COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 02.05.1997 
COM(97) 185 final 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) 
amending Council Regulation (EEC) N° 830/92 imposing a definitive 
anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyester yarns (man-made 
staple fibres) originating in Taiwan, Indonesia, India, the People's 
Republic of China and Turkey 
(presented by the Commission) 

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 
1. By Regulation (EEC) N° 830/92, the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on 
imports of certain polyester yarns originating, inter alia, in Turkey and Indonesia. This 
Regulation imposed a residual duty of 10.1% on Turkish exporters and of 11.9% on 
Indonesian exporters, which failed to cooperate or 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 requests were made to the Commission by the Turkish 
producer Kipas A.S. (hereinafter referred to as "Kipas"), and the Indonesian producer 
P.T. World Yamatex Spinning Mills (hereinafter referred to as "Yamatex"), which both 
claimed that they were not in existence at the time of the original investigation. 
3. Since the documentary evidence submitted by Kipas and Yamatex 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 
Regulations (EC) N° 1284/96 and 2237/96, two "new exporter" reviews, repealed the 
anti-dumping duties imposed by Regulation (EEC) N° 830/92 with regard to imports of 
the product concerned, produced and exported by Kipas and Yamatex, and directed 
customs authorities, pursuant to Article 14(5) of the Basic Regulation, to take appropriate 
steps to register such imports. The reviews were limited to the question of dumping as no 
requests for a review of the findings on injury were received. 
4. The investigations carried out resulted in the findings of no dumping. It is therefore 
proposed that the Council adopts the annexed draft Regulation which accordingly adapts 
the current measures in force for the two exporters concerned. 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) N° 
of .... 1997 
amending Council Regulation (EEC) N° 830/92 Imposing a definitive 
anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyester yarns (man-made 
staple fibres) originating in Taiwan, Indonesia, India, the People's 
Republic of China and Turkey 
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 
Community^), 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° 830/92(3), tne Council imposed, inter alia, a definitive anti­
dumping duty of 10.1% on imports of single, multiple (folded) or cabled yarn 
containing 85% or more by weight of polyester staple fibres, not put up for retail sale, 
and other yarns of staple fibres mixed mainly or solely either with artificial staple 
fibres or with cotton, not put up for retail sale, commonly referred to as certain 
polyester yarns (hereinafter the "product concerned" or "yarn"), currently classifiable 
within CN codes 5509 21 10, 5509 21 90, 5509 22 10, 5509 22 90, 5509 51 00 and 
5509 53 00, and originating in Turkey, with the exception of imports from two 
1 OJN°L56, 6.3.1996, p. 1 
2 OJ No L 317, 6.12.1996, p.l. 
3 OJN°L 88, 3.4,1992, p.l 
W 
Turkish exporters specifically mentioned, which were subject to a lesser rate of duty, 
and of 11.9% on imports of the product concerned originating in Indonesia, with the 
exception of those imports from one Indonesian exporter specifically mentioned, 
which was subject to no duty at all. 
(2) By Regulation (EC) N° 1168/95(4), the Council amended the above mentioned 
Regulation in further excluding seven Indonesian exporters from any anti-dumping 
duty. 
B. PRESENT PROCEDURES 
(3) In October 1995, the Commission received from the Turkish producer Kipas A.S. 
(hereinafter referred to as "Kipas" or the "company") 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° 830/92, pursuant to Article 11 (4) of 
Council Regulation (EC) N° 384/96 (hereinafter referred to as the "Basic 
Regulation"). Kipas claimed that it was not related to any of the exporters or 
producers in Turkey 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 December 1989 (hereinafter the "original investigation period"). Finally, 
Kipas 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 yarn to the Community. 
(4) In June 1996, an Indonesian manufacturer, P.T. World Yamatex Spinning Mills, 
Indonesia, (hereinafter referred to as "Yamatex" or the "company") submitted a 
request to initiate a "new exporter" review proceeding of Council Regulation (EEC) 
4 OJN°L 118, 25.5.1995, p.l 
N° 830/92. Yamatex claimed to have no link or relation to any of the Indonesian 
exporters or producers subject to the anti-dumping measures in force with regard to 
the product concerned, that it had not exported the product concerned during the 
original investigation period, and that it had entered into irrevocable contractual 
obligations to export significant quantities of yarns to the Community. 
(5) The Commission, after having verified the evidence submitted by Kipas and Yamatex, 
which was in both cases 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 two separate reviews of Council 
Regulation (EEC) N° 830/92 with regard to Kipas(5), and Yamatex(6) and 
commenced its investigations. 
(6) In the Regulations initiating the two reviews, the Commission also repealed the anti­
dumping duties imposed by Council Regulation (EEC) N° 830/92 with regard to 
imports of the product concerned, produced and exported by Kipas and Yamatex, and 
directed customs authorities, pursuant to Article 14(5) of the Basic Regulation, to take 
appropriate steps to register such imports. 
Since both new exporter reviews relate to Council Regulation (EEC) N° 830/92 it was 
decided to deal with them jointly. 
(7) The product concerned covered by the present reviews is the same product as the one 
under consideration in Council Regulation (EEC) N° 830/92. 
(8) The Commission officially advised both Kipas and Yamatex as well as the 
representatives of the respective 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. 
5 Commission Regulation (EC) N° 1284/96 of 3 July 1996, OJ N° L 165, 4.7.1996, p.19 
6 Commission Regulation (EC) N° 2237/96 of 22 November 1996, OJ N° L 299, 23.11.1996, p. 14 
(9) The Commission sent a questionnaire to Kipas and Yamatex and received, in both 
cases, a proper and timely reply. The Commission sought and verified all information 
it deemed necessary for the purposes of the investigations, and carried out, in the sole 
case of Kipas, a verification visit at the Kipas' premises in Turkey. 
( 10) The investigation of dumping covered the periods : 
• in the review proceeding carried out for Kipas, Turkey: 
1 July 1995 to 30 June 1996; 
• in the review proceeding carried out for Yamatex, Indonesia: 
1 November 1995 to 31 October 1996. 
(11) The same methodology as that used in the original investigation was applied in the 
present investigations where circumstances had not changed. 
C. SCOPE OF THE REVIEWS 
(12) No request for a review of the findings on injury was made in any of the 
investigations. The investigations are therefore limited ta dumping. 
D. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATIONS 
1. New exporter qualification 
Kipas 
(13) The investigation confirmed that the Turkish exporter had not exported the product 
concerned during the original investigation period. Production of yarns by Kipas and 
its export to the Community started, in fact, only during the second half of 1994. 
Furthermore, it was established during the investigation that the company did not have 
any links, either direct or indirect, with any of Turkish exporters subject to the anti­
dumping measures in force with regard to the product concerned. 
Accordingly, it is confirmed that Kipas 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. 
Yamatex 
(14) The evidence submitted by the Indonesian exporter confirmed that it had not exported 
the product concerned during the original investigation period. Production of the 
product concerned started in 1994. Export activities in the form of irrevocable 
contractual obligations of Yamatex vis-à-vis Community customers for the product 
concerned only started, according to the documents provided, during the present 
investigation period (May 1996). 
Furthermore, according to documentary evidence submitted, Yamatex satisfactorily 
demonstrated that it did not have any links, either direct or indirect, with any of 
Indonesian exporters subject to the anti-dumping measures in force with regard to the 
product concerned. 
Accordingly, it is confirmed that also Yamatex 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 
Kipas 
(15) In accordance with Article 2 (2) of the Basic Regulation it was examined whether the 
volume of Kipas' sales of the like product on the Turkish domestic market in total 
reached at least 5% of the volume of its total exports of the product concerned to the 
Community. It was found that total domestic sales of the like product achieved a level 
considerably in excess of the aforementioned 5% threshold. 
For each of the types of yarn 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 yarn sold in Turkey during the investigation period represented 5% or 
more of the quantity of the comparable type of yarn sold for export to the Community. 
The Commission subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of each type of 
the product concerned exported to the Community have been made in the ordinary 
course of trade. 
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 
domestic sales, 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. 
(16) Yamatex 
When establishing normal value for the Indonesian exporter, the same methodology as 
described under recital (15) was applied. 
It was concluded that comparable types of the product concerned, in relation to those 
exported to the Community during the investigation period, were sold on the domestic 
market, and that these sales were made in sufficient quantities 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 prices 
(17) For both companies, Kipas and Yamatex, 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 
Kipas 
(18) 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. 
(19) Yamatex 
The same methodology as described in recital (18) was applied for Yamatex. 
D. Dumping margin 
(20) The above comparison revealed that no dumping existed for exports to the 
Community of the product concerned made by both, Kipas and Yamatex, during the 
investigation period. 
E. AMENDMENT OF THE MEASURES BEING REVIEWED 
(21) Based on the findings of no dumping made during the investigations, it is considered 
that no anti-dumping measure should be imposed on imports into the Community of 
the product concerned, produced and exported by Kipas and Yamatex. Council 
Regulation (EEC) N° 830/92 should therefore be amended accordingly. 
F. DISCLOSURE AND DURATION OF THE MEASURES 
(22) Kipas and Yamatex were informed of the facts and considerations on the basis of 
which it is intended to propose the amendment of Council Regulation (EEC) N° 
830/92, and were given the opportunity to comment. No comments were received. 
(23) The reviews carried out do not affect the date on which Council Regulation (EEC) N° 
830/92 will expire pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Basic Regulation, 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 
Article 1 
Article 1(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) N° 830/92 is hereby amended as follows: the 
following shall be added at the end of the text: 
" ,P.T. World Yamatex Spinning Mills, Indonesia (Taric additional code 8595), 
as well as Kipas A.S., Turkey (Taric additional code 8011) ". 
Article 2 
Customs authorities are hereby directed to discontinue registration pursuant to Article 3 of 
Commission Regulations (EC) N° 1284/96 and N° 2237/96 respectively. 
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 

ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(97) 185 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 02 il 
Catalogue number : CB-C0-97-177-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-19047-0 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
\0