Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) 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
Date: 1997-10-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: ASEAN, anti-dumping duty, import, packaging product, plastics

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 : 

margins from  0.0% to  36.0% 
-India: 
-Indonesia:  margins from  23.5 % to 56.0% 
-Thailand  :  margins from  13.2%  to 60.8% 

' o' 

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 

2 

3 

4 

OJ No L 56, 06.03.1996, p. 1. 

OJ No L 317:06.12.1996, p. 1 

OJ No L  12, 15.01.1997, p. 8. 

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 

Neo Sack Ltd 

Buildmet Private Ltd 

Kanpur Plastipack 

Polyspin Export Ltd and 

Polyspin Private Ltd 

Shankar Packaging Ltd 

''' 

0.0% 

0.0% 

15.6 % 

4.3 % 

13.8% 

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 

PT Hardo Soloplast 

PT Kemilau Indah Permana Ltd 

PT Poliplas Indah Sejahtera 

PT Simoplas 

56.0% 

28.4% 

31.0 % 

38.0% 

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 

CP Poly-Industry  Public Co. Ltd 

Laemthong Industry Co. Ltd 

Pacific  Polysack Co. Ltd 

Thai Coating Industrial Public Co. Ltd 

Thai Plastic Products Co. Ltd 

13.2% 

43.2 % 

60.8 % 

47.8% 

21.5 % 

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 
Polyspin Private Ltd 

and 

Shankar Packaging Ltd 

Aditya Bags (India) Limited 

TPI India Limited 

Virgo Polymers (India) Limited 

Rate of duty 
(%) 

Taric additional code 

15.6 

0.0 

4.3 

0.0 

13.8 

6.1 

10,5 

10,5 

10,5 

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 

P.T. Aster Dharma Industri 

P.T. Hardo Soloplast 

P.T. Kemilau Indah Permana Ltd 

P.T. Peiasnal 

P.T. Poliplas Indah Sejahtera 

P.T. Simoplas 

P.T. Wirapetro 

28.3 

28.3 

28.4 

31.0 

28.3 

38.0 

23.5 

28.3 

8950 

8950 

8951 

8952 

8950 

8953 

8954 

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 

CP Poly-Industry Public Co Ltd 

Thai Coating Industrial Public Co 
Ltd 

Thai Plastic Products Co Ltd 

Pacific Polysacks Co Ltd 

13.2 

43.2 

21.5 

15.8 

47.8 

8955 

8956 

8958 

8959 

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