Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1490/96 on polyester staple fibre originating in Belarus to imports of polyester filament tow from Belarus and levying the extended duty on the latter imports as registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 693/97
Date: 1997-12-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Belarus, anti-dumping duty, electric cable, import, man-made fibre

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels,  08.12.1997 
COM(97)672  final 

Proposal  for  a 

COUNCIL  REGULATION  (EC) 

extending the definitive  anti-dumping duty imposed  by Regulation (EC) No  1490/96 
on polyester staple fibre originating in Belarus to imports of polyester filament tow 

from Belarus  and levying the extended duty on the latter imports as registered 
under Commission Regulation (EC) No 693/97 

(presented  by  the  Commission) 

EXPLANATORY  MEMORANDUM 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Attached  is  a  proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  extending  definitive  anti 
dumping  duties  in  force  with  respect  to  imports  of  polyester  staple  fibre 
(hereafter  "fibre")  originating  in Belarus1 to  imports  of polyester filament tow 
(hereafter  "tow")  from  the  same  country,  in  accordance  with  Article  13  of 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22  December  1995  on  protection 
against  dumped  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European 
Community (hereafter  "the Basic Regulation")2. 

The proposed  regulation  also provides for  the levying  of the  extended  duty  on 
imports of tow from Belarus which  entered  the  Community  under  registration 
imposed  by Commission Regulation  (EC) No  693/97  of  18 April  1997.3  This 
levy of the extended  duty on the registered product is a mandatory  corollary  of 
the extended duty, pursuant to Article  13 (3) of the Basic Regulation. 

The  proposed  regulation  is  based  on  an  investigation  by  the  Commission 
services,  commenced  by  the  aforesaid  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No 
693/97,  which  has  revealed  that  the  anti-dumping  measures  in  force  with 
respect  to fibre originating  in Belarus were being  circumvented,  in  accordance 
with the criteria laid down in Article  13 (1) of the Basic Regulation, by imports 
of tow from Belarus subsequently processed  into fibre in the Community. 

The  investigation  has  shown  in  particular  that  tow  and  fibre  imported  from 
Belarus are like products which share the same basic characteristics  in terms of 
chemical  properties  and  performance,  as  the  only  difference  between  the  two 
products consists of the simple, mechanical cutting of tow into fibre. 

In  addition,  the  investigation  has  established  that,  following  the  imposition  of 
anti-dumping  duties  on fibre originating  in Belarus,  a  change  in the  pattern  of 
trade  took  place  as  imports  of fibre from Belarus  were  largely  substituted  by 
imports  of tow  from  that  country.  The  investigation  has  moreover  shown  that 
no  sufficient  due  cause  or  economic  justification,  other  than  avoiding  the 
payment  of  the  anti-dumping  duties  in  force,  exists  for  the  importation  and 
cutting  of  tow  in  the  Community  rather  than  the  importation  of  fibre  already 
cut in Belarus, the exporting country. 

../.. 

Council Regulation  (EC) No  1490/96 of 23 July  1996, OJNo L  189, 30.7.1996, p. 13. 
O J N o L 5 6,  6.3.1996, p.  1. 
O J N oL  102,  19.4.1997, p. 14. 

A 

Finally,  it was  determined that imports of tow  were undermining  the remedial 
effects  of the anti-dumping duty in terms of quantities and prices and that there 
was  evidence  of  dumping  in  relation  to  the  normal  values  previously 
established. 

As the  Commission  services  have thus found  that all  conditions  of  Article  13 
(1)  of the Basic  Regulation  establishing  circumvention  are met  in the present 
case,  it  is  proposed  that  the  anti-dumping  measures  in  force  with  respect  to 
imports of fibre originating in Belarus be extended to imports of tow from that 
country. 

In  accordance  with  Article  13  (3)  of  the  Basic  Regulation,  the  Council 
regulation extending the anti-dumping measures in force should be adopted and 
published not later than 9 months after the initiation of the investigation,  i.e. in 
the present case not later than 16 January 1998. 

^)  <X 

Council Regulation (EC) No 

of 

extending the definitive  anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation  (EC) No  1490/96 

on polyester staple fibre originating in Belarus to imports of polyester filament  tow 

from Belarus and levying the extended duty on the latter imports as registered 

under Commission Regulation  (EC) No 693/97 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

c 

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  (hereafter  the "Basic Regulation"),  as amended  by Council  Regulation  (EC) 
No 2331/962, and in particular Article  13 (3) thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal  submitted by the Commission  after  consulting the Advisory 

Committee, 

Whereas: 

' O J N o L 5 6,  6. 3  1996, p. 1. 
2O J N o L 3 1 7,  6.12.1996, p. 1. 

A  Kr e, 

A. 

PROCEDURE 

(1) 

On  19 April  1997, by Regulation (EC) No  693/973, the Commission  initiated  an 
investigation,  pursuant  to  Article  13  of  the  Basic  Regulation,  concerning  the 
alleged  circumvention of the anti-dumping duties imposed by Council Regulation 
(EC) No  1490/964 (hereafter  the "original investigation") on imports of polyester 
staple fibre originating in Belarus, by imports of polyester filament tow originating 
in that country which are subsequently converted into PSF in the Community and 
directed customs authorities, pursuant to Article 13 (3) of the Basic Regulation, to 
register  imports  of  such  PFT.  The  investigation  was  initiated  following  a 
complaint lodged on 4 March  1997 by the International Committee of Rayon and 
Synthetic Fibres (C.I.F.R.S)  on behalf of Community producers  whose  output  is 
considered to represent over 90 % of the total Community production of PSF. 

(2) 

The product  concerned  by this  investigation  is polyester filament tow  (hereafter 
"PFT"), falling under CN code 5501 20 00, used for conversion in the Community 
into  polyester  staple fibre (hereafter  "PSF"),  the  latter  product  being  currently 
classifiable under CN code 5503 20 00. 

3O J N o L 9 8,  19.4.  1997, p. 3. 
4O J N oL  189, 30.7.1996, p. 1. 

(3) 

The Commission officially  advised the authorities of Belarus about the initiation of 

the investigation and sent questionnaires to the Community  companies  concerned 

mentioned  in  the  complaint.  No  additional  companies  made  themselves  known 

within the prescribed time limit. 

(4) 

The investigation covered the period  1 January  1996 to 31 March  1997  (hereafter 

"the investigation period"). 

(5) 

The Commission received complete replies from the following companies: 

(a) 

Germany 

- Barnet Europe W. Barnet GmbH & Co. KG 
- Rheinische Faser<jmbH 

- Kemokomplex GmbH 

(b) 

Italy 

- SALT & Co. Snc 
- TA.SFI Snc 
- S.I.M.P.  Sri (formerly CO.FI.S SpA) 

The Commission requested and examined all information  it deemed necessary and 
carried out verification visits at the premises of the companies located in Italy and 
of one company located in Germany (Barnet). 

(6)  All companies mentioned above made their views known in writing and requested 

and were granted a hearing by the Commission. 

B. 

SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION 

(7)  Article  13  (1),  first  sentence  of  the  Basic  Regulation  provides  that,  if  certain 
conditions  establishing  circumvention  are  met,  anti-dumping  measures  in  force 
may be extended to imports of like products or parts thereof from a third country. 

The  scope  of  the  present  investigation  was  to  examine  whether  anti-dumping 
measures  on  imports  of  PSF  originating  in Belarus  are  being  circumvented  by 
means of imports of PFT originating in that country which are used in conversion 
operations in the Community. 

(8) 

The importers and converters have argued that the present investigation could not 

be  initiated  under  Article  13  of  the  Basic  Regulation  because  an  investigation 

under  this  provision  would  only  be  possible  with  regard  to  a  "third  country", 

which would  exclude the exporting country in respect  of which thé anti-dumping 

measures  were  imposed.  This  argument  is  rejected  because  the  term  "third 

country",  as used  in Article  13 (1)  of the Basic Regulation  is,  also  in view  of its 

legislative  history,  a broad  term which  simply  refers  to  any  country  outside  the 

European Community as opposed to trade between two or more Member States of 

the Community. 

(9) 

It was considered that the alleged circumvention practice had to be assessed on the 

basis  of  the  second  sentence  of  Article  13  (1)  of  the  Basic  Regulation.  The 

objective  of the  investigation was  in particular to  examine whether the  operation 

described  above  fulfilled  all  conditions  set  out  in  that  provision,  so  that  anti 

dumping  measures  in  force  with  respect  to  PSF  could  be  extended  to  PFT 

pursuant to Article  13 (1), first sentence of the Basic Regulation. 

In this respect,  it should be noted that PFT and PSF share the same basic physical 

and  chemical  characteristics.  Indeed,  the  only  difference  between  PFT  and  PSF 

results  from  a  simple  cutting  process.  The  imported  PFT  has  therefore  to  be 

viewed  as  a  product  which  has  been  slightly  altered  in  order  to  avoid  the  anti 

dumping measures currently applicable to PSF.  Differences  of this nature, which 

can be created or eliminated by minor alterations, cannot put into question the fact 

that PSF and PFT are essentially the same product.  Such differences  are therefore 

not sufficient  to avoid payment of anti-dumping duties on PFT.  As far as the uses 

of  PFT  and  PSF  are  concerned,  the  investigation  has  also  shown  that  all  PFT 

imported  from  Belarus  was  used  for  cutting  into  PSF  rather  than  for  worsted 

spinning  to  produce  tops,  the  other  recognised  application  of  PFT.  Worsted 

spinning  is  a  considerably  more  complex  process  requiring  special  technology. 

Tops  are  sold  in  a small  and  relatively  stable  niche  market  commanding  a  price 

premium. 

In any event,  it  should be borne in mind that,  as in the case  of parts destined  for 

assembly,  the  imports  of  PFT  ultimately  end  up  as  a product  which  is  not  only 

alike  but  identical  to  the  imports  subject  to  the  original  investigation,  i.e.  PSF. 

Thus,  although  the  alteration  process  from  PFT  into  PSF  is  not  as  such  an 

assembly operation, it is of such a nature that it has to be considered  as a practice 

which is carried out to avoid the measures in force. 

It follows from the  foregoing  that PFT  and PSF  are  alike within  the  meaning  of 

Article  1 (4) of the Basic Regulation. 

C. 

RESULTS 

1. 

Nature of the circumvention operation 

(10)  The  investigation  has  established  that  all  the  PFT  concerned  is  produced  by  a 
single  company  in  Belarus  and  exported  to  the  Community  mainly  via  two 
channels.  A first channel concerns a German trader which purchases the PFT  from 
the Belarus  exporter  and sells it, for  the major  part,  to  an Italian  importer.  The 
PFT thus imported is subsequently processed  into PSF by Italian  sub-contractors 
and thereafter  sold by the Italian importer in the Community, mainly on the Italian 
market.  A second channel involves a Swiss trader which sells the PFT it purchases 
from the  Belarus  exporter  to  a  German  importer.  The  German  importer  itself 
processes  the PFT  into PSF and  sells the PSF in the Community,  mainly on the 
German market. 

(11)  The question as to whether Belarus can be considered as a "third country" in terms 
of Article  13 (1) of the Basic Regulation has already been addressed  in recital 8. 
The question of whether PSF and PFT can be considered  to be like products has 
been addressed in recital 9. 

2. 

Conditions  of Article  13 (1), second  sentence 

(a)  Circumvention 

Change in the pattern  of trade 

(12)  Immediately following the imposition in March  1996 of a provisional  anti-dumping 

duty of 43,5 % on PSF originating in Belarus by Commission Regulation  (EC) No 
394/96  of  4  March  19965,  imports  of  PSF  from  Belarus  were  almost  entirely 
substituted  by imports  of PFT from that  country.  While in the  period  subsequent 

to  the  initiation  of  the  original  anti-dumping  investigation  (August  1994)  PFT 

imports from Belarus only  represented  at most  1  % of combined PFT-PSF  imports 

from  that  country,  the  PFT-PSF  mix  changed  radically  and  abruptly  immediately 

following  the  imposition  of  provisional  anti-dumping  measures  in March  1996: in 

the  period  April  to  June  1996,  PSF  accounted  for  3,02  %  only  while  PFT 

represented  96,98  %.  This  marked  change  in the  pattern  of  trade  continued  and 

even increased  throughout  the entire  15 month  investigation  period  as volumes  of 

PFT were increasing rapidly ana PSF imports were further  phased  out.  At the end 

of  the  investigation  period  (period  January-March  1997),  PFT  accounted  for 

99,27 % and PSF merely for 0,73 % of the PSF-PFT mix. 

O J N o L 5 4,  5.3.1996,  p. 10. 

In  addition,  import  levels  of  PFT  from  Belarus  as  such  increased  rapidly  and 

reached  significant  levels: while imports of PFT from  Belarus in  1995 amounted  to 

merely  169  tonnes,  such  imports  rose  to  13 619  tonnes  in  the  12-month  period 

following  the  imposition  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  measures  on  PSF  from 

Belarus. 

The  companies  involved  have  argued  that  no  change  in  the  pattern  of  trade 

occurred because PFT imports have not substituted for imports of PSF at the same 

import levels of PSF in  1994 and  1995.  This argument  is to  be rejected.  It is not 

required  that  the  substitution  is found  to  have  attained  the  highest  import  levels 

which  the  substituted  product  ever  reached  in  a  particular  segment  in  the 

benchmark  period  -  i.e.  since  or just  prior  to  the  initiation  of  the  original  anti 

dumping  investigation  (August  1994)  -  provided,  as was  found  to  be  the  case  in 

the  present  investigation,  that  there  is a  clear  and  consistent  trend  of  substitution 

over an extended  period.  In this respect, it should be noted that  a particularly  long 

investigation  period  of  15  months  was  deliberately  selected  so  as  to  increase  its 

representativity. 

10 

Insufficient  due cause or economic  justification 

(13)  The  above-mentioned  substitution  of  PSF  by  PFT  following  the  imposition  of  a 

significant  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  (see  recital  12)  must  reasonably  be 

considered  to have stemmed from the anti-dumping measures rather than from any 

other  sufficient  due  cause  or  economic justification  within  the  meaning  of  Article 

13 (1), second  sentence of the Basic Regulation. 

If there  were  to  exist  a  sufficient  due cause  or  economic justification  -  other  than 

the anti-dumping  measures in force  - for  importing PFT  and  cutting  it  into PSF in 

the  Community  rather  than  directly  importing  PSF  already  cut  in  the  exporting 

country,  then  it  might  be  expected  that  at  least  some  PFT  would  have  been 

imported  for  conversion  in  the  Community  prior  to  imposition  of  the  provisional 

measures.  However,  as imports  of PFT  originating  in Belarus  prior  to  imposition 

of  the  provisional  measures  were  negligible,  it  must  be  concluded  that  the 

substitution  of PSF  by  PFT  and  the  strong  increase  of PFT  imports  stem  from  a 

practice  lacking  sufficient  due  cause  or  economic  justification  and  were  in  fact 

primarily prompted  by the imposition of anti-dumping measures. 

11 

This inference  would  be displaced  if a new  significant  factor  - other  than  the anti 

dumping  measures  -  arising  around  the  time  when  the  substitution  took  place, 

could  be  identified,  which is not  the case and  no  interested  party  has  put  forward 

any such claim. 

(14)  This  conclusion  is  corroborated  by  the  following  findings.  Importing  PFT  for 

conversion  in  the  Community  into  PSF,  as  opposed  to  directly  importing  PSF 

already  cut  in a continuous,  integrated  operation  -  as is  standard  practice  -  in  the 

exporting  country,  generates  a  number  of  extra  costs  in  terms  of  packaging  and 

labour  which  are  not  offset  by any  significant  cost  savings  or  price  premiums  but 

which are even compounded  by the higher hourly labour cost in the Community,  if 

compared  with  that  in  Taiwan,  selected  in  the  original  investigation  as  analogue 

country  to  calculate  normal  value.  In  addition,  exports  of PFT  were  found  to  be 

targeting  the Community  since other export  markets continued  to be supplied with 

PSF  by  the  Belarus  exporter  concerned,  which  shows  a  lack  of  economic 

justification  because, 

if  the  practice  were  economically  justified, 

it  might 

reasonably  be  expected  that  it  would  also  have  occurred  in  other  industrialised 

markets  similar to the Community. 

12 

(15)  The  importers  and  converters  have  argued  that  there  is  sufficient  due  cause  or 

economic justification for the importation for conversion in the Community of PFT 

rather than direct importation of PSF already cut in the exporting country because 

this  entails  certain  cost  savings  in terms  of  stock  keeping  and  allows  for  greater 

flexibility to meet customer demand for various sizes and small orders of PSF. 

(16)  This argument was rejected  as such benefits  were not quantified by the importers 

and  even  if  such  benefits  do  exist,  they  would  appear  not  to  outweigh  the 

additional cost  in terms of packaging  and labour referred to  above.  In any event, 

such alleged benefits  would  also  have  existed  prior to the  imposition  of the anti 

dumping  measures  and,  if significant,  it  could  reasonably  be  expected  that  some 

operators  in the  Community  or in other  comparable  markets would  have  availed 

themselves,  at least  to  some extent,  of this opportunity prior to the imposition  of 

the  anti-dumping  measures.  As this was  found  not  to  be the  case  (PFT  imports 
from  Belarus  prior  to  the  imposition  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  measures 

were statistically negligible),  it must be concluded that the benefits  claimed  are, at 

most, of secondary importance only. 

13 

(17)  The  converters  and  importers  also  submitted  that  it  was  economically  justifiable 

for  them  to  convert  PFT  imported  from  Belarus  since  the  necessary  cutting 

capacity  did  already  exist  in the  Community  so  that  no  special,  new  investments 

were  required  (absence  of "opportunity  cost").  It was  also  argued  that  the  fact 

that  PFT from sources other than Belarus was converted prior to the initiation  of 

the  anti-dumping  investigation  showed  that importation  of PFT from Belarus  for 

conversion in the Community was also justifiable.  This argument was rejected for 

the following reasons. 

Except  for  a limited  trial  production  during the first three  months  of  1996,  the 

particular  circumvention  practice  under  investigation  (importation  of  PFT  from 

Belarus for conversion into PSF in the EU)  only began after the imposition of the 

provisional  anti-dumping  measures  in  March  1996. 

It  follows  that  it  can 

reasonably be concluded  that prior to  imposition  of the  anti-dumping  measures it 

•  was not considered justifiable to use this cutting capacity to convert PFT imported 

from  Belarus rather than directly importing PSF. 

14 

In addition, imports of PFT from countries other than Belarus have been small and 

even declining.  It would also appear that such imports concern, to  a large extent, 

PFT used to  produce tops - which,  as stated  above  (see  recital  9)  is a stable and 

small  niche  market  requiring  more  complex  processing  and  commanding  a price 

premium - rather than PFT for cutting into PSF, which is a commodity product.  In 

this respect, it should be noted that imports of PFT from other countries remained 

stable  but  were  dwarfed  in  relative  terms  by  the  massive  influx  of  PFT  from 

Belarus which in itself accounted for 70 % of all PFT imports in 1996. 

In any event,  the argument  is factually flawed since it was  established  during the 

verifications  that  at least  one  converter  in Italy  specifically  invested  in  additional 

cutting  equipment  in order to  meet growing  supplies  of PFT from Belarus.  This 

contradicts the alleged absence of opportunity cost mentioned above. 

15 

(b) 

Undermining of the remedial effects of the duty and evidence of dumping 

Undermining 

(18)  The  Commission  first  determined  whether  the  remedial  effects  of  the  duty  are 
being  undermined  in  terms  of  prices.  To  that  end,  a  comparison  was  made 
between  the  average  sales  price  in  the  Community  of  PSF  cut  from  PFT 
originating in Belarus during the investigation period, and the "undumped" export 
price  to  the  Community  of  PSF  originating from Belarus  as  established  in  the 
original investigation period. 

The "undumped" export price of PSF was calculated at a CIF Community border 
level on the basis of the export price as established in the initial investigation. To 
this price customs duties (5,5 %) and anti-dumping duties (43,5 %) were added to 
arrive at an "undumped" level. 

16 

A  weighted  average  price  ex-converter  was  determined  for  PSF  cut frofn PFT 

originating  in  Belarus.  Adjustments  to  this  price  ("netbacking")  were  made  in 

order  to  ensure  that  a  comparison  was  established  at  the,  same  level  (CIF 

Community  border).  To  this  aim,  discounts,  SG&A  and  intra-EC  transport  cost 

(not included in SG&A) were deducted.  Subsequently, it was established to which 

extent  the  average  price  of PSF  converted from PFT  originating  in Belarus  has 

undercut  the  "undumped"  export  price thus  undermining  the  remedial  effects  of 

the duties. 

The total  undermining  amounts were  expressed  as  a percentage  of  the  total  CIF 

Community border value  of imports of PSF at the "undumped" price  level.  The 

comparison  showed  that  the  average  sales  price  of  PSF  converted  from  PFT 

originating in Belarus has undercut the "undumped" export price of PSF imported 

from  Belarus by 19,45 %. 

The  Commission  has  also  verified  whether  the  remedial  effects  of  the  duty  are 

being undermined  in terms of quantities.  As explained  in detail  above  (see  recital 

12), PSF  imports from Belarus were nearly totally  substituted by imports of PFT 

from that country immediately after imposition of provisional  anti-dumping  duties 

on PSF from Belarus. 

17 

In the light of the foregoing,  it must be concluded that the sales of PSF converted 
from  PFT  originating in Belarus have undermined the remedial  effect  of the anti 
dumping duties both in terms of prices and quantities. 

Evidence of Dumping 

(19) 

In order to determine whether evidence of dumping could be found with respect to 

the  PFT  imported  in  the  Community  for  conversion  into  PSF  during  the 

investigation period, the following methodology was followed. 

Delivered  duty  unpaid  purchase  prices  charged  to  the  importers  for  PFT from 

Belarus were used as a point of departure.  In order to increase the comparability 

of  this  price  with  the  normal  value  established  for  PSF  during  the  original  anti 

dumping  investigation,  the  conversion  cost  in the  Community  established  in the 

present  investigation was added so as to  effectively  construct  a PSF price.  From 

this price,  intra-EC freight/handling costs  and credit costs  were  then  deducted  to 

calculate a CIF Community border price for PSF. 

18 

This CIF price was then netted back to FOB Belarus level by deducting freight and 

handling  cost  from  Belarus  to  the  EU  border  and  by  deducting  the  respective 

mark-up of intermediary trading houses.  The difference between this FOB Belarus 

price and the FOB Taiwan normal value as established in the original anti-dumping 

investigation  -  Taiwan  having  been  selected  in  the  original  investigation  as 

analogue  country to  calculate normal value - was then expressed  as a percentage 

of the CIF Community border price for PSF. 

The aggregated, weighted  average dumping margin thus established was found  to 

be 12,31 %.  It is therefore concluded that there is evidence of dumping in relation 

to the normal value previously established. 

19 

D. 

PROPOSED MEASURES 

1. 

Nature of the measures: extension of the duty 

(20) 

In view of the above findings and considerations, the anti-dumping  duty in force 
with respect to PSF originating in Belarus should be extended to PFT originating 
in that country. 

2. 

Levy of the extended duty on imports entered under registration 

(21)  The  extended  duty  should  be levied  on the PFT which  entered  the  Community 

under registration, as described in recital (1). 

E. 

PROCEDURE 

(22) 

Interested  parties were  informed  of the essential facts  and  considerations  on the 
basis of which the Commission intended to propose the extension of the definitive 
anti-dumping  duty  in  force  to  the  PFT  concerned  and  have  been  given  the 
opportunity to comment and their comments have been duly considered. 

20 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION 

Article 1 

1. 
The  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  imposed  by Regulation  (EC)  No  1490/96  on 
imports of polyester staple fibre falling within CN code 5503 20 00 originating in Belarus 
is  hereby  extended  to  imports  of  polyester  filament  tow  falling  within  CN  code 
5501 20 00 originating in Belarus. 

2. 
The duty extended by paragraph  1  of the present article shall also apply to imports 
of polyester filament tow originating in Belarus which have been registered in accordance 
with Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 693/97 and Articles  13 (3) and  14 (5) 
of Regulation (EC) No 384/96. 

Article 2 

Customs authorities  are hereby directed  to  discontinue registration  of polyester  filament 
tow  originating  in  Belarus  and  classifiable  within  CN  code  5$01  20  00  pursuant  to 
Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 693/91. 

21 

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, 

. 

1998 

For the Council 

The President 

22 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(97) 672 final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

02  08  11 

Catalogue  number  :  CB-CO-97-694-EN-C 

ISBN  92-78-28918-3 

Office  for  Official  Publications of the European  Communities 

L-2985  Luxembourg 

23