, and directed customs authorities, pursuant to Article 14(5) of the 
Basic Regulation, to take appropriate steps to register such imports. The review was 
limited to the question of dumping as no request for a review of the findings on injury was 
received. 
4. The investigation carried out resulted in the finding of no dumping. It is therefore 
proposed that the Council adopts the annexed proposal for a Regulation which 
accordingly adapts the current measure in force for the exporter concerned. 
«& 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) N°.../97 
of .... 1997 
amending Council Regulation (EEC) N° 54/93 imposing a definitive anti­
dumping duty on imports of synthetic fibres of polyester originating in India 
and the Republic of Korea 
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) N° 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on 
protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European 
CommunityO), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) N° 2331/96(2), and in 
particular Article 11 (4) thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the 
Advisory Committee, 
Whereas: 
A. PREVIOUS PROCEDURE 
(1) By Regulation (EEC) N° 54/93(3), the Council imposed, inter alia, a definitive anti­
dumping duty of 7.2% on imports of synthetic staple fibres of polyesters, not carded, 
combed or otherwise processed for spinning, commonly referred to as synthetic fibres 
of polyester (hereinafter "product concerned" or "PSF"), currently classifiable within 
CN code 5503 20 00 and originating in India, with the exception of imports from five 
Indian exporters specifically mentioned, which were either subject to a lesser rate of 
duty or to no duty at all. 
1 OJ No L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. 
2 OJ No L 317, 6.12.1996, p.l. 
3 OJN°L9, 15.1.1993, p.2. 
3 
B. PRESENT PROCEDURE 
(2) In January 1996, the Commission received an application for a review of the measures 
currently in force, i.e. a request to initiate a "new exporter" review proceeding of 
Council Regulation (EEC) N° 54/93, pursuant to Article 11 (4) of Council Regulation 
(EC) N° 384/96 (hereinafter referred to as the "Basic Regulation") from the Indian 
producer Viral Filaments Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Viral" or the 
"company"). Viral claimed that it was not related to any of the exporters or producers 
in India subject to the anti-dumping measures in force with regard to the product 
concerned. Furthermore, it claimed that it did not export the product concerned during 
the period of investigation on which the current measures in force were based with 
regard to the determination of dumping, i.e. the period from 1 January to 31 August 
1990 (hereinafter the "original investigation period"). Finally, Viral also claimed that 
it had actually exported the product concerned to the Community and that it had also 
entered into irrevocable contractual obligations to export significant quantities of PSF 
to the Community. 
(3) The Commission, after having verified the evidence submitted by the Indian exporter 
concerned, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a review in 
accordance with the provisions of Article 11(4) of the Basic Regulation, after 
consultation of the Advisory Committee and after the Community industry concerned 
had been given the opportunity to comment, initiated, by Commission Regulation 
(EC) N° 1285/96(4), a review of Council Regulation (EEC) N° 54/93 with regard to 
Viral and commenced its investigation. 
In the Regulation initiating the review the Commission also repealed the anti-dumping 
duty imposed by Council Regulation (EEC) N° 54/93 with regard to imports of the 
product concerned, produced and exported to the Community by Viral, and directed 
customs authorities, pursuant to Article 14(5) of the Basic Regulation, to take 
appropriate steps to register such imports. 
4 OJN°L 165, 4.7.1996, p.21. 
(4) The product covered by the present review is the same product as the one under 
consideration in Council Regulation (EEC) N° 54/93. 
(5) The Commission officially advised Viral and the representatives of the exporting 
country. Furthermore, it gave other parties directly concerned the opportunity to make 
their views known in writing and to request a hearing. However, no such request has 
been received by the Commission. 
The Commission sent a questionnaire to Viral and received a proper and timely reply. 
The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the 
purpose of the investigation. 
(6) The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1996. 
(7) The same methodology as that used in the original investigation was applied in the 
present investigation where circumstances had not changed. 
C. SCOPE OF THE REVIEW 
(8) As no request for a review of the findings on injury was made in this investigation, 
this review is limited to dumping. 
D. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION 
1. New exporter qualification 
(9) The investigation confirmed that Viral had not exported the product concerned during 
the original investigation period. Production of PSF by Viral and its export to the 
Community started, in fact, only during the second half of 1995. 
5" 
Furthermore, according to documentary evidence submitted. Viral satislactonly 
demonstrated that it did not have any links, either direct or indirect, with any of Indian 
exporters subject to the anti-dumping measures in force with regard to the product 
concerned. 
Accordingly, it is confirmed that Viral should be considered as a new exporter in 
accordance with Article 11(4) of the Basic Regulation, and thus its individual 
dumping margin should be determined. 
2. Dumping 
A. Normal Value 
(10) In accordance with Article 2 (2) of the Basic Regulation it was examined whether the 
volume of Viral's sales of PSF on the Indian domestic market in total reached at least 
5% of the volume of the Indian exports of the product concerned to the Community. It 
was established, based on the documentary evidence submitted in the company's 
questionnaire reply, that domestic sales of the like product achieved a level 
considerably in excess of the aforementioned 5% threshold. 
For each of the types of PSF sold on the domestic market and found to be identical or 
directly comparable to types sold for export to the Community, the Commission then 
established whether domestic sales per type were made in sufficient quantities. 
Domestic sales of each type were considered to have been made in sufficient 
quantities within the meaning of Article 2 (2) of the Basic Regulation as the volume 
of each type of PSF sold in India during the investigation period represented 5% or 
more of the quantity of the comparable type of PSF sold for export to the Community. 
The Commission subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of each type of 
PSF exported to the Community could be considered to have been made in the 
ordinary course of trade. 
C 
Whether or not domestic sales were made in the ordinary course of trade was 
determined pursuant to Article 2(4) of the Basic Regulation. Since, per product type, 
the weighted average selling price was equal to or higher than the weighted average 
unit cost and as the volume of sales below unit cost represented less than 20% of the 
sales being used to determine normal value, all domestic sales were regarded as 
having been made in the ordinary course of trade. 
In accordance with Article 2(1) of the Basic Regulation, normal value was therefore 
based on the weighted average prices of all domestic sales of the corresponding 
product types exported to the Community. 
B. Export price 
(11) Export prices were established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for 
the product concerned when sold for export to the Community, in accordance with 
Article 2 (8) of the Basic Regulation. 
C. Comparison 
(12) In accordance with Article 2(11) of the Basic Regulation, the weighted average 
normal value by product type was compared, on an ex factory basis, to the weighted 
average export price at the same level of trade. 
For the purpose of a fair comparison, due allowance in form of adjustments was made 
for differences which were claimed and demonstrated to affect price comparability. 
These adjustments were made, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the Basic 
Regulation, in respect of commissions, transport, insurance, handling and ancillary 
costs, credit costs, discounts and rebates. 
D. Dumping margin 
(13) The above comparison revealed that no dumping existed for exports to the 
Community of the product concerned made by Viral during the investigation period. 
Q-
E. AMENDMENT OF THE MEASURES BEING REVIEWED 
(14) Based on the findings of no dumping made during the investigation, it is considered 
that no anti-dumping measure should be imposed on imports into the Community of 
PSF, produced and exported by Viral. Council Regulation (EEC) N° 54/93 should 
therefore be amended accordingly. 
F. DISCLOSURE AND DURATION OF THE MEASURE 
(15) Viral was informed of the facts and considerations on the basis of which it is intended 
to propose the amendment of Council Regulation (EEC) N° 54/93, and was given the 
opportunity to comment. No comments were received. 
(16) This review carried out does not affect the date on which Council Regulation (EEC) 
N° 54/93 will expire pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Basic Regulation, 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 
Article I 
Article 1(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) N° 54/93 is hereby amended as follows: 
the following shall be added at the end of the text: 
" ,as well as Viral Filaments Limited, India (Taric additional code 8642)". 
Article 2 
Customs authorities are hereby directed to discontinue registration pursuant to Article 3 of 
Commission Regulation (EC) N° 1285/96. 
? 
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. 
Done at Brussels, 1997 
For the Council 
The President 
q 

ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(97) 186 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 02 11 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-97-178-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-19058-6 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
/o