ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES 
DE LA COMMISSION 
 
 
 
COLLECTION RELIEE DES 
DOCUMENTS "COM" 
 
 
 
 
COM (83) 029 
 
 
 
Vo
l. 1983/0 013 
  
 
Disclaimer  
Conformément au règlement (CEE, Euratom) n° 354/83 du Conseil du 1er février 1983 
c
oncernant l'ouverture au public des archives historiques de la Communauté économique 
européenne et de la Communauté européenne de l'énergie atomique (JO L 43 du 15.2.1983, 
p. 1), tel que modifié par le règlement (CE, Euratom) n° 1700/2003 du 22 septembre 2003 
(JO L 243 du 27.9.2003, p. 1), ce dossier est ouvert au public. Le cas échéant, les documents 
classifiés présents dans ce dossier ont été déclassifiés conformément à l'article 5 dudit 
règlem ent. 
In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 of 1 February 1983 
concerning the opening to the public of the historical archives of the European Economic 
Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ L 43, 15.2.1983, p. 1), as 
a
mended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1700/2003 of 22 September 2003 (OJ L 243, 
27.9.2003, p. 1), this file is open to the public. Where necessary, classified documents in this 
file have been declassified in conformity with Article 5 of the aforementioned regulation. 
In Übereinstimmung mit der Verordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr. 354/83 des Rates vom  1. 
Februar 1983 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen 
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Europäischen Atomgem einschaft (ABI. L 43 vom  15.2.1983, 
S. 1), geändert durch die Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr. 1700/2003 vom  22. September 2003 
(
ABI. L 243 vom 27.9.2003, S. 1), ist diese Datei der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit 
erforderlich, wurden die Verschlusssachen in dieser Datei in Übereinstimmung mit Artikel 5 
der genannten Verordnung freigegeben. 
COMMISSION  OF THE  EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 
COM(83)  29  final 
Brussels,  20  January  1983 
Proposal  for a 
COUNCIL  REGULATION (EEC) 
amending Regulation (EEC) No  3439/80  imposing a definitive anti­
dumping  duty on imports of certain polyester yarn originating in 
the United States of America 
(submitted to the Council by the Commission) 
COM(83)  29  final 

EXPLANATORY  MEMORANDUM 
In 1980  the  CounciL  imposed  a definitive  anti-dumping  duty of  16.4% on 
textured  polyester  yarn from the USA. The products of nine US companies 
were  exempt from this duty since they  were  found not to have been dumping 
during the reference period. 
Following the imposition of this duty the Commission received requests 
from fourteen United States producers to undertake a review procedure 
regarding this duty. In  1982  the Commission also received a request 
from the  International  Rayon and Synthetic Fibers Cofrtmi'ttee (CIRFS) 
representing almost all Community production for a review of the duty 
imposed  on textured polyester yarn. 
This  request contained evidence  that  dumping was again being practised 
by certain US exporters of the yarn concerned and  that  the Community industry 
was being injured thereby. The  Commission,  after  consultation, re-opened 
the procedure and commenced its investigation. This investigation has 
shown  that  eight of the exporters previously exempt from the duty had 
been dumping, the margins being as follows: 
Burlington Industries Inc. 4.5% 
Carter, Moore Co Inc. 11.9% 
Collins  8 Aikman  Corp.  2.5% 
Glen  Raven Mills Inc. 0 
International  Fiber Industries Inc. 5.4% 
Macfield Texturing Inc. 4.1% 
Meyers Fibers 0 
Titan Textile Co. Inc. 3.5% 
Unifi Inc. 1.87% 
Uni-Tex  IriteVrtat'ional  2.4% 
Certain exporters either did not co-operate in the investigation or did not 
make themselves known to the Commission and for these companies the 
Commission  considered it would be a bonus for non-cooperation to determine 
a dumping margin below the level found in the previous investigation. 

- 2 -
As regards injury the Commission received no new evidence to alter its 
view  that  the continued application of the existing duty was a requirement 
for the elimination of injury and the prevention of its recurrence. 
On the basis of these facts, therefore, the Commission proposes  that  the 
Council  amend its Regulation (EEC) N°  3439/80  to the  extent  that  the above-
mentioned companies' exports of textured polyester yarn previously exempt 
from duty, be subject to definitive anti-dumping duties in accordance 
with  the margins found. 

Proposal  for a 
COUNCIL  REGULATION (EEC) 
amending Regulation(EEC) No  3439/80  imposing a definitive anti­
dumping duty on imports of certain polyester yarn originating 
in 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  3017/79  of 20 December 
1979 on protection against dumped or subsidised imports from 
countries not members of the European Economic Communityd) as amended 
by Regulation (EEC) No  1580/82  (2), and in particular Article 12 
thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, 
After consultations  within  the Advisory Committee provided for by 
the said Regulation, 
(1) 0J No L  339,  31.12.1979,  p.  1 
(2) 0J No L  178,  22.6.1982,  p.  9 

- 2 -
Whereas the  Council-  by Regulation (EEC) No  3439/80 ,imposed  definitive 
anti-dumping duties on imports of certain polyester yarn originating in 
the United States of America; 
Whereas this Regulation was subsequently amended by Council Regulation 
(EEC)  No  3198/81 to exclude certain types of yarn from imposition of the 
duties; 
Whereas the duties imposed  were  16.4 X for textured yarn and 15.6 % for 
non-textured yarn except for the non-textured yarn of Eastman Chemical 
International  Company for which the  rate  of duty was 13.7 %; 
0J No L 358,  31.12.1980,  p. 91 
20J No L 322,  11.11.1981,  P. 2 
3NIMEXE  Codes  51.01-29  and 30 
4NIMEXE  Codes  51.01-  ex 02, ex 32, 
50J No C 48,  23.02.1982,  P. 2 Whereas nine exporters of textured yarn and three exporters of non-textured 
yarn  were  exempt from the relevant definitive duty since sale of the pro­
ducts  concerned to the Community  were  not made at dumped levels; 
Whereas the Commission has since received requests from fourteen United 
States companies to review the duties insofar as they apply to them; 
Whereas the Commission also received a request from the  International 
Rayon  and Synthetic Fibres Committee (CIRFS) on behalf of manufacturers 
accounting  for almost all Community production for a review of the duty 
imposed  on textured yarn, together  with  evidence  that  dumping was again 
being practised in respect of these imports from the United States of 
Ameri ca; 
Whereas since the said information provided sufficient evidence to justify 
a review of the proceedings the Commission accordingly announced by a notice 
published  in the Official Journal of the European Communities a review of 
the definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of polyester yarn origina­
ting in the United States of America and commenced an investigation of the 
matter  at Community level; 
ex 34, ex 38, ex 41 and ex 42 

- 3 -
Whereas the Commission officially so advised the exporters and importers 
known by it to be concerned as  well  as the representatives of the exporting 
country  and the complainants; 
Whereas the Commission has given the parties directly concerned the oppor­
tunity  to make known their views in writing and to be heard orally; 
Whereas most of the exporters known to be concerned and several importers 
took this opportunity to present  written  and oral observations; 
Whereas the request for the review made on behalf of the Community producers 
referred only to importsof textured polyester yarn from the United States and 
none  of the exporting companies known to be concerned requested a review of 
the anti-dumping duty on non-textured polyester yarn; whereas the Commission 
accordingly  limited its investigation to a review of the duty on textured 
polyester  yarn; 
Whereas the Commission sought and verified all information it deemed to be 
necessary  for the purposes of the review procedure and carried out inves­
tigations at the premises of the following: 
EEC producers: Rhone-Poulenc Fibres, Lyon 
Deutsche  Rhodia AG, Freiburg 
Enka  BV/AG,  Wuppertal 
Hoechst,  Frankfurt am Main 
Anicfibre  SpA,  Milan 
Società  Italiana  Poliestere SpA (Montefibre),  Milan 
Snia  Fibre SpA,  Milan 
Courtaulds  Ltd,  Coventry 
ICI Fibres, Harrogate 
Exporters:  Burlington Industries  Inc., Greensboro,  NC 
Carter  Moore &  Co Inc., New York, NY 
Collins  & Aikman,  Corp.,  Graham, NC 
Glen  Raven  Mills  Inc., Glen Raven,  NC 
International  Fiber  Industries  Ltd,  New York, NY 
Macfield Texturing,  Inc., Madison, NC 
Meyers Fibers, Willow Grove, Pennsylvania 
Titan Textile Co Inc., New York, NY 
Unifi Inc., Greensboro, NC 
Unitex International, New York, NY 
Importer: Pax Yarn Ltd., Leicester 

- 4 -
Whereas the  written  submissions of certain of the companies which had 
requested  that  their products be exempted from the duty currently in 
force  indicated  that  they had not exported to the Community during the 
reference period; whereas a comparison of export price and normal value 
could  therefore not be made and further investigation as regards these 
companies  was accordingly not undertaken; 
Whereas the Commission selected the period from 1 January 1981 to 31 
January  1982 as the relevant investigation period; 
Whereas for Burlington, Collins 8 Aikman, Glen Raven , Macfield, Titan 
and Unifi normal values  were  established by taking the weighted average prices 
of their domestic  sales; 
Whereas Burlington has contested the normal values established for two 
yarn types; whereas for one type they contended  that  the normal value 
should  be established by reference to third country sales because a 
weighted average price for the whole investigation period would be 
inequitable given  that  the export sale took place towards the end of the 
period  and the domestic sales which took place at  that  time  involve 
quantities too small to permit a proper comparison; whereas for the second 
type the company argued  that  the export sale should be compared to 
domestic  sales to one particular company which took place at the same 
time; whereas the Commission rejected these arguments on the grounds  that 
although the company was able to show overall profitability on sales 
of textured  polyester yarn it refused to give specific cost information 
regarding the two types in question; whereas, therefore, the Commission 
based  its calculation of normal value for the two types concerned on the 
weighted average prices for the full period of investigation; whereas 
the Commission is satisfied, having  taken  account of prices of comparable 
yarns  of the producers investigated,  that  this method of calculating 
normal value does not constitute a bonus for non-cooperation; whereas in 
calculating  normal value the Commission also excluded sales made by 
Burlington  to companies situated in the United States of America but which 
were  destined for export; 
Whereas Unifi argued  that  for  three  types of yarn like qualities had not 
been compared but this was rejected as the company did not provide any 
evidence  to support this claim; whereas in calculating normal values the 
Commission  excluded sales made by Unifi to companies situated in the 
United States of America but which  were  destined for export; 

- 5 -
Whereas Mac-field has contested the exclusion of transactions from the 
calculation of a normal value  where  the customer supplied the raw 
material  and paid only for the texturing of the yarn; whereas the 
Commission  did not  take  these sales into account since it considered 
that  they  were  not in the normal course of trade; whereas the yarn was, 
in any event, not destined for consumption on the domestic  market; 
Whereas since Carter Moore,  International  Fibers and Unitex did not sell any 
of the product concerned on the domestic US  market  normal values  were 
established  with  reference to the prices actually paid to other companies 
investigated, these prices being considered representative by the 
Commission; 
Whereas Meyers Fibers' normal values  were  also established by reference 
to other companies' domestic sales since for one type 
sales  were  made at a  loss  and for the other type in question sales involved 
quantities too small to permit a proper comparison; 
Whereas for Unitex normal values for certain types of yarn  were  established 
with  reference to prices for the product for sales to third countries 
since  the Commission in its investigation found no sales of a comparable 
product on the US domestic  market  and Unitex is not a yarn producer; 

- 6 -
Whereas in establishing the profitability of the domestic sales it was 
found  that  texturisers in certain  cases  paid a higher raw yarn price 
when  that  yarn was destined for sale on the domestic market in its  tex­
tured form than when it was destined for export; whereas, therefore, 
the higher raw yarn  cost  was used when verifying the profitability of 
domestic  sales;  whereas this reflected the actual  costs  borne by the pro­
ducer  for these  sales;  whereas profitability was established in all relevant 
instances; 
Whereas export prices  were  determined on the basis of the prices actually 
paid  or payable for the products exported  tothe  Community during the 
period  of investigation; 
Whereas in comparing normal value  with  export  prices,  the  Commission  took 
account  where appropriate of differences affecting price comparability; 
whereas all comparisons  were  made at ex-works level; 
Whereas the above examination of the facts showed the existence of 
dumping  the margins being equal to the amount by which the normal value 
as established exceeded the price for export to the Community; 
Whereas these margins vary according to the exporter; whereas the weighted 
average margin for each of the exporters investigated was as follows: 
Burlington  Industries Inc. 4.5 % 
Carter, Moore  & Co Inc. 11.9 % 
Collins  & Aikman  Corp  2.5 % 
Glen  Raven Mi Us Inc. 0 % 
International  Fiber Industries Inc.  5.4% 
Macfield Texturing Inc. 4.1 % 
Meyers Fibers 0 % 
Titan Textile Co Inc. 3.5 % 
Unifi Inc. 1.87 % 
Unitex  International  2.40 % 

- 7 -
Whereas for those exporters whoneither replied to the Commission's 
questionnaire nor made themselves known otherwise in the course of the 
review investigation the Commission considered  that  it would constitute 
a bonus for non-cooperation to assume  that  the dumping margin for these 
exporters was any lower than the dumping margin determined  with  regard 
to them following the original investigation; 
Whereas as regards injury the Commission received no new evidence to 
alter  its view  that  the continued application of the existing duty was 
a requirement for the elimination of injury and the prevention of its 
recurrence; 
Whereas  with  regard to exports of  three  companies investigated in the 
review proceedings these  three  exporters and certain Community importers 
and consumers of the yarns concerned alleged  that  some yarns exported 
from these companies, albeit at dumped prices,caused no injury to the 
Community industry since these yarns could not be made available by 
Community producers; 
Whereas, for each yarn concerned, the Commission was satisfied by infor­
mation supplied by the Community producers  that  the 
yarns concerned  were  currently being produced by, had been produced by or 
could  be produced by a Community texturiser; whereas furthermore the Community pro­
ducers  concerned alleged  that  where  production of a particular yarn for 
which  there  was demand had stopped this was due to the inability of the 
Community producers to compete  with  the low prices of the dumped imports 
from the United States of America; 
Whereas two US exporters, Burlington and Placfield, offered price undertakings 
regarding  future  exports to the Community; whereas,  after  consultation, the 
Commission  did not consider these undertakings acceptable; 
Whereas, accordingly, the facts finally established show  that  there  is 
dumping and injury caused thereby and the interests of the Community call 
for Community intervention; whereas Regulation (EEC) No  3439/80  should now 
be further amended to impose definitive anti-dumping duties in accordance 
with  the above findings. 

- 8 -
HAS ADOPTED  THIS  REGULATION: 
Article 1 
Regulation (EEC) No  3439/80  is hereby amended as follows: 
1. Article 1(2) (a) is replaced by the following: 
"a) for textured yarn falling  within  NIMEXE Codes  51.01-29  and 30, 
16.4 % except for textured yarn exported by Burlington Industries 
Inc, Greensboro, North Carolina for which the  rate  of duty shall be 
4.5 '/., Carter Moore and Co Inc, New York, NY for which the duty shall 
be 11.9 Collins and Aikman Corp, Graham, North Carolina for which 
the duty shall be 2.5 %,  International  Fiber Industries Inc. for 
which the duty shall be 5.4 %, Macfield Texturing Inc, Madison, North 
Carolina  for which the duty shall be 4.1 %, Titan Textile Company 
Inc, New York, NY for which the duty shall be 3.5 %, Unifi Inc, 
Greensboro,  North Carolina for which the duty shall be 1.87 %, 
Unitex International, New York, NY for which the duty shall be 2.4 %." 
2. Article 3(a) is replaced by the following: 
"a) textured yarn exported by Glen Raven Mills Inc, Glen Raven, North 
Carolina  and Meyers Fibers, Willow Grove, Pennsylvania" 
Article 2 
This  Regulation shall 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