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
Date: 1997-05-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: anti-dumping duty, import, man-made fibre, textile fibre, third country

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Regulations  (EC)  N°  1284/96  and  2237/96,  two  "new  exporter"  reviews,  repealed  the 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), t ne  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. 

This  Regulation  shall  enter  into  force  on  the  day  following  its  publication  in  the Official 

Journal of the European Communities. 

Article 3 

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