98/378/EC: Commission Decision of 12 June 1998 terminating the countervailing duty proceeding concerning imports of polyester fibres and polyester yarns originating in Turkey (notified under document number C(1998) 1599)
Date: 1998-06-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Türkiye, anti-dumping duty, economic survey, import policy, plastics, textile fibre

L 168/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

13. 6. 98

COMMISSION DECISION

of 12 June 1998

terminating the countervailing duty proceeding concerning imports of polyester
fibres and polyester yarns originating in Turkey

(notified under document number C(1998) 1599)

(98/378/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

information and that provided by a number of
Turkish exporters in 1992 and 1995.

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of
6 October 1997 on protection against subsidised imports
from countries
the European
Community (1), and in particular Article 14(2) thereof,

not members

of

After consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

(1)

A. PREVIOUS PROCEDURE

an

Following a complaint lodged by CIRFS (the Inter-
national Rayon and Synthetic Fibres Committee),
the Commission
anti-subsidy
initiated
proceeding concerning imports of polyester fibres
and polyester yarns from Turkey on 9 February
1989 (2). A provisional countervailing duty was
subsequently imposed on 31 May 1991 (3). On
completion of
the investigation which found
the Govern-
injurious subsidisation,
evidence of
ment of Turkey offered an undertaking to: (i) grad-
ually phase out the main export subsidy scheme
(the corporate tax exemption scheme (cid:190) CTE); and
(ii) not to grant new subsidies nor to compensate
the producers/exporters concerned for the commit-
ment to phase out the main export subsidy scheme.
The Commission accepted this undertaking by
Decision 91/511/EEC (4) and did not
impose a
definitive countervailing duty. Provisional duties
were definitively collected by Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2834/91 (5).

At regular intervals since 1991 the Turkish author-
ities reported on their commitments contained in
the undertaking and provided supporting docu-
mentation. The Commission services verified this

(1) OJ L 288, 21. 10. 1997, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 33, 9. 2. 1989, p. 7.
(3) OJ L 137, 31. 5. 1991, p. 8.
(4) OJ L 272, 28. 9. 1991, p. 92.
(5) OJ L 272, 28. 9. 1991, p. 3.

B. REVIEW INVESTIGATION

(2)

(3)

(i.e.

A notice of the impending expiry of the above-
undertaking) was
mentioned measures
published in the Official Journal of the European
Communities on 20 April 1996 (6). On 24 June
1996, the complainants, CIRFS, lodged a request
for an expiry review in accordance with the provi-
sions of Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 3284/
94 (7). The review request alleged that the repeal of
the measures would be likely to result in a contin-
uation or recurrence of subsidisation and injury.

The Commission considered that the complainants
had provided sufficient evidence to justify the
initiation of an expiry review pursuant to Article
13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 3284/94. Given the
nature of the measures in force, the Commission
decided on its own initiative to initiate an interim
review pursuant to Article 13(6) of that Regulation.
A notice of initiation of a review of the counter-
vailing measures was accordingly published on 21
September 1996 (8).

(4) With regard to the compatibility of such an initi-
ation with the EC/Turkey Customs Union rules, it
has to be borne in mind that, pending the imple-
mentation by Turkey of provisions on competition,
State aid control and other relevant parts of the
acquis communautaire which are related to the
internal market, the Customs Union Agreement
does not preclude the application of trade defence
instruments by one party in its relations with the
other. The Customs Union Agreement provides
that Turkey shall adopt all the necessary decisions
to comply with this requirement within two years
after the entry into force of the Customs Union

(6) OJ C 116, 20. 4. 1996, p. 7.
(7) OJ No L 349, 31. 12. 1994, p. 22 (subsequently replaced by

Regulation (EC) No 2026/97).
(8) OJ C 276, 21. 9. 1996, p. 5.

13. 6. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 168/47

(5)

(6)

i.e. on 31 December 1997. Pending
Agreement,
confirmation of such action, countervailing meas-
ures can, therefore, be taken in the framework of
this proceeding, if considered appropriate.

The period used for the investigation of subsidies
was 1 January 1995 to 31 December 1995 (herein-
after referred to as the ‘investigation period').

The Commission sent questionnaires to all parties
known to be concerned. It received replies to its
questionnaire from eight Community producers,
the Government of Turkey, nine exporting produ-
cers and one importer. The Commission sought
and verified all information it deemed necessary for
the purpose of a determination and carried out
verification visits at various Government of Turkey
ministries/agencies and at
the
companies listed below.

the premises of

(cid:190) Sifas Sentetik Iplik Fabrikalari AS, Bursa

(part of Nergis group),

(cid:190) Polylen Sentetik Iplik Sanayii AS, Bursa

(part of Nergis group),

(cid:190) Nergis Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret AS, Bursa

(part of Nergis group),

(cid:190) Nergis Holding AS, Bursa (part of Nergis

group),

(cid:190) Polyteks Tekstil Sanayi Arastirma ve Egitim

AS, Bursa.

Sancak T(cid:129)l Sanayi AS, Istanbul stated that it
had not exported to the EU during the invest-
igation period.

These producers are all the known producers of
the products concerned in Turkey.

(a) Community producers

(d) Importer in the Community

(cid:190) Hoechst Trevira GmbH & Co. KG, Frank-

furt Am Main, Germany,

EXSA (UK) Ltd, Leeds, United Kingdom. This
company was not visited.

(cid:190) Montefibre SpA, Milan, Italy,

(cid:190) Nurel SA, Barcelona, Spain,

(cid:190) La Seda de Barcelona SA, Barcelona, Spain,

(cid:190) Catalana de Polimers SL, Barcelona, Spain,

(cid:190) Wellman International Ltd, Co. Meath,

Ireland,

(cid:190) Unifi Textured Yarns Europe Ltd, Co.

Donegal, Ireland.

Tergal Fibres SA (Group Rh(cid:147)ne-Poulenc),
Gauchy, France was not visited.

The abovementioned companies account
for
approximately 80 % of Community production
of the products concerned.

(7)

This investigation has exceeded the normal time-
frame for the completion of review investigations
due to the large volume and complexity of in-
formation gathered. In particular, as the State-aid
framework in Turkey has undergone substantial
change in recent years, it was considered necessary
to undertake a full re-examination of the various
schemes.

C. PRODUCTS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND

LIKE PRODUCT

1. Products under consideration

(b) Government of Turkey ministries/agencies

(8)

The products under consideration are:

(cid:190) Under-Secretariat for Foreign Trade,

(cid:190) Central Bank,

(cid:190) Under-Secretariat for Customs,

(cid:190) T(cid:129)rk Eximbank,

(cid:190) polyester partially oriented filament yarn (POY),

falling within CN code 5402 42 00,

(cid:190) polyester textured filament yarn (PTY), falling
within CN codes 5402 33 10 and 5402 33 90,

(cid:190) polyester staple fibre, falling within CN code

(cid:190) Under-Secretariat for the Treasury,

5503 20 00,

(cid:190) Ministry of Finance.

(c) Producers/exporters in Turkey

(cid:190) SASA Artificial and Synthetic Fibres Inc.,

Adana,

(cid:190) S(cid:148)nmez Filament Sentetik Iplik ve Elvaf

Sanayii AS, Bursa,

(cid:190) Korteks Mensucat Sanayi ve Ticaret AS,

Bursa,

(cid:190) polyester flat yarn,

falling within CN codes
5402 43 10, 5402 43 90, 5402 52 10, 5402 52 90,
5402 62 10 and 5402 62 90.

Polyester fibres and yarns have an extensive range
of uses and can be used on their own or blended
with other products such as cotton to produce
sleepwear, curtain material and floor
clothing,
coverings. Polyester fibre can also be used as a
filling material for use in quilted jackets, pillows,
cushions, etc.

L 168/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

13. 6. 98

2. Like product

I. State assistance for exports

(9)

In Regulation (EEC) No 2834/91, it was concluded
that Community production was considered as a
like product to the imported subsidised product.
None of the interested parties to this review invest-
igation offered any further comments on the ‘like
product' issue. It is therefore concluded that the
product under consideration, i.e. that exported from
Turkey to the Community, is a like product to that
produced by the Community industry, within the
meaning of Article 1(5) of Regulation (EC) No
2026/97 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Basic Regu-
lation').

D. SUBSIDIES

1. Introduction

(10) On the basis of the information contained in the
complaint and the replies to the Commission’s
questionnaire, the Commission investigated a large
number of subsidy schemes. These schemes are not
necessarily the same ones that were examined in
the original investigation. Turkey introduced new
State-aid schemes at the end of 1994 (partly in view
of the harmonisation of State aid law to the EU
State aid law in accordance with the provisions of
the Customs Union Agreement) which regulate
both domestic and export incentives and amend or
replace older schemes. Moreover, important devel-
opments took place also at an international level; in
1995, the World Trade Organisation Agreement on
(ASCM)
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
entered into force and a new Basic Regulation was
enacted at the end of 1994 to reflect the new defi-
nition of subsidies (9). In view of the above, the
Commission re-examined all
subsidy
schemes in Turkey.

relevant

(12)

The declared objective of Turkey’s export incentive
policy is to enhance the export potential of Turkish
industry in accordance with the targets and guide-
lines laid down in the five-year governmental
development plans. The aim of these incentives is
to eliminate the adverse effects of high domestic
the
inflation on exporters and compensate for
shortage and high cost of financing.

(13)

The main instrument involving, inter alia, export-
related assistance is Decree 94/6401 which entered
into force on 1 January 1995 and provides for the
following measures:

(cid:190) assistance

for

research and

development

programmes,

(cid:190) assistance for environmental costs,

(cid:190) assistance for market research,

(cid:190) support for participation in fairs and exhibi-

tions abroad,

(cid:190) support for participation in domestic fairs of an

international character,

(cid:190) support for promotion activities abroad.

(14)

The Commission found that no producers of the
product concerned had received aid under any of
the abovementioned measures provided under
Decree 94/6401 during the investigation period.
There was therefore no need to examine whether
any of the measures involved the granting of coun-
tervailable subsidies.

II. Corporate tax exemption scheme (CTE)

2. Export schemes

(15)

(11)

The Commission investigated the following five
export schemes, further details of which are set out
below:

I. State assistance for exports;

II. corporate tax exemption scheme;

III. export credits;

IV. electricity premium;

V. transport premium.

(9) See footnote 7.

In the Turkish Government’s undertaking which
was accepted by the Commission in 1991 (see para-
graph 1 above), the main commitment was to phase
exempted from
out
the
corporate taxation a certain percentage of
export earnings of manufacturing companies.

the CTE. This

scheme

In accordance with the Turkish Government’s
undertaking, the rate of the CTE was gradually
reduced from 20 % in 1991 to 5 % in 1993. The
scheme was finally terminated in 1993 by means of
Article 30 of Decree 21804 of 25 December 1993.
Documentary evidence has been provided in this
regard. The Commission also verified that no
producers
to the investigation received
outstanding CTE aid during the investigation
period.

subject

13. 6. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 168/49

III. Export credits

(16)

T(cid:129)rk Eximbank (hereinafter referred to as ‘Exim-
bank') is the sole official export credit agency in
Turkey; it is a public body which was founded in
1987 with the aim of meeting the financing
requirements of exporters and overseas contractors.
Eximbank provides specialised financial services
through a variety of credit, insurance and guarantee
programmes as follows:

(a) P r e - s h i p m e n t
p r o g r a m m e

e x p o r t

c r e d i t

( P S E C )

PSEC is a short-term credit facility extended by
Eximbank through intermediary commercial
banks, which is available to all export-oriented
industries. Applications are made to Eximbank,
but the credit is disbursed by a commercial
bank. The total interest rate paid on these types
of credits is generally more favourable than the
from
rates
commercial banks.

short-term loans

available

for

These credits provide a subsidy because they
financial contribution from the
involve a
Government and confer a benefit because the
interest rate is below that payable on a compar-
able commercial loan. The subsidy is available
only for export transactions and is therefore an
export subsidy.

A number of producers benefited from this
scheme during the investigation period.

(b) T a r g e t

m a r k e t

e x p o r t

c r e d i t

p r o g r a m m e

This programme concerned financial support
for the export of textile products to non-EU
countries (i.e. NAFTA, Japan and South Africa).
It was abolished in January 1996.

(c) S M E e x p o r t c r e d i t p r o g r a m m e

This programme provides short-term credit to
companies employing up to 150 employees.
investigation
None of
obtained such credits due to their size.

the producers under

(d) F o r e i g n c u r r e n c y c r e d i t p r o g r a m m e

This is a short-term credit facility, similar to
PSEC, extended by Eximbank through inter-
mediary commercial banks, which is available
to all export-oriented industries. The credit is
extended on the basis of the foreign currency
value of the export transactions (the credit is
actually paid to the exporter in the Turkish lira

(TRI) equivalent) and re-payment is made by
the exporter in the foreign currency concerned.
Interest rates are significantly lower than under
the PSEC programme. The total interest rate
paid on these types of credits is generally more
favourable than the rates available for short-
term loans from commercial banks.

These credits provide a subsidy because they
involve a
financial contribution from the
Government and confer a benefit because the
interest rate is below that paid on a comparable
commercial loan. The subsidy is only available
to export transactions and is therefore an export
subsidy.

A number of producers benefited from this
scheme during the investigation period.

(e) P a s t

p e r f o r m a n c e - r e l a t e d
c u r r e n c y c r e d i t p r o g r a m m e

f o r e i g n

This programme provides short-term credit to
exporters without the mediation of commercial
banks. No producers concerned obtained such
credit during the investigation period.

(f) S h o r t - t e r m e x p o r t

c r e d i t

i n s u r a n c e

p r o g r a m m e

Under this programme all shipments to be
made by an exporter within one year are
insured at favourable terms. Exporters pay a
premium which varies per country of export
directly to Eximbank. Such insurance was
mandatory up to 1995 for companies which
from
obtained pre-shipment export credits
Eximbank. Some of the producers concerned
used this programme during the investigation
period. As this programme was linked to the
Pre-Shipment
(PSEC)
it has been quantified together
programme,
with the PSEC and the foreign currency credit
programme (see Tables 1 and 2 in paragraph 29
below).

Export

Credit

This insurance is now optional.

(g) B u y e r s ’

c r e d i t ,

i n s u r a n c e

a n d g u a r -

a n t e e p r o g r a m m e s

This programme concerns credits to finance
projects in the Central and Western Asian
Republics. None of the producers concerned
used this programme during the investigation
period.

L 168/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

13. 6. 98

IV. Electricity premium

I. Decree 94/6411;

(17) Under this programme companies that manufac-
ture goods for export can take advantage of a
special discount (25 %) of the cost of electricity
used in the production of the exported goods. The
scheme, which was clearly an export subsidy, was
abolished in 1995 by means of Decree 22510 of 31
December 1995.

No producer under investigation obtained benefits
under this scheme during the investigation period.

(21)

V. Transport premium

(18) Under this scheme exporters could obtain cash
premiums from the Central Bank of Turkey to
cover export transportation costs. The scheme was
abolished in 1994 by an order of
the Turkish
Council of Ministers. The cash premiums are a
subsidy because they involve a financial contribu-
tion from the Government which confers a benefit.
Since the subsidy is limited to export transport
costs. it is an export subsidy.

this scheme, which was
Premiums paid under
administered by
the Central Bank, differed
depending on destination. Even though the scheme
had been abolished in 1994, benefits continued to
accrue to exporters during the investigation period
(i.e. 1995). This is because at the time of imple-
mentation of the scheme there were no funds avail-
able for payments to exporters. Outstanding bene-
fits earned therefore in the years before termination
of the programme were being granted during the
investigation period. All of the producers invest-
igated had obtained such outstanding benefits
during the investigation period.

3. Summary of export schemes

(19)

It was
found that exporters used two export
schemes during the investigation period i.e. export
credits (pre-shipment export credit programme/
foreign currency
credit programme/short-term
export credit insurance programme) and the trans-
port premium

4. Domestic schemes

(20)

The Commission investigated the following three
domestic schemes, further details of which are set
out below:

II. Resources utilisation support premium (RUSP);

III. Fund sourced credit.

I. Decree 94/6411

Incentives to producers in Turkey are, as from 1
January 1995 to be provided within the framework
of Decree 94/6411 of 26 December 1994. Decree
94/6411 constitutes the general framework regu-
lating incentives to industry in accordance with the
guidelines set out in the development plans and
the annual programmes adopted by the Turkish
Council of Ministers. Decree 94/6411 provides for
incentives for investment activities related to the
production of goods and services, research and
development, environmental protection, improve-
ment of quality and standards and investments
targeting advancement of regional handicrafts and
supporting small and medium enterprises. Decree
94/6411 has been further applied by Communiqu(cid:130)
No 2 issued by the Under-secretariat of
the
Treasury and published in the Official Gazette of 4
April 1995.

(22) All applications for assistance under Decree 94/
6411 need to be approved by the General Direct-
orate of Incentives and Implementation of
the
Under-secretariat of Treasury which issues an
investment certificate to the successful applicants.
The investment certificate describes the types of
assistance granted to the company concerned as
well as any ceilings on such assistance. Companies
may obtain investment certificates on a project
basis. The duration of the validity of the investment
certificate varies in accordance with the project.

(23)

The various types of assistance which are provided
for under Decree 94/6411 can be categorised as
follows:

(a) S c h e m e s

f r o m

e x p o r t e r s
o b t a i n e d b e n e f i t s d u r i n g t h e i n v e s t -
i g a t i o n p e r i o d

w h i c h

(i) Exemption from customs duty and charges

equipment

Under this scheme companies are entitled
to import
and machinery,
without the payment of customs duties, for
the purposes of the project for which the
relevant investment certificate was granted.

(ii) Investment allowance

Under this scheme companies are granted
an income tax exemption proportionate to
the amount of the investment for which
the investment certificate was granted; the
tax allowance can equal up to 100 % of the
amount of the investment.

13. 6. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 168/51

Both the above schemes involve subsidies
because government revenue is foregone
and a benefit is thereby conferred.

effects of the scheme would, in any event be
negligible.

(iii) Financing fund

Under this scheme firms obtain a tax post-
ponement to be used for the financing of
investments. Companies are entitled to the
tax postponement when they obtain an
investment certificate.

The tax postponement is equivalent to an
interest-free loan and is a subsidy because
the absence of interest confers a benefit.

(iv) VAT support for purchases of machinery

and equipment

Under this scheme firms are refunded any
VAT paid on purchases of domestically
produced machinery. This
refund is a
financial contribution from the Govern-
ment which confers a benefit; it is there-
fore a subsidy. This scheme is contingent
upon the use of domestic goods and the
subsidy is therefore specific in accordance
with Article 3(4)(b) of the Basic Regulation.
One producer received benefits under this
scheme during the investigation period but
at a negligible level.

(b) S c h e m e s f r o m w h i c h e x p o r t e r s d i d n o t
i n v e s t -

b e n e f i t s

d u r i n g

t h e

o b t a i n
i g a t i o n p e r i o d

(i) Exemption from charges for medium and

long-term investment credits

this

scheme

companies

transactions

relating to credits.

Under
are
exempted from paying taxes, duties and
land registry
charges for banking, notary,
etc.
It
applies to companies which undertake to
export the production to which investment
relates. In view of its link to anticipated
exportation this scheme should be more
properly classified as an export subsidy. No
producer obtained benefits under
this
scheme during the investigation period. The

(ii) Postponement of VAT

Under this scheme, VAT that has to be paid
for importation of equipment listed in the
Incentive Certifcates, can be postoponed
until
the date when such tax may be
actually deducted. In case the investment is
not realised as foreseen by the incentive
certificate,
the VAT postponed shall be
collected plus interest.

(c) S c h e m e s n o t y e t

i m p l e m e n t e d

Decree 94/6411 also provides for a range of
other schemes which have not yet been imple-
mented. These are:

(i) Exemption from building construction

charges

this

scheme

Under
are
exempted from the payment of building
construction charges.

companies

(ii) Subsidising moving expenses

This scheme provides for assistance for
investments which are transferred from
developed regions to industrial belts or
priority development regions. A grant of
50 % of the disassembly, delivery and the
re-installation expenses can be made.

(iii) Energy subsidies

New investments realised in priority devel-
opment regions with an incentive certi-
ficate, can obtain aid up to 25 % of their
electricity consumption in the first
five
years of operations under criteria to be
defined by the Monetary, Credit and Co-
ordination Board.

(iv) Land allocation support

Under this scheme firms may obtain free
land for
investments to be realised in
priority development regions or in indus-
trial belts. Land is provided from the prop-
erty of the General Directorate of Land
Office.

L 168/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

13. 6. 98

(v) Contribution to foreign credit

letters of

guarantee

This scheme provides for aid to producers
to cover 50 % of the expenses incurred in
connection with foreign credits obtained
through public banks.

(vi) Procurement of quality and standards

Under this scheme firms are refunded fees
paid in connection with applications for
and standardisation certificates
quality
according to ISO and ITS (Institute of
Turkish Standards) norms.

(vii) Credits

There are several different types of low
interest rate credit schemes for SMEs and
for investments in priority development
regions.

and therefore a subsidy. The scheme was set out in
Decree 92/2805 and administered by the General
Directorate of Incentives and Implementation. It
was officially terminated on 15 July 1994 although
outstanding benefits kept accruing to firms during
the investigation period.

Some producers received benefits under the fund
scheme during the investigation
source credit
period.

5. Summary of domestic schemes

(26)

It was found that exporters used six domestic
schemes during the
i.e.
exemption from customs duty and charges, invest-
ment allowance, financing fund, VAT support for
purchases of machinery and equipment, RUSP and
fund sourced credit.

investigation period,

II. Resource utilisation support premium (RUSP)

(24) Under this scheme, firms were entitled to a cash
premium payable by the Under-secretariat of the
Treasury. The premium was based on a percentage
(from 15 % to 40 %) of the value of investments
made. The percentage applied depended on the
region in which the investment was made.

RUSP was terminated in 1991 by means of Decree
91/1468. Firms continued, however,
to receive
benefits under this scheme in later years, including
the investigation period. These payments were
outstanding (due to the shortage of government
funds at
from the period when the
scheme was in operation. The cash premiums are a
subsidy because they involve a financial contribu-
tion from the Government which confers a benefit.

the time)

(27)

(28)

Some producers
scheme during the investigation period.

received benefits under

this

(29)

III. Fund sourced credit

6. Amount of subsidisation

the cooperating exporters, Korteks and
Two of
Polyteks, were found not
to have exported the
product concerned to the EU during the invest-
igation period. In these circumstances, individual
findings concerning subsidy levels have not been
established for these companies.

For the purposes of calculating the amount of
subsidisation, the amounts of subsidies received in
the investigation period were allocated over a firms’
total (domestic and export) turnover in the case of
domestic subsidies and over export turnover only
in the case of export subsidies.

The amounts of subsidies established in the invest-
igation period for the producers subject
to the
investigation are set out below. Table 1 shows the
full amount of benefit in the investigation period,
while Table 2 shows the benefits if the schemes
which were terminated before the beginning of the
investigation period are excluded.

(25) Under this scheme, firms were entitled to loans
which were re-payable at rates of interest less than
those normally charged on comparable commercial
loans. There is consequently a benefit conferred

As four of the cooperating exporters are related
(Nergis Tekstil, Nergis Holding, Sifas and Polylen),
the benefits received have been averaged and are
shown below under ‘Nergis Group'.

13. 6. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 168/53

Table 1

SASA

Nergis Group

Sonmez

(%)

Export schemes

Export credits

Transport premium

Domestic schemes

Fund sourced credit

Financing fund

Investment allowance

RUSP

Customs exemption

VAT support

Total benefit in investigation period

0,25

2,68

0,01

0,06

0,23

0,15

0,01

0

3,39

0,81

2,6

0,03

0

0,33

0,01

0,01

Negligible

3,79

0,08

6,9

0

0,06

0,76

0

0,04

0

7,84

Table 2

SASA

Nergis Group

Sonmez

(%)

Export schemes

Export credits

Domestic schemes

Financing fund

Investment allowance

Customs exemption

Benefit in investigation period excluding
terminated schemes

7. Specificity

(30) Given that the amount of benefit to exporters from
those schemes which were still in force during the
investigation period was found to be de minimis
(see recital 34 below), it is not necessary to make a
determination regarding specificity.

0,25

0,81

0,08

0,06

0,23

0,01

0,55

0

0,33

0,01

1,15

0,06

0,76

0,04

0,94

of domestic goods. The transport premium scheme,
which was contingent upon exports, was termin-
ated in 1994.

8. Conclusions on countervailability

(31) Concerning export

two schemes are
schemes,
considered to be specific and therefore countervail-
able (cid:190) the export credit scheme, which is contin-
gent upon export performance and the VAT
support scheme, which is contingent upon the use

(32) Concerning domestic schemes, the RUSP was abol-
ished in 1991, while the fund sourced credit
scheme was abolished in 1994. With regard to the
three schemes found to have been used and still in
force during the investigation period (i.e. financing
fund, investment allowances, customs exemption),
no countervailability determination needs to be
made in view of the overall de minimis
levels of
subsidies found.

L 168/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

13. 6. 98

(33) Concerning the terminated schemes

(transport
premium, fund sourced credit and RUSP), it is not
considered necessary to take countervailing meas-
ures as, on the one hand any RUSP and fund
sourced credit outstanding benefits have been at
negligible levels while, on the other hand, any
outstanding transport benefits, although at more
substantial levels, were linked to individual export
transactions in the past when the scheme was in
force and as such are no longer available.

(34) Article 14(5)(a) of the Basic Regulation provides
that the amount of countervailable subsidies shall
be considered as de minimis if such amount is less
than 2 % concerning imports from developing
countries. As Turkey is regarded as a developing
country and the amount of subsidy provided by
schemes which were still in force during the invest-
igation period is less than 2 % (see Table 2 above),
the amount of countervailable subsidies is therefore
considered to be de minimis.

E. INJURY AND COMMUNITY INTEREST

(35) As it has been concluded that the level of subsid-
isation is de minimis, it is not necessary to establish
findings relating to injury and Community interest.

F. CONCLUSION

shall be

immediate

(36) Article 14(3) of the Basic Regulation provides that
there
a
proceeding where it is determined that the amount
of countervailable subsidies is de minimis. It is
therefore proposed that the proceeding be termin-
ated and that the measures in force expire forth-
with,

termination of

DECIDES:

Sole Article

The countervailing duty proceeding concerning imports
of polyester fibres and polyester yarns falling within CN
codes 5402 42 00, 5402 33 10, 5402 33 90, 5503 20 00,
5402 43 10,
5402 52 90,
5402 62 10 and 5402 62 90 and originating in Turkey is
hereby terminated.

5402 52 10,

5402 43 90,

Done at Brussels, 12 June 1998.

For the Commission

Leon BRITTAN

Vice-President