C0MV1ISSION OF THE EUROPEAN CGMKUNITIES 
C0M(92) 304 final 
Brussels, 17 July 1992 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) 
modifying the anti-dumping duties following the review of the anti-
dumping measures applicable to imports of synthetic polyester fibres 
originating in Taiwan, Romania, Turkey and the Yugoslav Republics of 
Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia and closing the said review in 
respect of imports of synthetic polyester fibres originating in 
Mexico and the United States of America 
(presented by the Commission) 
- 2 -
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 
1. In a notice published in Official Journal No C 230 of 
15 September 1990 the Commission announced a review of the anti-dumping 
measures imposed on imports into the Community of synthetic polyester 
fibres originating in Taiwan, Turkey, the United States of America, 
Mexico, Romania and Yugoslavia in accordance with Artlcle 14 of 
Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88. 
2. The Commission carried out its investigation in the period 
between 1 January and 31 August 1990. 
3. The normal value in respect of the dumping was established: 
for the three Taiwanese producers, on the basis of constructed 
value, namely by adding together the production cost and a 
reasonable profit margin: this gave dumping margîns of between 
5.9% and 13%; 
for the Turkish producer and the producer from the Yugoslav 
Republics of Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia on the basis of 
domestic prices, the dumping margin ranging between 11.4% and 
15.6%; 
- for Romania, a state-trading country, on the basis of a 
Taiwanese constructed value, which gave a dumping margin of 
14.1%. 
4. There was no need to examine whether dumping was practised by 
the US and Mexico since these two countries' exports did not contribute 
to the injury. 
5. On the question of injury, invest igat ions were also made to 
determine whether any changes had occurred, for better or for worse, in 
the circumstances as a result of the behaviour of the exporters on the 
Community market or the situation of the Community industry, 
independently of the anti-dumping measures which are the subject of the 
review procedure. 
- 3 -
6. It emerged from the investigation that a situation involving 
injury to the Community industry - faliing sales and financial iosses -
meant that protection was stiII required against dumped imports 
originating in Taiwan, Romania, Turkey and the Yugoslav Republics of 
Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia. The measures under review had not 
prevented continued undercutting of Community producers by these 
exporters, and exports remained at an appreciable level. In these 
clrcumstances, the lifting of the anti-dumping measures in force 
against these countries, as advocated by the Association of Community 
Importers, would not be Justified. On the contrary, the measures need 
adjustment in the light of the information on dumping and injury 
emerging from the investigation. Imports originating in the United 
States and Mexico, however, can no longer be considered as a cause of 
injury, now or in the future. 
7. As is usual practice, the Commission has carefully considered 
the implications of anti-dumping measures for consumers' interests and 
there is no evidence that they would be signif icant ly affected by a 
continuation of such measures. 
8. This being the case, the anti-dumping measures should be 
maintained and adjusted in the light of the results of the review 
referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4, namely: 
Taiwan: anti-dumping duties ranging between 5.9% and 13% 
Turkey: an anti-dumping duty of 11.4% 
The Yugoslav Republics of Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia: an 
anti-dumping duty of 15.6% 
Romania: an anti-dumping duty of 14.1% 
US and Mexico: no measures. 
- 4 -
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) 
modifying the anti-dumping duties foliowing the review of the anti-
dumping measures applicable to imports of synthetic polyester fibres 
originating in Taiwan, Romania, Turkey and the Yugoslav Republics of 
Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia and closing the said review in 
respect of imports of synthetic polyester fibres originating in 
Mexico and the United States of America 
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic 
Community, 
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on 
protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not 
members of the European Community(1), and in particular Article 14 
thereof, 
Having informed the EEC-Turkey Association Council pursuant to 
Article 47(2) of the Additional Protocol to the Agreement establishing 
an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey(2^, 
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, presented after 
consultations within the Advisory Committee as provided for by the 
Regulat ion, 
Whereas: 
(1) OJ No L 209, 2.8.1988, p. 1. 
(2) OJ No L 293, 29.12.1972, p. 3. 
- 5 -
A. PROCEDURE 
1. Council Regulation (EEC) No 3946/88(3) imposed a definitive 
anti-dumping duty on imports of synthetic polyester fibres originating 
in Taiwan, Turkey, the United States of America, Mexico, Romania and 
YugosIav i a. 
2. In March 1990 the Commission received a request for a review 
from the Association of Importers of Synthetic Polyester Fibres; 
requests for a review had also come from exporters of this product in 
Mexico, Romania and the United States of America. 
3. Having decided, after consultations, that there was sufficient 
evidence to Justify a review, the Commission decided to institute a 
fuli review of Regulation (EEC) No 3946/88 in accordance with 
Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, and opened an 
invest igat ion<4). 
4. The Commission officially notified the exporters and the 
Community importers and producers known to be concerned and gave them 
the opportunity to make known their views in writing and to request a 
hear ing. 
There were found to be no producers/exporters in the Republics of 
Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Anti-dumping measures 
should therefore be restricted to the Yugoslav Republics of Serbia, 
Montenegro and Macedonia. 
5. Exporters, importers and the International Rayon and Synthetic 
Fibres Committee (IRSFC) made known their views in writing. Some of 
them requested and were granted hearings. 
6. The Commission sought and verified all information it 
considered necessary for a preliminary determination of dumping and 
Injury. It inspected the premises of the following companies: 
(3) OJ No L 348, 17.12.1988, p. 49. 
(4) OJ No C 230, 15.9.1990, p. 3. 
- 6 -
Community producers 
Du Pont de Nemours GmbH, Germany 
Enka AG, Germany 
Hoechst AG, Germany 
Enichem Fibres SpA, Italy 
Montefibre SpA, Italy 
Nurel SA, Spain 
La Seda de Barcelona SA, Spain 
Rhône Poulenc SA, Spain 
Br ilen SA, Spain 
Finicisa Fibras Sinteticas SA, Portugal 
Akzo NV, Netherlands 
Rhône Poulenc Fibres SA, France 
Wellman International Ltd., Ireland 
Community importers 
Hugo Bartram KG, Germany 
- Jochen von Grundherr, Germany 
Non-Communlty producers 
(a) Taiwan 
Chung Shing Textile Co. Ltd, Taipei 
Far Eastern Textile Ltd, Taipei 
Nan Ya Plastics Corp., Taipei 
Shinkong Synthetic Fibres Corp., Taipei 
Tainan Spinning Co. Ltd, Tainan 
Tuntex Distinct Corp., Tainan 
- 7 -
(b) Turkey 
SASA, Artificial and Synthetic Flbres Inc, Adana, exporting 
through an affiliated company, EXSA, Adana 
Sônmetz Filament, Bursa 
(c) Yugoslav Republlcs of Serbla, Montenegro and Macedonia 
Hemteks, Skopje 
(d) Mexico 
Celanese Mexicana SA, Mexico 
Crisal Textil SA, Mexico 
Fibras Slnteticas SA, Monterrey 
Kimex SA, Mexico 
Nylon de Mexico, Mexico 
(e) United States of America 
Eastman Chemical Products Inc, Kingsport TE 
E.l. Du Pont De Nemours and Co., Wilmington DE 
Hoechst Celanese Fibers Inc, Charlotte NC 
Wellman Inc, Johnsonville 
Mart in-Color-Fi Inc, Edgefieid 
Gates Formed-Fibre Product Inc, Auburn 
- Foss Manufactur ing Company Inc, Hampton 
Bollag International Corp., Newell, NC 
Carter, Moore & Co. Inc, New York 
- 8 -
7. The Commission received, and made use of, information from 
importers, producers in the exporting countries and Community 
producers. 
8. Producers/exporters were notified of the main facts and 
considerations on the basis of which it was proposed to recommend the 
imposition of definitive measures. They were also given time in which 
to present their comments following receipt of this information. Their 
comments were studied and, where appropriate, taken into account by the 
Commission in drawing up its conclusions. 
9. The investigation into dumping practices concerned the period 
1 January to 31 August 1990. 
B. REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 14 OF REGULATION (EEC) No 2423/88 
10. As regards injury, a fali in imports and/or an improvement in 
the economic and financial situation of the Community industry is taken 
into consideration only if it results from factors other than the anti-
dumping measures in force. 
C. PRODUCT 
1. Product descriptlon 
11. The product is the same as that described in Regulation (EEC) 
No 3946/88. 
12. The product under investigation is synthetic fibres of 
polyesters, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, 
covered by CN code 5503 20 00, and hereinafter referred to as synthetic 
polyester fibres. 
- 9 -
This product is a raw material used in various stages of textile 
production, depending on the nature of the textiles to be produced. 
Some 60% of the synthetic polyester fibres consumed in the Community 
are used for spinning yarn to make fabric, mixed, where necessary, with 
other fibres such as wool or cotton. The rest is used as wadding for 
certaln textile products (cushions, car seats, anoraks, and the like), 
including other non-spun applications such as carpet manufacture. 
13. Although the potential use and quality of synthetic polyester 
fibres can vary, there is no significant difference in the basic 
physical characteristics, consumer perception or marketing of the 
various types of synthetic polyester fibres under consideration. They 
may therefore be grouped as one product for the purposes of this 
proceeding. 
Importers asked whether a distinction should not be drawn between 
synthetic polyester fibres used for wadding and other fibres because of 
the different application. Such a distinction was not acceptable, 
however, because it was only possible following industrial processing. 
Before processing, all types of synthetic polyester fibres generally 
have the same physical characteristics. 
Some exporters and importers also asked for synthetic polyester fibres 
with specific characteristics, such as fire-resistant or bicomponent 
fibres, to be considered a different product and excluded from the 
scope of this proceeding, since such fibres were much higher priced 
than the others. The investigation showed, however, that although 
there were several types of synthetic polyester fibres with different 
characteristics corresponding to specific purposes, the basic physical 
characteristics, application and use were the same as other synthetic 
polyester fibres. Furthermore, the market for the product is made up 
of different classes of synthetic polyester fibres which overlap 
without there being a ciear distinction between them. These additional 
characteristics of so-called "special fibres" do not, therefore, make 
them different, and they should fall within the scope of this review. 
- 10 -
2. Like products 
14. The Commission found that synthetic polyester fibres produced in 
the Community and those sold on the domestic markets of Taiwan; the 
Yugoslav Republics of Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia; Turkey, 
Romania, the United States of America and Mexico were like products as 
regards physical and technical characteristics to those exported by 
those countries to the Community. 
D. DUMPING 
1. Normal vaiue 
(a) Taiwan 
15. The Commission was able to establish that the three Taiwanese 
firms exporting to the Community had sold representative quantities of 
the product, equivalent, that is, to over 5% of exports to the 
Community, on the domestic market. Since, however, the volume of 
profitable sales was negligible, the normal value had to be constructed 
on the basis of the cost of production and a reasonable profit margin. 
The cost of product ion was computed on the basis of all costs, both 
fixed and variable, of materials and manufacture, plus a reasonable 
amount for selling and general and administrative expenses. Given a 
representative volume of domestic sales, the amount was calculated by 
reference to the expenses incurred by Taiwanese producers on sales of 
like products on the domestic market. As to the profit margin, the 
information available to the Commission indicated that there had been 
no representative profitable sales on the domestic market in the period 
under investigation. The Commission therefore established the profit 
margin on another reasonable basis, namely the profits made by the 
firms concerned over previous three years on all sales in the sector of 
each firm; this margin varied between 6% and 11%. 
3) 
- 11 -
(b) The Yuaoslav Republlcs of Serbia. Montenegro and Macedonla 
16. Since there had been sales of a representative quantity on the 
domestic market (over 5% of exports to the Community), the normal value 
was calculated on the basis of prices actually paid or to be paid in 
the ordinary course of trade for the like product intended for 
consumption on the domestic market, net of all discounts and rebates. 
(c) Turkey 
17. Since there had been sales of a representative quantity on the 
domestic market (over 5% of exports to the Community), the normal value 
was calculated on the basis of prices actually paid or to be paid in 
the ordinary course of trade for the like product intended for 
consumption on the domestic market, net of all discounts and rebates. 
(d) Roman i a 
18. In view of the fact that Romania cannot be classed as a market 
economy, the Commission had to base its calcuiations on the normal 
value of the product in question in a market economy country. The 
importers and the producer objected to Turkey, chosen in the previous 
investigation, but accepted Taiwan as a similar country. The Commission 
found that there were no significant differences between the two 
countries in the production process, scale of production or type of 
product, nor in the conditions of access to the main cost. It 
accordingly decided that it was appropriate and not unreasonable to 
determine the Romanian normal value. 
19. As indicated in point 14 of the recitals, the normal value for 
Taiwan had to be constructed. In this respect an importer of the 
Romanian product requested that the normal value thus established be 
adjusted on the grounds that Romania had a comparative advantage in 
terms of oil supplies, a raw material for the manufacture of polyester 
fibres. This request was not found to be Justified. The investigation 
established that Taiwanese firms were able to obtain low-cost raw 
materials on the domestic market. Any advantage enjoyed by the 
Romanian producer was therefore not significant. 
- 12 -
ln constructing the normal value for Romania, the Commission based its 
calculations on the situation of the most efficient Taiwanese producer 
manufacturing the same type of product for the domestic market and for 
export. The Council believes that any comparative advantage has been 
taken fully into account, especially since the importer in question did 
not provide any precise figures in support of his request. 
(e) United States of America and Mexico 
20. Given that the two countries' exports had not contributed to the 
injury (see recitals 30 and 31), the Commission thought it unnecessary 
to find out whether dumping had taken place. 
2. Exoort orices 
21. Export prices were established on the basis of the prices 
actually paid or payable for products sold for export to the Community. 
Where products were exported through subsidiaries or associates in the 
Community, as in the case of the Turkish producer, export prices were 
calculated by the Commission on the basis of the price at which they 
were resold to the first independent buyer, duly adjusted to take 
account of all costs incurred between import and resale, plus a margin 
deemed reasonable to cover general expenses and profit, given the 
profit margins of independent importers of the product in question. 
3. Cpmparispn 
22. In comparing the normal value with the export prices, 
transaction by transaction, the Commission, in accordance with 
Article 2(9) and (10) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, took account, 
where warranted, of the differences directly affecting price 
comparabiIIty, such as selling costs - i.e. terms of credit, transport, 
insurance and handling costs, technical assistance, salaries of sales 
staff, and ancillary costs - where the claim was Justified and the Iink 
direct. All comparisons were made at the ex-works stage and at the 
same level of trade. 
- 13 -
23. Regarding the export prices charged by producers from Turkey and 
the Yugoslav Republics of Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia, the 
Commission took account, in accordance with Article 2(10)(b) of 
Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, of the differences resulting from the 
import charges on raw materials, which varied according to whether the 
raw materials were used for production sold on the domestic market or 
for export to the Community. Adjustments were thus made in cases where 
refunds of duty were found to have been accorded, where such refunds 
concerned materials incorporated in the product exported to the 
Community. 
4. Dumping marains 
24. The comparisons referred to above showed that dumping was taking 
place. The dumping margin calculated for each country or 
producer/exporter is equal to the difference between the normal value 
and the price on export to the Community, duly adjusted. 
The weighted average dumping margins for each of the countries or 
producers/exporters concerned, adjusted to free-at-Community-frontier 
prices, are as follows: 
Taiwan: 
Nan Ya Plastics Corp., Taipei 5.9% 
Far Eastern Textile Ltd, Taipei 6.8% 
Shinkong Synthetic Fibres Corp., Taipei 13.0% 
RomanIa: 14.1% 
The Yugoslav Republics of Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia: 
Hemteks, Skopje 15.6% 
Turkey: 
SASA Art if icial Synthetic Fibres Inc, Adana 11.4% 
- 14 -
25. In the case of firms which failed to cooperate in the 
investigation or did not reply satisfactorily to the Commission's 
questionnaire, the dumping margin was determined on the basis of 
avallable information, in accordance with Article 7(7)(b) of Regulation 
(EEC) No 2423/88. The Commission considered the results of its 
InvestIgation to be the most appropriate basis for determining the 
dumping margin and that the fixing of a margin lower than the highest 
margin determined for an exporter which cooperated with the 
investigation would reward failure to cooperate and make it possible to 
evade duty. It accordingly applied the highest appropriate margin to 
such firms. The Council supports this approach. 
E. INJURY 
26. In accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, 
the Investigation sought to determine whether any changes had occurred, 
for better or for worse, in the circumstances as a result of the 
behavlour of the exporters on the Community market or the situation of 
the Community industry, independently of the anti-dumping measures 
which are the subject of this revlew procedure. 
27. The Commission's findings are as follows: 
1. Exporters' behaviour on the Community market 
(a) Cumulation 
28. To measure the impact of dumped imports on the Community 
industry, it must first be ascertained whether the approach adopted in 
determining the measures under review, namely cumulation of all imports 
originating in the countries covered by the investigation, should be 
continued. 
- 15 -
29. Imports from Mexico stood at nearly 0.1% in 1990. Although the 
mere fact that Mexican imports are insignificant after the imposition 
of anti-dumping measures does not of itself mean that the measures 
should be dropped or these imports not cumulated wlth other imports, 
the investigation found that the structure of the Mexican market, as 
analysed over a number of years, made it highly unlikely that exports 
to the Community would ever reach significant levels in future. 
Mexican production is mainly destined for the US market. Confirmation 
of this comes from the fact that although Mexico had sizeable 
production capacity between 1984 and 1990, its share of the Community 
market remained negligible, hovering around the 0.2% to 0.5% level, 
apart from a temporary spurt of 1% in 1987. 
The Commission thus believes that imports from Mexico would not rise 
significantly if anti-dumping duties were abolished and that there is 
llttle likelihood of further injury. This being so, the Commission 
finds that Imports from Mexico should not be cumulated with those of 
the other countries concerned. 
30. Imports from the United States of America have fallen and 
accounted for no more than 0.8% of the market in 1990. The 
investigation estabiished that this trend is the result of 
circumstances other than the imposition of anti-dumping duties. First, 
the leading US producers responsible for most exports to the Community 
are not subject to such duties, and the duties imposed on others are 
relatively low. Furthermore, US production is focused on high-cost 
products for the domestic market. In these circumstances the export 
volume of the products in question is unlikely to have been affected by 
the anti-dumping duties. These exports are unlikely to contribute to 
injury in future. There are thus no grounds for cumulating imports 
from the United States of America with those of the other countries 
concerned. 
31. Imports from the other four countries concerned were 
substantial, Taiwan and Turkey in particular (respectively 4.2% and 2% 
market shares in 1990). 
- 16 -
32. Although the volume of imports from Romania and the Yugoslav 
Republics of Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia was significantly reduced 
after the imposition of anti-dumping measures - to a low level in the 
case of the latter and to a negligible level in the case of Romania -
the only explanation for this drop was the anti-dumping measures. 
Romanian and Yugoslav exports have always been oriented towards the 
Community and they have held significant and constant market shares 
over the last six years. For those reasons, they stI11 represent a 
threat. The effects of these imports should thus be cumulated with 
those of Taiwan and Turkey as they were at the time when the measures 
under review were imposed. 
33. The Council supports this approach. 
(b) Community consump11on 
34. The Community market remains relatively stable in size. It rose 
from 431 535 tonnes in 1988 to 441 033 tonnes in 1989, falling to 
424 194 tonnes in 1990 (277 507 tonnes during the reference period). 
(c) Volume of imports 
35. Following the introduction of anti-dumping measures in December 
1988, the volume of imports of synthetic polyester fibres from the four 
countries in question fell from 44 000 tonnes in 1988 to 31 400 tonnes 
in 1990; in the case of Taiwan, imports rose from 12 000 tonnes in 1988 
to 18 000 tonnes in 1990. The share of Community imports held by these 
countries shrank from 10.2% In 1988 to 7.4% in 1990. 
(d) Import prices 
36. During the reference period the prices of these imports were 
lower than the prices of the relevant Community product, the scale of 
undercutting ranging from 19% to 25% on average. It should be noted 
that this undercutting has been taking place even with anti-dumping 
measures in force. 
- 17 -
2. Situation of the Communlty industry 
(a) Production caoaclty. utlllzation rate. stocks 
37. Community production of synthetic polyester fibres fluctuated 
from 379 286 tonnes in 1988 to 428 147 tonnes in 1989 and 
407 251 tonnes in 1990. Since production capacity rose from 
432 903 tonnes in 1988 to 466 339 tonnes in 1989 and 471 723 tonnes in 
1990, the utilization rate has remained fairly stable around 86%-88%. 
Stocks over the same period rose by 94% from 29 146 tonnes to 
56 533 tonnes. 
(b) The Community industry's sales volume and market share 
38. The quantity of synthetic polyester fibres sold in the Community 
by the Community industry rose from 337 424 tonnes in 1988 to 
356 465 tonnes in 1989 but fell back to 330 310 tonnes in 1990 and 
stood at 220 207 tonnes during the reference period. The Community 
industry's market share developed as follows: 78.2% in 1988, 80.8% in 
1989 and 79.4% in 1990. 
(c) Price trends 
39. A detailed analysis was made of the selling prices in the 
Community of polyester synthetic fibres produced by the Community 
industry and those of imports from the countries under investigation. 
The investIgation showed that, following the imposition of anti-dumping 
measures, prices in the Community rose from 1988 to 1989, and then fell 
to 1988 levels in 1990. 
- 18 -
(d) ProfIts 
40. The Commission found that, overall, the Community industry had 
recorded poor financial resuits since 1988. Despite a slight 
Improvement In 1989, the situation in the reference period had 
deter iorated. In 1990 only a few Community producers made a modest 
profit, while many others suffered heavy losses. A weighted average of 
the Community industry's resuits shows a loss of some 2.3% over the 
reference period. 
(e) Employment and investment 
41. Between 1988 and 1990 the Community industry shed 237 Jobs, 5% 
of Its labour force, and investments were cut back and two factories 
closed. 
3. Conclusions concerning a change In circumstances 
42. In Iight of the above, the Community industry's vulnerabiIity in 
the face of declining sales and financial losses still requires 
protection against dumped Imports originating in Taiwan, Romania, 
Turkey and the Yugoslav Republics of Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia. 
The imposition of the measures under review has not prevented continued 
undercutting of Community producers' prices by these exports, which 
have remained at an appreciable ievel. In these circumstances, there 
are no grounds for lifting the anti-dumping measures against these 
countries as requested by the importers' association. Indeed, the 
measures should be adjusted in the Iight of the evidence of dumping and 
injury emerging from this investigation. Imports originating in the 
United States of America and Mexico, in contrast, cannot be seen as a 
source of injury, now or in the future, for the reasons set out in 
recitals 29 and 30. 
- 19 -
43. Importers clalmed that a review which examined the possibility 
of lifting existing measures could lead only to a downwards adjustment 
of the existing dutles. 
The Council cannot accept this argument. First, no such provision 
exists in the relevant Community legislation or in GATT's anti-dumping 
code. Such a rule would be contrary to the whole idea of a review 
Instrument, as provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88. The aim of 
Article 14 is to adjust measures to changing circumstances, whether in 
connection with dumping or the resulting injury. It is thus irrelevant 
whether the request for a review comes from the importers, the 
exporters or the Community producers. 
This applies with even greater force in that the Commission may at any 
moment review the measures and adjust them to changing circumstances 
without any request from an interested party. 
F. LEVEL OF DUTY 
1. Rale. 
44. In order to determine the amount of duty to be levied, the 
Commission took account of the dumping margins observed and the levei 
of duty required to eliminate the injury. 
45. In calculating the injury threshold, the Commission had to take 
account of the fact that the Community industry as a whole is making 
losses. The proposed measures therefore have to ensure that the 
industry can increase its prices to cover production costs and make a 
reasonable profit. Based on the profits realized in previous years and 
the industry's ongoing long-term investment requirements, 8% was 
estimated to be a reasonable figure. 
- 20 -
The Commission then calculated the price increases that would enable 
the Community industry to cover all its costs and make a profit of 8%. 
The prices of the dumped imports were then increased by the figure thus 
calculated, expressed as a percentage of the weighted average price of 
these imports CIF at the Community frontier. 
The individual Injury threshold for each exporter was obtained by 
adding the average increase thus calculated to the existing anti-
dumping duty. 
46. These calculations produced an injury margin for each exporter, 
and wl I I enable Community producers to raise prices to restore the 
Industry to health. 
47. The dumping margin for Romanian, Yugoslavian, Turkish and 
Taiwanese producer/exporters was lower than the average injury 
calculated as above. In Iine with Article 13(3) of Regulation (EEC) 
No 2423/88, this margin is the figure used to determine the rate of 
duty imposed on these exporters. 
48. Since there may be other producer/exporters who failed to reply 
to the Commission questionnaire, failed to make themselves known in any 
other way or failed to supply the information considered necessary by 
the Commission, it is necessary, for the reasons set out in recital 25, 
to impose a duty calculated on the basis of the most appropriate 
available information. Consequently, the highest appropriate margin was 
applied to these firms. 
49. No duty wi I I be levied on Mexican and US producers, for the 
reasons set out in recitals 29 and 30. 
50. The Council confirms the above. 
- 21 -
3. Form 
51. No argument was put forward to Justify a change in the form of 
the anti-dumplng duties under review. Consequently, it would seem 
appropriate for the ad valorem format to be retained. 
G. COMMUNITY INTEREST 
1. Situation of the Community industry 
52. To leave the Community industry without protection against this 
unfair competitlon would lead to a further deterioration in the 
situation. The injury already suffered by the Community industry in the 
past led to the imposition of the measures under review. As these 
measures have not eliminated the injury, the situation of the Community 
producers remains precarious. Any further deterioration would endanger 
Jobs and investment in a sector on which many downstream industries 
depend. 
2. Situation of the importers 
53. The importers argued that they are in a difficult position, 
since they are caught between large Community fibre producers on the 
one hand and, on the other, a powerful fibre-processing industry to 
which not all the effects of anti-dumping measures can be passed on. 
Consequently, any anti-dumping duty would cut importers' profit margins 
and threaten their very existence. The Council does not accept this 
argument. The allegations concerning the effect that the retention of 
anti-dumping measures would have on importers' competitive and 
financial situation were not substantiated. Given that the outcome of 
this review will be to discontinue some of the duties imposed in 1988 
and to cut others, imports should, in some cases at least, become iess 
expensive. Furthermore, the importers' arguments miss the point of 
anti-dumping measures, which is to restore healthy competition that is 
not distorted by unfair practices. This objective would be compromised 
if it were possible for importers to take advantage of such unfair 
compet it ion. 
- 22 -
3. Balanclna the interests 
54. Having considered the arguments set out above, and the 
significant part played by the imports in question in the difficulties 
confronting the Community polyester fibre industry, the Council 
concludes that Community interest requires the retention of the anti-
dumping measures previously imposed, readjusted in I ine with the 
conclusions of this enquiry. 
H. NEWCOMERS 
55. For producers who are newcomers to the market, and who did not 
export during the reference period, the Commission is prepared to re-
examine the situation if the exporters concerned can demonstrate that 
they did not export to the Community during the period of the enquiry 
(recital 9), that they began to export after this period, and that they 
are not related or I inked to any of the companies covered by this 
enquiry. Such claims must be supported by appropMate evidence. 
I. PERIOD OF VALIDITY OF THE REGULATION 
56. This Regulation should be considered an amendment to Regulation 
(EEC) No 3946/88 within the meaning of Article 15(1) of 
Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88. The measures will therefore lapse after a 
period of five years starting from the date on which this Regulation 
enters into force, 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 
- 23 -
Article 1 
Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3945/88 is hereby replaced by the 
following: 
"Article 1 
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of 
synthetic polyester fibres falling within CN code 5503 20 00 and 
originating in Talwan, Romania, Turkey and the Yugoslav Republics of 
Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia. 
2. The duty, calculated on the basis of the free-at-Community-
frontier prlce of the product, not cleared through customs, shall be: 
13% for polyester fibres originating in Taiwan (additional taric 
code 8195), with the exception of those produced by the 
companies listed below, to which the following rates shall 
apply: 
Far Eastern Textile Ltd., Taipei 6.8% 
(Additional taric code 8192) 
Nan Ya Plastics Corp., Taipei 5.9% 
(Additional taric code 8193) 
Shingkong Synthetic Fibres Corp., Taipei 13.0% 
(Additional taric code 8194) 
15.6% for polyester fibres originating in the Yugoslav Republics 
of Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia 
(Additional taric code 8263) 
11.4% for polyester fibres originating in Turkey 
(Additional taric code 8198) 
14.1% for polyester fibres originating in Romania 
(Additional taric code 8262). 
- 24 -
3. The definitive anti-dumping duties applicable to synthetic 
polyester fibres falling within CN code 5503 20 00 and originating in 
the United States of America and Mexico are hereby repealed and the 
proceeding with regard to these two countries is hereby terminated. 
4. The provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply." 
Artlcle 2 
This Regulation shail enter into force on the day following that of 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 
The President 


ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(92) 304 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 02 
Catalogue number: CB-CO-92-284-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-45520-9 
Office for OfBcial Publlcations of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg