COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 1.10.1997 
COM(97)484 final 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) 
imposing a définitive 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 
(presented by the Commission) 

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 
By regulation (EC) 47/971, the Commission imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on 
imports of sacks and bags from India, Indonesia and Thailand falling within CN codes 
6305 32 81 and 6305 33 91. 
Subsequently, interested parties were given the opportunity to make their point of view 
known in writing and to request a hearing. Their comments were taken into account 
where appropriate. The Commission continue to seek all information it deemed necessary 
for its definitive findings. 
Following the publication of the provisional regulation, it appeared that the product 
concerned could in some instances also be reported under CN codes other than those 
mentioned in this regulation. It is therefore proposed to include those codes in the 
regulation imposing a definitive duty. 
As regards dumping, as a result of the ample evidence submitted by some 
producers/exporters in the countries concerned, the definition of definitive dumping 
margins was fixed at a lower level than those provisionally established. 
Whereas the definitive margins for Indonesia and Thailand were not a great deal different 
from the provisional ones, see recitals (27) and (29), the Indian exporters have provided 
elements which have allowed for a substantial reduction in their definitive dumping 
margins, see recital (24). 
Given the fact that as far as injury, causality and community interest are concerned, no 
new arguments, leading to a change of the provisional conclusions, were submitted, it is 
confirmed that the Community industry suffered from material injury caused by dumped 
imports and that it is in the Community interest to adopt definitive measures. 
As the injury margins found for the exporters of all the countries concerned were in all 
instances higher than the relative dumping margins found, it is proposed that anti-dumping 
duties be imposed at the level of the definitive dumping margins found as shown below : 
-India: margins from 0.0% to 36.0% 
-Indonesia: margins from 23.5 % to 56.0% 'o' 
-Thailand : margins from 13.2% to 60.8% 
OJ NoL 12, 15/01/1997, p.8 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 
of 
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of sacks and bags made of 
polyethylene or polypropylene originating in India, Indonesia and Thailand and 
collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed 
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on 
protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European 
Community1, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2331/962, and in particular 
Article 9 thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the 
Advisory Committee 
Whereas: 
I. PROVISIONAL MEASURES 
(1.) By Commission Regulation (EC) No 45/973 (hereinafter referred to as the 
provisional duty Regulation) provisional duties were imposed on imports into'the 
Community of sacks and bags falling within CN codes 6305 32 81 and 6305 33 91 
and originating in India, Indonesia and Thailand. The provisional anti-dumping 
duty was extended for a maximum period of three months by Commission 
Regulation (EC) 1168/974. 
1 OJ No L 56, 06.03.1996, p. 1. 
2 OJ No L 317:06.12.1996, p. 1 
3 OJ No L 12, 15.01.1997, p. 8. 
4 OJ No L 169, 27.06.1997, p. 14 
y\ cu 
IL SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE 
(2.) Following the imposition of provisional anti-dumping measures, several interested 
parties submitted comments in writing. 
» 
(3.) The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard by the 
Commission. 
(4.) The Commission continued to seek and verify all the information 'it deemed, 
necessary for the purpose of its definitive findings. 
(5.) Parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of 
which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping 
duties and the definitive collection of amounts secured by way of provisional 
duties. They were also granted a period within which to make representations 
subsequent to this disclosure. 
(6.) The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered, 
and, where deemed appropriate, taken into account in the definitive findings. 
III. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 
(7.) Some exporters contested the finding in the provisional duty Regulation that leno 
bags were considered as product concerned. They reiterated the arguments set .out 
in recital (8) of the provisional duty Regulation. In this respect it should be noted 
that the fact that leno bags are not completely interchangeable with all the other 
types of the product concerned is not required in order to consider them as a single 
product. Rather, it is sufficient that these product types have the same basic 
physical characteristics and the same basic uses. This is clearly the case for leno 
bags as compared with other types of polyolefin bags subject to investigation. The 
provisional conclusions concerning the description of the product concerned are 
therefore confirmed. 
(8.) In addition, the allegation made by these exporters that the Community 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 by 
the scope of an anti-dumping proceeding, the investigation has revealed , 
nevertheless, that three of the co-operating Community producers also manufacture 
and sell leno bags. Therefore, the Community industry does produce the like 
product as defined by Article 1(4) of Council Regulation No 384/96 (hereafter 
referred to as the basic Regulation.). 
(9.) One importer requested that flexible intermediate bulk containers of fabric 
weighing 120 g/m2 or less (so-called big bags) should not be covered by the 
proceeding. In this respect it was submitted that until the beginning of 1995 big 
bags could only be produced by using fabrics weighing 120 g/m2 or more. 
However, in the meantime, technological progress has meant that fabric weighing 
only 100 g/m2 can now be used for the production of big bags. Moreover, the 
importer in question pointed out that big bags weighing 120 g/m2 or less are easily 
identifiable because they.fall under a separate CN code. 
(10.) This request could not be accepted. First, the complaint covered all bags made of 
polyethylene or polypropylene strip, not knitted or crocheted, of a fabric weighing 
120 g/m2 or less. It did not distinguish between big bags and other types of bag. 
Second, big bags and other types of bag subject to the investigation have the same 
basic physical/chemical characteristics and the same uses, i.e. they are made of the 
same raw material and used for packaging and transporting goods. In this respect it 
should be noted that even if a specific type of the product concerned did not exist or 
was not widely used during the investigation period, the definition of the product 
also covers product types which have been developed subsequently provided these 
types have the same basic physical/chemical/technological characteristics and the 
same uses. 
(11.) The provisional duty Regulation mentioned in recital (6) that the product concerned 
falls within CN codes 6305 3281 and 6305 3391, However, the Commission 
became aware that the sacks and bags concerned in the present investigation can be 
classified under CN codes 3923 21 00, 3923 29 10 and 3923 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 extent 
visible to the naked eye. Therefore, sacks and bags falling under the description of 
the product concerned and classified under CN codes other than those provisionally 
disclosed should also be covered by the present investigation. Therefore, the 
conclusions set out in the provisional duty Regulation concerning the definition of 
the product concerned and the like product are confirmed. 
IV. DUMPING 
1. Normal value 
a. India 
(12.) Three Indian exporting producers have objected to the methodology used to 
determine whether their sales had been made in the 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, should 
have been used to determine the volume of sales made at a loss. Considering that 
raw materials constitute the most important element of the total costs of production 
for the product concerned, the volume of sales below unit cost was recalculated on 
the basis of the monthly cost of production for the companies which provided such 
information. 
(13.) Several Indian exporting producers objected to the way in which Article 2(4) of the 
Basic Regulation has been applied by the Commission. They requested that the 
weighted average sales prices should have been compared with the weighted 
average costs of the product types concerned without eliminating those sales 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 practice, 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 a loss, 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 concerned in 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 of normal value should have been constructed rather than based on the 
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 does not 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 more accurate normal value than 
construction from the cost of production. Only in the absence of representative 
domestic sales by 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 not advance any argument as to 
why the use of other exporters' prices should not have been suitable. 
b. Indonesia 
(15.) An Indonesian exporting producer claimed that the weighted average of the normal 
values established for the other Indonesian producers should not be applied to him 
since it was not representative 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 be accepted for the same reasons as set 
out in recital ( 10) of the provisional duty Regulation. 
c. Conclusion 
(16.) The other findings made in recitals (14) to (24) of the provisional duty Regulation 
concerning the determination of normal value are hereby confirmed. 
2. Export price 
(17.) No new arguments have been brought forward concerning the determination of 
export prices. The findings set out in recital (20) of the provisional duty Regulation 
are therefore confirmed. 
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 export prices. 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 are intrinsically linked to the 
cost of credit and as such must therefore be taken into consideration when 
determining the cost of credit. Therefore, the claim could not be accepted. 
(19.) A majority of producers/exporters claimed that insufficient allowance had been 
granted for duty drawback on the grounds that 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 they exported 
the product concerned, irrespective of whether the raw materials used originated in 
the domestic markets of the countries concerned 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 that' all polyethylene and 
polypropylene used for the production of sacks 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. Therefore, as was set out 
in recital (24) of the provisional duty Regulation imposing a provisional anti­
dumping duty, adjustment for duty drawback has only been granted where it was 
found that the like product and the materials physically incorporated therein sold by 
the producers/exporters in question on 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 and polypropylene resin used in the production of exported 
bags is allegedly reflected in the fact that import charges are borne by resin 
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 used for the production of sacks 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. 
Therefore, the adjustment for duty drawback has not been granted. 
c. Thailand 
(21.) The Thai exporting producers claimed that, in view of the significant price 
differences between the raw materials which originated, on the one hand, on the 
. domestic market and used for domestic 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 to Article 2(10)(k) of the Basic 
Regulation. The Thai exporting producers argued that the duty drawback system 
operated in Thailand resulted in a significant difference between the raw material 
costs 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 by Article 2(10)(b) of the Basic 
Regulation. However, the exporting producers failed to submit conclusive evidence 
to demonstrate that all polyethylene and polypropylene used for the production of 
sacks 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 hereby confirmed. 
b. India 
(23.) One Indian exporting producer contested the conclusions of recital (27) of the' 
provisional duty Regulation whereby it was concluded that only one dumping 
margin should be established for two related companies. It was alleged that the 
company is a distinct economic entity, with separate production, administration and 
marketing, manufacturing a different product. 
However, in view of the facts set out in the provisional duty Regulation, most of 
which were not disputed by the company, and in order to avoid the risk of 
circumvention of the anti-dumping measures, the decision to establish only one 
dumping margin for the two Indian producers/exporters in question was 
maintained. 
(24.) The weighted average dumping margins definitively established for the co­
operating Indian producers/exporters, expressed as a percentage of the free-at-
Community-frontier price are as follows: 
Gilt Pack ''' 0.0% 
Neo Sack Ltd 0.0% 
Buildmet Private Ltd 15.6 % 
Kanpur Plastipack 4.3 % ^ 
Polyspin Export Ltd and 
Polyspin Private Ltd 13.8% 
Shankar Packaging Ltd 6.1 % 
(25.) The dumping margin definitively established for Indian exporters other than those 
co-operating 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 recital (29) of the provisional duty Regulation that there was a high 
level of non-co-operation. Taking into account the fact that the co-operating 
exporters accounted for approximately 57% of total exports, it follows that 43% of 
the exporters did not co-operate. In line with consistent practice this is considered a 
high level of non-co-operation. This request could therefore not be accepted and the 
methodology set out in recital (29) of the provisional duty Regulation was 
consequently maintained. 
10 
c. Indonesia 
(27.) The dumping margins found for Indonesian producers/exporters as set out in 
recitals (31) to (33) of the provisional duty Regulation are hereby definitively 
confirmed. Accordingly the dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the free-
at-Community-frontier price are as follows: 
(i) for co-operating producers/exporters included in the sample : 
PT Budi Indoplast Indah 56.0% 
PT Hardo Soloplast 28.4% 
PT Kemilau Indah Permana Ltd 31.0 % 
PT Poliplas Indah Sejahtera 38.0% 
PT Simoplas 23.5 % 
(ii) for co-operating producers/exporters not included in the sample : 28.3 % 
(iii) for Indonesian producers/exporters other than those co-operating in this 
investigation : 56.0 % 
d. Thailand 
(28.) One Thai exporting producer objected to the comparison of the weighted average 
normal value with the export price on a transaction-by-transaction basis pointing 
out that there were only a few transactions which differed considerably from the 
weighted average sales price, and that these few transactions concerned prices that 
were significantly higher than the weighted average export price. A review of the 
calculations confirmed this and the weighted average normal value was therefore 
compared with the weighted average export price. The method of comparison was 
also reviewed for the other Thai exporters and since a similar situation was found 
for two other companies it was decided to compare the weighted average normal 
value with the weighted average export price for these companies as well. 
H 
(29.) The weighted average dumping margins definitively established for the co­
operating 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 Industrial Public Co. Ltd 21.5 % 
Thai Plastic Products Co. Ltd 15.8% 
The dumping margin definitively established for Thai exporters other than those co­
operating in this investigation, expressed as a percentage 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 
European Community during the investigation period requested to be treated as 
newcomers. The Commission, after having examined that all the conditions 
provided for in Article 11 (4) were met, concluded that the weighted average 
dumping margin found for the co-operating Indian companies, i.e. 10,5 %, should 
be used for these three newcomer companies. 
12 
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 the Commission did not provide a basis for its conclusion on the 
representativeness of the complaining industry as set out in recital (37) of the 
provisional duty Regulation. 
(32.) This criticism was not supported by any substantiated evidence that the 
Commission's conclusions in this regard were wrong. As mentioned in recital (37) 
of the provisional duty Regulation, it had been examined in the course of the 
investigation whether the co-operating complainant Community producers still 
represented a major proportion of the total Community production of the product 
concerned within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Basic Regulation. This 
examination has shown that the co-operating producers, listed in recital (4) of the 
provisional duty Regulation, represented around 75% of the estimated total 
Community production of the like product. Consequently, the qualification of the 
complaining industry as the Community industry for the purposes of the present 
proceeding, as stated in recital (37) of the provisional duty Regulation, is 
confirmed. 
13 
VI. INJURY 
(33.) PLEPCI questioned the fact that no figure for the number of employees dependent 
on the production of the product concerned was specified in the provisional duty 
Regulation and requested clarification 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 on the basis of replies to the 
questionnaires from the Community industry. Employment in the Community for 
the production of the like 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 Council confirms the injury findings and the conclusion 
that this industry has suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3 of the 
Basic Regulation, as stated in recitals (38) to (52) of the provisional duty 
Regulation, in particular in view of the negative trends in production, capacity 
utilisation, 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 Community industry during the period under 
examination but had failed to explain the role played in this negative price 
evolution by the decrease in the price of raw materials for the production of the like 
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 material prices in 1993 and the losses incurred by the Community 
industry during that year. 
14 
(36.) During the course of the investigation, the available information did not show that 
the alleged evolution in prices of the caw materials played a significant role in the 
trend in selling prices in the 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 information which would demonstrate otherwise, 
this claim cannot be taken into further consideration. 
(37.) Furthermore, it should be noted that contrary to the statement made by PLEPCI, 
any decrease in the, cost of raw material should have had, somehow or other, a 
positive impact on the profitability of 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 recital (49) of the provisional duty Regulation, however, demonstrate 
that this was not the case. 
(38.) PLEPCI also requested clarification on the findings of the Commission as regards 
stocks, sales and production of the complainant producers between 1994 and the 
investigation period, contending that it was inconsistent to state that the 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 slightly decreased between 
1994 and the investigation period. This is explained by the fact that sales made by 
this industry in the Community 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 could not be 
considered to have caused any material injury suffered by the Community industry 
because between 1994 and the investigation 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 market due to a slight increase in their import 
price. 
15 
(40.) In this respect, it has to be pointed out that the examination of injury 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 the 
conclusions of PLEPCI are only based on a limited period within the injury 
examination period, regardless of the global trend during 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 slightly increased during the investigation period compared with 1994. 
Nevertheless, the Community industry lost market share and its sales prices 
decreased 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 the market share while their prices increased by'2.5% in the investigation 
period compared with 1994, it should be recalled that 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 material arguments were received in connection with the findings in 
recitals (53) to (72) of the provisional Regulation, the provisional conclusion on the 
causation of material injury to the Community industry is confirmed. 
16 
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 reasons against the introduction of anti-dumping measures. Rather it 
was concluded that the Community's reasonable interests require that the 
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 the Community interest 
analysis made in the provisional duty Regulation, the provisional findings are 
hereby confirmed. 
IX. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 
A. Level and form of the duties 
(45.) Based on the above conclusions on dumping, injury, causal link and Community 
interest, it was considered what form and level of anti-dumping measures would 
have to be taken in order to remove the trade-distorting effects of injurious 
dumping and to restore effective competitive conditions to the Community market. 
(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 dumping margin 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. 
17 
(48.) Pursuant to Article 11(4) of the Basic Regulation, a new exporter's review to 
determine individual dumping margins cannot be initiated in this proceeding with 
regard to Indonesia as sampling was used in the original investigation. However, in 
order to ensure equal treatment between any new exporters and the companies co­
operating in this investigation, it is considered that provision should be rriade for 
the weighted average duty imposed on the latter companies to be applied to any 
new exporters which would otherwise be entitled to a review pursuant to Article 
11(4). 
X. COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTIES 
(49.) In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found for the exporting producers 
and in the light of the seriousness of injury caused to the Community industry, it is 
considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping 
duties for transactions involving the product concerned should be definitively 
collected at the level of the definitive duties. 
18 
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 not knitted or crocheted, obtained 
from a polyethylene or polypropylene strip or the like of woven fabrics, weighing 
120 gr/m2 or 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 (Taric code 
: 39232100*10), ex 3923 29 10 (Taric code : 39232910*10) and ex 3923 29 90 ( 
Taric code: 39232990*10). 
2. For the purpose of this Regulation, the rate of duty applicable to the net free-at-
Community-frontier price before duty shall be as follows : 
(a) 36.0 % for sacks and bags originating in India (Taric additional code 8900) 
with the exception of imports manufactured by the following companies, 
which shall be subject to the following rates of duty: 
India: 
Buildmet Private Ltd 
Gilt Pack 
Kanpur Plastipack 
Neo Sack Ltd 
Polyspin Export Ltd and 
Polyspin Private Ltd 
Shankar Packaging Ltd 
Aditya Bags (India) Limited 
TPI India Limited 
Virgo Polymers (India) Limited Rate of duty 
(%) 
15.6 
0.0 
4.3 
0.0 
13.8 
6.1 
10,5 
10,5 
10,5 Taric additional code 
8944 
8945 
89*46 
8947 
8948 
8949 
8424 
8424 
8424 
19 
(b) 56.0 % for sacks and bags originating in Indonesia (Taric additional code 
8900) with the exception of imports manufactured by the following 
companies, which shall be subject to the following rates of duty: 
Indonesia: > 
Rate of duty Taric additional code 
(%) 
P.T. Adhi Kara Suryatama 28.3 8950 
P.T. Aster Dharma Industri 28.3 8950 
P.T. Hardo Soloplast 28.4 8951 
P.T. Kemilau Indah Permana Ltd 31.0 8952 
P.T. Peiasnal 28.3 8950 
P.T. Poliplas Indah Sejahtera 38.0 8953 
P.T. Simoplas 23.5 8954 
P.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 the following 
companies, which shall be subject to the following rates of duty: 
Thailand: 
Rate of duty Taric additional code 
(%) 
Bangkok Polysack Co Ltd 13.2 8955 
CP Poly-Industry Public Co Ltd 43.2 8956 
Thai Coating Industrial Public Co 21.5 8958 
Ltd 
Thai Plastic Products Co Ltd 15.8 8959 
Pacific Polysacks Co Ltd 47.8 8094 
20 
3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customsduties" 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 or producer subject to the measures imposed by 
this Regulation and that it has 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, then the Council, acting by simple majority 
on a proposal submitted by the Commission, after consulting the Advisory-
Committee, may amend Article l(2)(b) by attributing that party the duty applicable 
to co-operating producers / exporters not in the sample, i.e. 28.3 %. 
Article 2 
The amount secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty under Regulation (EC) 
No. 45/97 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. 
Done at Brussels, For the Council 
21 



ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(97) 484 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 02 11 
Catalogue number : CB-C0-97-494-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-24875-4 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
2 Z