Commission Regulation (EC) No 124/2000 of 20 January 2000 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres (PSF) originating in Australia, Indonesia and Thailand
Date: 2000-01-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Australia, Indonesia, Thailand, anti-dumping duty, import, plastics

L 16/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21. 1. 2000

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 124/2000

of 20 January 2000

imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres (PSF) originating in
Australia, Indonesia and Thailand

(6)

(7)

(8)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

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 Community (1), as last
amended by Regulation (EC) No 905/98 (2), and in particular
Article 7 thereof,

After consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

A. PROCEDURE

On 22 April 1999, the Commission announced, by a
notice published in the Official Journal of the European
Communities (3),
an anti-dumping
initiation of
proceeding with regard to imports into the Community
of polyester staple fibres (hereinafter ‘PSF’) originating in
Australia, Indonesia and Thailand and commenced an
investigation.

the

The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint
lodged in March 1999 by the International Rayon and
Synthetic Fibres Committee (CIRFS) on behalf of produ-
cers representing a major proportion of the Community
production of PSF. The complaint contained evidence of
dumping of
the product concerned and of material
injury resulting therefrom, which was considered suffi-
cient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.

A parallel anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports
into the Community of the same product originating in,
and Thailand was
Indonesia
inter
announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of
the European Communities (4) on the same date.

alia, Australia,

There are anti-dumping measures currently in force on
imports of PSF originating in Belarus (Council Regula-
tion (EC) No 1490/96 (5)) and Taiwan (Council Regula-
tion (EC) No 1728/1999 (6)). Measures against
the
Republic of Korea were repealed in August 1999 (Regu-
lation (EC) No 1728/1999).

The Commission officially advised the complainant
Community producers, exporting producers and impor-
ters known to be concerned, the representatives of the

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 128, 30.4.1998, p. 18.
(3) OJ C 111, 22.4.1999, p. 7.
(4) OJ C 111, 22.4.1999, p. 3.
(5) OJ L 189, 30.7.1996, p. 13.
(6) OJ L 204, 4.8.1999, p. 3.

exporting countries as well as Community users and
suppliers of the initiation of the proceeding. The parties
directly concerned were given the opportunity to make
their views known in writing and to request a hearing
within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.

A number of exporting producers in the countries
concerned, as well as complainant Community produ-
cers, Community users and importers made their views
known in writing. All parties, who so requested within
there were
the above time limit and indicated that
particular reasons why they should be heard, were
granted a hearing.

In view of the large number of exporting producers in
Indonesia, the Commission applied sampling techniques
in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No
384/96 (hereinafter ‘the basic Regulation’). The Commis-
sion received detailed information from a representative
sample of exporting producers in Indonesia, as set out in
recitals 18 and 19.

The Commission also received replies to its question-
naire from one exporting producer in Australia and four
exporting producers in Thailand.

They also received replies from seven complaining
Community producers and from two users in the
Community which were considered to be meaningful
and complete.

The Commission sought and verified all the information
it deemed necessary for the purpose of a preliminary
determination
and
Community interest, and carried out verifications at the
premises of the following companies:

dumping,

resulting

injury

of

(a) Complainant Community producers

G e r m a n y

— DuPont De Nemours GmbH, Frankfurt

— Trevira GmbH & Co KG, Frankfurt

I r e l a n d

— Wellman International Ltd, Mullagh, Kells, Co.

Meath

S p a i n

— Catalana de Polimers, Barcelona

I t a l y

— Montefibre SpA, Milan

21. 1. 2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 16/31

(b) Exporting producers in the exporting countries

2. Like product

A u s t r a l i a

(12)

— Leading

Synthetics

Pty

Ltd, Campbellfield,

Melbourne

I n d o n e s i a

— PT. Indorama Synthetics Tbk, Jakarta

— PT. Panasia Indosyntec, Bandung

T h a i l a n d

— Indo Poly (Thailand) Ltd, Nakornpathom

— Teijin Polyester (Thailand) Ltd, Bangkok

— Teijin (Thailand) Ltd, Bangkok

— Tuntex (Thailand) Public Co., Ltd, Bangkok.

The Commission found that there were no differences in
the basic physical characteristics and uses of the PSF
imported into the Community originating in Australia,
Indonesia and Thailand and the PSF produced by the
complainant Community producers and sold on the
Community market. It was also found that there was no
difference between the PSF produced in Australia, Indo-
nesia and Thailand and exported to the European
Community and that sold on the domestic markets of
those countries. It was therefore concluded that both the
PSF produced and sold by the Community industry on
the Community market and the PSF produced and sold
Indonesia and
on the domestic markets of Australia,
Thailand were, within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the
basic Regulation, alike to the PSF imported into the
Community from the three countries subject to invest-
igation.

(9)

The investigation of dumping covered the period 1 April
1998 to 31 March 1999 (hereinafter ‘the investigation
period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of injury covered the
period from 1996 up to the end of the investigation
period.

(a) Sampling

C. SAMPLING IN INDONESIA

B. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE

PRODUCT

(13)

(10)

(11)

1. Product under consideration

The product under consideration is synthetic staple
fibres of polyesters, not carded, combed or otherwise
processed for spinning, which is currently classifiable
under CN code 5503 20 00. It is commonly referred to
as polyester staple fibres (PSF).

This product is a basic material used at various stages of
the manufacturing process of textile products, depending
on the nature of textiles concerned. Around 60 % of the
Community consumption of PSF is used for spinning,
that is to say manufacturing filaments for the production
of textiles, after mixing or not with other fibres such as
cotton or wool. Approximately 25 % is used for filling,
that is to say the stuffing or padding of certain textile
goods (for example cushions, car seats, jackets) while the
remaining 15 % is used for other non-woven applica-
the production of carpets. The
tions,
product in question is sold in different product types
which can be identified through different specifications
(e.g. denier or decitex, lustre, silicon treatment). It is also
sold as either first quality or as sub-standard qualities.
Although the potential specific range of uses and the
quality of the various types of PSF sold may differ, this
does not entail any significant differences in the basic
physical characteristics of the different types. They are
therefore considered as one product for the purpose of
this investigation.

in particular

the initiation of

to Article 17(2) of

In order to enable the Commission to select a sample,
pursuant
the basic Regulation,
exporting producers were requested to make themselves
known within three weeks of
the
proceeding and to provide basic information on their
export and domestic sales, their precise activities with
regard to the production of the product concerned and
the names and activities of all their related companies in
the PSF sector. The Indonesian authorities and the Indo-
nesian association of exporting producers were also
contacted in this regard by the Commission and raised
no objection against the use of sampling.

(b) Pre-selection of cooperating companies

(14)

in Indonesia came forward and
Seven companies
provided the requested information within the three-
week period. These companies were initially considered
as cooperating and were taken into account in the selec-
tion of the sample.

The companies, which made themselves known within
the three-week period, represented up to 100 % of total
imports from Indonesia into the Community.

(15)

The cooperating companies which were not
finally
retained in the sample, were informed that any anti-
dumping duty on their exports would be calculated in
accordance with the provisions of Article 9(6) of the
basic Regulation.

(16)

Companies,
if any, which did not make themselves
known within the three-week period, were considered as
non cooperating companies.

L 16/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21. 1. 2000

(c) Selection of the sample

D. DUMPING

(17)

Initially, three Indonesian companies were chosen to
constitute the sample in consultation with the Indone-
sian association of exporting producers. The Indonesian
association proposed the replacement of two initially
chosen companies by two others which, however, could
not be considered more representative than those
Indonesian authorities were
chosen. The
initially
informed accordingly.

(18) Questionnaires were sent for completion to all three
initially sampled companies. One of these companies
provided an unsatisfactory response, which was not in
accordance with the basic information it had previously
provided for the sampling exercise and a second did not
provide a completed response within a twice-extended
In consequence, these two companies were
deadline.
informed that they were no longer considered to be
cooperating with the investigation and that the result of
the investigation may be less favourable to them than if
they had cooperated.

(19) Given the degree of non-cooperation by companies
initially selected in the sample, the only other Indone-
sian cooperating company, which had provided a satis-
factory questionnaire response, with a view to being
granted individual examination, was added to the sample
(see recital 21 below). The Indonesian association of
exporting producers and the Indonesian authorities were
informed and raised no objection.

(20)

The two companies which finally constituted the sample
and which fully cooperated with the investigation were
attributed their own dumping margin and individual
duty rate.

(d) Individual examination within the context of sampling

(21)

The Commission received two requests for individual
examination within the deadline set for this purpose, as
required by Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation.

However, only one of these requests was accompanied
by a satisfactory reply to the questionnaire and the
company concerned was the company added to the
sample following non-cooperation by two initially
sampled companies as mentioned in recital 19.

(22)

The other exporting producer, which also requested
individual examination, failed to provide a questionnaire
response within the stated deadline and therefore, could
not be granted individual examination. However, it was
still considered to be a cooperating company, as it had
provided satisfactory basic information for the constitu-
tion of the sample and had not been included in the
sample.

(23)

This section first explains the general methodology used
to establish whether the imports into the Community of
the product under consideration have been dumped
(recitals 24 to 35). Specific issues raised by the invest-
igation for each country concerned are then described in
recitals 36 to 63.

1. Normal value

(24)

In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation,
the Commission first examined whether the domestic
sales of PSF to independent customers by each exporting
producer were representative,
the total
volume of such sales was equal to or greater than 5 % of
the total volume of the corresponding export sales to
the Community.

i.e. whether

This assessment revealed that all investigated exporting
producers had representative sales of PSF on their
domestic markets during the investigation period.

(25) With regard to the examination on a product type basis,
and as indicated in recital 12, the Commission consid-
ered domestically sold and exported product
types,
which had similar quality, denier,
lustre, silicon treat-
ment and use, as being directly comparable.

Certain exporting producers claimed that PSF of sub-
standard quality should be further distinguished in
different sub-qualities. However, these claims were not
supported by any generally recognised criteria on how
to differentiate between substandard qualities and there-
fore, these claims were provisionally rejected.

(26) Domestic sales of a particular product type were consid-
ered as sufficiently representative when the volume of
that product type sold on the domestic market to inde-
pendent customers during the investigation period
represented 5 % or more of the total volume of the
comparable product
to the
Community.

sold for

export

type

(27)

The Commission subsequently examined whether the
domestic sales of each company could be considered as
being made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to
Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.

This was done by establishing the proportion of
to independent customers, of each
domestic sales
type, not sold at a loss on the
exported product
domestic market during the investigation period:

(a) for those product types where more than 80 % of
sales on the domestic market (by volume) were not
below unit costs and where the weighted average
sales price was equal to or higher than the weighted
average production cost, normal value, by product
type, was calculated as the weighted average of all
domestic sales prices of the type in question;

21. 1. 2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 16/33

(b) for those product types where at least 10 %, but no
more than 80 % of sales on the domestic market (by
volume) were not below unit costs, normal value, by
product type, was calculated as the weighted average
of domestic sales prices which were made at prices
equal to or above unit costs only, of the type in
question;

(c) for those product types where less than 10 %, by
volume, was sold on the domestic market at a price
not below unit costs,
it was considered that the
product type concerned was not sold in the ordinary
course of trade and therefore, normal value was
constructed.

(28) When the requirements set out in recitals 26 and 27(a)
and (b) above were met, normal value was based for the
corresponding product type on the actual prices paid or
payable, by independent customers in the domestic
market of
the exporting country, during the invest-
igation period, as set out in Article 2(1) of the basic
Regulation.

insurance costs, handling,

Accordingly, allowances for differences in transport
costs,
loading and ancillary
costs, import charges and indirect taxes, packing costs,
credit costs, after-sales costs, commissions, discounts
and rebates have been granted where applicable and
justified.

The comparison between normal value and export price
was made on an ex-factory basis.

(a) Dumping margin for companies investigated

(32) According to Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the
weighted average normal value by product
type, as
determined in recital 27, was compared with the
weighted average export price, as determined under
recital 30.

(29)

For product types falling under (c) above, as well as for
the product types which were not sold in representative
quantities on the domestic market, as mentioned in
recital 26, normal value had to be constructed.

(33)

To construct normal value pursuant to Article 2(6) of
the basic Regulation, the selling, general and adminis-
trative (SG & A) expenses incurred and weighted average
profit realised by the cooperating exporting producers
concerned on domestic sales of the like product, in the
ordinary course of trade, during the investigation period,
was added to their own average cost of manufacturing
during the investigation period.

2. Export price

(30) As all exports of the product under consideration by all
exporting producers were made directly to independent
customers in the Community,
the export price was
established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic
Regulation, on the basis of export prices actually paid or
payable.

3. Comparison

(31)

For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between
the normal value and the export price, due allowance in
the form of adjustments was made for differences
affecting price comparability in accordance with Article
2(10) of the basic Regulation.

(b) Dumping margin for cooperating companies not in the

sample

Indonesia,

the dumping margin for
In the case of
exporting producers, which made themselves known in
accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation but
were not examined individually, has been established on
the basis of
the dumping
the weighed average of
margins of the companies in the sample pursuant to
Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation.

(c) Dumping margin for non-cooperating companies

(34)

(35)

For those exporting producers which neither replied to
the Commission's questionnaire (see recital 19) nor
otherwise made themselves known, the dumping margin
was established on the basis of the facts available,
in
accordance with Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation.

For each country subject to investigation, the volume of
exports to the Community reported by the cooperating
exporting producers was compared with the equivalent
Eurostat import statistics in order to establish the overall
level of cooperation:

(a) for each of those countries concerned for which it
was found that the overall level of cooperation was
high, it was considered appropriate to set a residual
dumping margin for the non-cooperating companies
at the level of the highest dumping margin estab-
lished for a cooperating company in the country in
the sole cooperating
question or at
company. This approach was taken as there is no
reason
non-cooperating
that
exporting producer in any country concerned would
have dumped at a lower level than a cooperating
exporting producer in the same country;

the level of

believe

any

to

L 16/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21. 1. 2000

(b) for each of those countries concerned for which it
was found that the overall level of cooperation was
low, it was considered appropriate to set a residual
dumping margin for the non-cooperating companies
at a level higher than the highest dumping margin
established for a cooperating company. Indeed, there
the high level of non-
is reason to believe that
cooperation results
from the non-cooperating
exporting producers in the country concerned gener-
ally having dumped at a higher level than any co-
operating exporting producer in the same country.

The above approach with regard to non-cooperating
companies was also considered necessary in order to
prevent non-cooperating companies benefitting from
their noncooperation.

4. Specific issues raised by the investigation with
regard to the establishment of dumping for each
of the countries concerned

( a ) A u s t r a l i a

(i) Normal value

(36)

The cooperating Australian exporting producer made
substantial sales of the product concerned to a related
user on the domestic market. Pursuant to Article 2(1) of
the basic Regulation, these sales were not considered to
be in the ordinary course of trade and were not used to
establish normal value.

Where necessary, the manufacturing costs and SG & A
expenses reported were corrected, before being used in
the ordinary course of trade test and in constructing
normal value.

In all other aspects, normal value was established
according to the general methodology outlined in reci-
tals 24 to 29. On this basis, normal value was estab-
sales prices or
lished by
constructed values, depending on the product types.

to domestic

reference

(iii) Comparison

(38) According to the general methodology outlined in recital
31, allowances for differences in transport costs, insur-
ance costs, handling, loading and ancillary costs, credit
costs and commissions have been granted where applic-
able and justified.

(39)

(40)

The Australian exporting producer claimed an adjust-
ment for differences in packing costs because for some
domestic clients the goods are delivered on pallets. This
request was however
the pallets were
invoiced separately to the customer.

rejected as

The Australian exporting producer claimed allowances
on its normal value for differences in the costs for
providing warranties and guarantees as well as for tech-
nical assistance and services. The company did not give
a satisfactory explanation with regard to the nature of its
claims and also did not provide satisfactory explanations
or documentary evidence to support the amounts of the
adjustments claimed. Furthermore, the company was not
able to demonstrate that the factors concerned led to
different prices being charged to customers on the
domestic and export markets. The claim was conse-
quently rejected.

(iv) Dumping margin

(41)

The provisional dumping margin was established as
described in recitals 32 to 35.

(42)

found that

It was
the sole cooperating Australian
exporting producer accounted for the totality of exports
to the Community from Australia. The residual dumping
margin for Australia was
established as
described in recital (35)(a) at the level of the dumping
margin determined for the sole cooperating company,
Leading Synthetics Pty Ltd.

therefore

(43)

a
The provisional dumping margin expressed as
percentage of the cif import price at the Community
border duty unpaid is 19.6 %.

(ii) Export price

( b )

I n d o n e s i a

(i) Normal value

(37) All

the

sales of

the product concerned made to the
exporting Australian
Community market, by
producer were made to independent customers. The
export prices
established
according to the general methodology outlined in recital
30,
the prices actually paid or
payable.

i.e. on the basis of

company were

the

for

(44) One of

the two investigated Indonesian exporting
producers made some sales of the product concerned to
a related user on the domestic market. Pursuant
to
Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation, these sales were not
considered to be in the ordinary course of trade and
were not used to establish normal value.

21. 1. 2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 16/35

Where necessary, the manufacturing costs and SG & A
expenses reported were corrected, before being used in
the ordinary course of trade test and in constructing
normal value.

product types with the highest specific dumping margin
established and accounting for a representative export
volume to the Community.

In all other aspects, normal value was established
according to the general methodology outlined in reci-
tals 24 to 29. For both exporting producers, depending
on the product types, normal value based on domestic
sales prices and constructed values have been deter-
mined.

(ii) Export price

(45) All

sales of

the product concerned made to the
Community market, by the two investigated Indonesian
exporting producers, were made
to independent
customers. The export prices for the companies were
established according to the general methodology
i.e. on the basis of the prices
outlined in recital 30,
actually paid or payable.

(50)

expressed as a
The provisional dumping margins
percentage of the cif import price at the Community
border duty unpaid are the following:

Sampled exporting producers investigated:

— PT. Indorama Synthetics Tbk:

— PT. Panasia Indosyntec:

5,2 %

14.8 %

Cooperating exporting producers not included in the
sample:

— PT. GT Petrochem Industries Tbk:

13,7 %

— PT. Susilia Indah Synthetic Fiber Industries:

13,7 %

— PT. Teijin Indonesia Fiber Corporation Tbk:

13,7 %

Non-cooperating exporting producers:

20,8 %.

(iii) Comparison

( c ) T h a i l a n d

(46) According to the general methodology outlined in recital
31, allowances for differences in discounts, transport
costs,
loading and ancillary
costs, credit costs and commissions have been granted
where applicable and justified.

insurance costs, handling,

(iv) Dumping margin

(47)

(48)

(49)

The provisional dumping margins for the two investi-
gated exporting producers were established as described
in recital 32.

For cooperating exporting producers not included in the
sample (see recitals 13 to 22) a dumping margin was
established on the basis of the weighted average by
volume of the dumping margins of the two sampled
companies.

Furthermore, as indicated in recital 18, two Indonesian
exporting producters, selected in the initial sample, failed
to cooperate, with the investigation after the selection of
the sample was completed. These companies represent
around 30 % of the exports of the product under consid-
eration to the Community. Therefore, it was considered
appropriate to establish a residual dumping margin as
described in recital 35(b) at a level higher than the
highest dumping margin determined for a cooperating
company in the sample. Accordingly,
the residual
dumping margin for Indonesia was established on the
basis of the weighted average by volume of the two

(51)

In total,
four exporting producers made themselves
known and cooperated in the investigation. Two of
these exporting producers were related.

(i) Normal value

(52) Normal value was established according to the general
methodology outlined in recitals 24 to 29. For product
types falling under recital 27(c), as well as for one
product type, sold by one company, where the volume
of domestic sales was not representative when compared
with the volume of that type sold for export to the
European Community, normal
value had to be
constructed. In all other cases, normal value was based
on domestic sales prices.

Where necessary, the manufacturing costs and SG & A
expenses reported were corrected, before being used in
the ordinary course of trade test and in constructing
normal values.

(53) One cooperating company requested that a certain
product type should be excluded from the dumping
margin calculation on the grounds that its costs and
prices were affected by a start-up phase, or if that was
not accepted,
that a suitable adjustment should be
granted. However, the company did not suggest any
appropriate adjustment. As the value of
these sales
represented more than 59 % of total export sales of the
product concerned to the European Community during
the investigation period, it is not considered appropriate
to exclude them from the dumping margin calculation.

L 16/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21. 1. 2000

In these circumstances, in accordance with Article 2(5)
of the basic Regulation, as the start-up phase extended
beyond the investigation period, the average costs of
production taken into account, for this type of produc-
tion, for the investigation period, were those applicable
at the end of the start-up phase, where the appropriate
information had been submitted prior to the verification
visit and within three months of the initiation of the
investigation.

(ii) Export price

(54) All sales of the product under consideration made to the
Community market, by the four cooperating Thai
exporting producers, were made
to independent
customers. The export prices for the companies were
established according to the general methodology
outlined in recital 30,
i.e. on the basis of the prices
actually paid or payable.

(iii) Comparison

(55) According to the general methodology outlined in recital
31, allowances for differences in transport costs, insur-
ance costs, handling, loading and ancillary costs, import
charges and indirect taxes, packing costs, credit costs,
after-sales costs, commissions, discounts and rebates
have been granted where applicable and justified.

(56) All four cooperating exporting producers requested a
level of trade adjustment. However, for one producer,
the basis of the claim was considered inappropriate, for
a second, the company did not demonstrate consistent
and distinct differences in functions and prices for the
different levels of trade in the domestic market, which
were not already included in other allowances claimed.
Moreover, no exporting producer provided a satisfactory
justification for the amount of the level of trade adjust-
ment claimed. In these circumstances, no level of trade
adjustment was granted at this stage.

(57) A currency conversion allowance was claimed by two
exporting producers on the grounds that there had been
a sustained downward movement in the export invoice
the accounting currency during the
currency against
investigation period. However, it was found that there
was a fluctuating exchange rate during the investigation
period rather than a sustained movement and therefore,
the claim was rejected.

(58) One company made a late claim for a duty drawback
allowance, i.e. almost two months after the deadline for
submissions of completed questionnaires. In addition,
the company did not provide the detailed legislative
documentation requested in the questionnaire and did
not demonstrate that
the duties had actually been
refunded.
In these circumstances, no allowance was
granted.

(59)

Three companies claimed allowances for technical assis-
tance provided by in-house staff. However, these claims
were rejected on the grounds that the technical assis-
tance was not provided for by law or in the sales
contracts reviewed, evidence was not provided that the

cost was an after-sales cost and the technical assistance
provided was not demonstrated to affect prices.

(iv) Dumping margin

(60)

(61)

The provisional dumping margins for the four investi-
gated exporting producers were established as described
in recital 32.

It is the consistent practice of the Commission to estab-
lish one single weighted average dumping margin for
related companies. This is because determining indi-
vidual dumping margins might encourage circumvention
of anti-dumping measures, thus rendering them ineffec-
tive, by enabling related producers to channel
their
exports to the Community through the company with
the lowest individual dumping margin. In accordance
with this practice, the two related exporting producers
belonging to the same group were attributed one single
dumping margin by first calculating a dumping margin
per company and then establishing a weighted average
of these dumping margins.

(62)

It was found that the overall cooperation in Thailand
was very high (up to 100 %). The residual dumping
margin for Thailand, expressed as a percentage of the cif
duty unpaid Community border import price, was there-
fore established on the basis of recital 35(a) above at the
level of the highest dumping margin determined for a
cooperating company.

(63)

The provisional dumping margins
established,
expressed as a percentage of the cif import price at the
Community border duty unpaid are the following:

as

— Indo Poly (Thailand) Ltd:

— Teijin Polyester (Thailand) Ltd:

— Teijin (Thailand) Ltd:

— Tuntex (Thailand) Public Co., Ltd:

Non-cooperating exporting producers:

15,5 %

36,6 %

36,6 %

35,3 %

36,6 %.

E. INJURY

1. Definition of the Community industry

(64)

Fourteen producers are known to produce PSF in the
them are complainants in the
Community. Nine of
present case, but only eight initially replied to the ques-
tionnaire. In addition, one producer of these eight did
not reply to the deficiency letters sent by the Commis-
sion. Consequently it was considered that two complai-
nant Community producers did not cooperate in the
investigation. On this basis, the investigation showed
that the share of the total Community production held
by the seven cooperating complainant Community
producers, during the IP represented around 85 % of
total Community production of PSF.

21. 1. 2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 16/37

Therefore, the seven producers constitute the Community industry within the meaning of Article
4(1) of the basic Regulation. Hereinafter, the cooperating Community producers are referred to as
the ‘Community industry’.

2. Analysis of the situation in the Community PSF market

(a) Consumption in the Community.

(65) Given that no cooperation could be obtained with respect to information on the sales volume of the
non-complaining Community producers, the Community consumption indicated in the table below,
was based on the combined volume of sales made by the Community industry, the import volume
from the countries concerned by the present investigation, the Eurostat information on imports from
other third countries and estimates of the volume of sales of the non cooperating Community
producers.

Consumption

1996

1997

1998

IP

454 470 t

518 328 t

585 164 t

578 967 t

Index (1996 — 100)

100

114

129

127

(b) Imports of PSF into the Community from the countries concerned

(i) Cumulative assessment of imports

(66)

The Commission considered whether imports of PSF originating in the countries concerned should
be assessed cumulatively in accordance with Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation. The examination
showed that:

(a) the margin of dumping relating to each country, as shown above, was above de minimis;

(b) the volume of imports from each country was not negligible when compared to Community

consumption;

(c) the analysis of the conditions of competition between imported PSF and the Community product

and the conditions of competition between imported PSF indicated that,

— as indicated in recital imported PSF from all exporting countries and Community produced

PSF are like products,

— imported PSF from all exporting countries was sold through similar sales channels to the

same customers

— imported PSF from all exporting countries was sold at similar prices;

(d) the investigation showed that the exporting countries concerned sold PSF directly to unrelated
customers, such as textile manufacturers, cushion and quilt manufacturers, and to PSF merchants.
The investigation showed that the Community industry was selling the like product through the
same sales channels and to the same categories of customers, although most of their sales were
made to end-users.

Accordingly, there were sufficient grounds for cumulating the imports from the abovementioned
countries.

(ii) Volume of imports

(67)

Between 1996 and the IP imports originating from the countries concerned developed as set out
below:

L 16/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21. 1. 2000

Imports

Australia

Index (1996 — 100)

Indonesia

Index (1996 — 100)

Thailand

Index (1996 — 100)

1996

62 t

100

4 696 t

100

2 790 t

100

Total

7 549 t

Index (1996 — 100)

100

Source: Comext 2.

(iii) Market share of imports concerned

1997

1 248 t

2 007

12 238 t

261

3 093 t

111

16 579 t

220

1998

IP

11 254 t

18 093

25 276 t

538

13 359 t

479

49 888 t

661

11 799 t

18 969

22 871 t

487

17 241 t

618

51 911 t

688

(68)

The market share by volume held by imports from the countries concerned increased considerably
during the period considered.

Market share

Australia

Index (1996 — 100)

Indonesia

Index (1996 — 100)

Thailand

Index (1996 — 100)

Total

Index (1996 — 100)

1996

0,01 %

100

1,03 %

100

0,61 %

100

1,66 %

100

1997

0,24 %

1 760

2,36 %

228

0,60 %

97

3,20 %

193

1998

1,92 %

14 052

4,32 %

418

2,28 %

372

8,53 %

513

IP

2,04 %

14 903

3,95 %

383

2,98 %

485

8,97 %

540

The trend shown in the tables above confirms the sharp increase of the imports from the countries
concerned in the Community market, both in absolute terms and in terms of market share.

(iv) Average price of imports

(69)

From 1996 to the IP, sales prices in the Community market of PSF imported from the countries
concerned followed a continuously decreasing tendency throughout
the period considered, as
indicated in the following table:

Average import price
evolution
Index (1996 — 100)

Australia

Indonesia

Thailand

Total

1996

1997

1998

100

100

100

100

56

92

92

89

52

85

75

82

IP

50

80

70

78

21. 1. 2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 16/39

(v) Price undercutting

(70)

For the determination of price undercutting, the Commission analysed data referring to the IP. Price
undercutting was established on the basis of a comparison of the export price with prices charged by
the Community industry.

The sales prices of the Community industry considered were those to independent customers,
adjusted where necessary to an ex-works level, i.e. excluding transport costs. As the Community
industry was selling mainly to end-users whereas the exporting producers were selling to both
end-users as well as distributors/wholesalers, adjustments were made to the exporting producers'
selling prices (cif Community frontier) to take account these differences in the level of trade as well
as of customs duties paid. All prices were compared after excluding discounts and rebates.

Weighted average prices were compared for similar product
types of PSF, as defined in the
Commission's questionnaires. The weighted average price undercutting margins, expressed as a
percentage of the Community industry's average selling prices, were 34,7 % for Indonesia, 21 % for
Australia and 32,7 % for Thailand.

3. Economic situation of the Community industry

(a) Preliminary remarks

(71)

The examination of the injury trends covered the period from 1996 up to the end of the IP. It should
be noted that during this period anti-dumping measures were in force against the Republic of Korea,
Taiwan and Belarus with a resulting effect on the Community industry.

(b) Production, capacity and capacity utilisation

(72)

1996

1997

1998

IP

Production

312 917 t

330 577 t

322 403 t

315 917 t

Index (1996 - 100)

100

106

103

101

Capacity

384 500 t

376 800 t

358 300 t

359 400 t

Index (1996 - 100)

100

98

93

93

Capacity utilisation

81,38 %

Index (1996 - 100)

100

87,73 %

108

89,98 %

111

87,90 %

108

As illustrated in the table above, production of the Community industry was by and large stable.

(73) As regards capacity, it should be noted that the production facilities for PSF are also used in the
production of other products not concerned by the present proceedings, e.g. tow and tops. As a
consequence, the capacity attributed to the production of PSF was determined on the basis of the
actual production of the various products including PSF. On this basis, capacity decreased by 7 %.

The decrease in the capacity of production can be attributed to the fact that the Community industry
closed certain production lines and factories or converted them to the production of other products
not covered by this investigation with the aim of obtaining a more efficient capacity utilisation.

(74)

The rate of utilisation of the production capacity, as shown in the above table, increased by 8 %
during the period considered. This increase, however, is the direct result of the reduction of the
capacity of production.

L 16/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21. 1. 2000

(c) Sales volume of the Community industry

(75)

The volume of PSF sold by the Community industry on the Community market decreased by 6 %
during the period considered, as shown in the table below.

Sales

1996

1997

1998

IP

Index (1996 — 100)

100

103

95

94

308 851 t

319 235 t

294 718 t

291 013 t

This trend indicates that the sales made by the Community industry did not follow the trend in
consumption, which increased by 27 % during that period, as mentioned in recital 65. In fact, sales
volume only roughly followed the trend of consumption between 1996 and 1997 when it increased
by 3 % whereas consumption by 14 %. Since then, the trend in sales volume fell continuously up to
the IP.

(d) Average sales price and price evolution

(76)

The weighted average prices of the product concerned sold by the Community industry on the
Community market showed a considerable decrease over the period considered. As reported in the
table below, the average price fell by 11 % during that period.

Average Community indu-
stry price
evolution

1996

Index (1996 — 100)

100

1997

93

1998

93

IP

89

The investigation has shown that PSF prices are also influenced by the evolution of the prices of the
basic raw materials, e.g. pure terephthalic acid (PTA), Dimethylterephthalate (DMT) and Glycol which
represent between 60 and 70 % of the cost of production of the finished PSF.

(e) Market share

(77)

The development of sales volume compared to that of Community consumption shows that the
market share held by the Community industry decreased significantly during the period considered.
The table below indicates the development.

Market share

1996

Index (1996 — 100)

100

67,96 %

1997

61,59 %

91

1998

50,37 %

74

IP

50,31 %

74

The above table indicates that the decreasing trend was continuous during the period examined.
However, the loss in market share was relatively limited between 1996 and 1997, where 6,4
percentage points were lost. In contrast, the decline between 1996 and the IP was spectacular with
18 percentage points lost.

(f) Stocks

(78)

Stocks

1996

1997

1998

IP

Index (1996 — 100)

100

93

122

122

30 084 t

28 033 t

36 801 t

36 780 t

21. 1. 2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 16/41

As shown in the table above, stocks significantly increased by 22 % between 1996 and the IP.

(g) Profitability

(79)

In 1996, the Community industry incurred a weighted average loss of 4 %, expressed as a percentage
of net sales.

Profitability

(%)

1996

1997

1998

IP

– 4,04

– 0,41

6,34

6,73

Subsequently, as shown in the table above, its financial situation improved, especially during 1998
(profit of 6,34 %). This improvement was in fact the result of the restructuring processes undertaken
by the Community industry, aiming at more efficient production processes and using certain product
lines for more specialised products with higher profit margin. Nevertheless, the above profit margin
should be seen in the light of a profit rate of 10 % which is considered to be the minimum profit
rate that would ensure the viability of this type of industry in the long term.

It should also be mentioned that the profit achieved during the IP was mainly influenced by the
performance of the specialities sector (18,85 %). In the non-woven regular and hollow fibres, where
imports are particularly present, the profit only reached 0,86 % and 1,37 % respectively.

Furthermore, the investigation showed that the restructuring of the Community industry resulted in
a decrease in SG & A costs by 15,3 % from 1996 to the IP. It is also important to note that the
prices of the raw materials decreased significantly over the period considered: according to informa-
tion made available during the verification, PTA prices decreased by 35,6 % and Glycol prices by
14,3 % over the period considered. The combined effect of the price reductions of these raw
materials was estimated to have led to a 31 % decrease of the cost of manufacturing of PSF.

Both of the abovementioned factors, i.e. the SG & A reduction and the decrease of the raw materials
prices, suggest that the cost of production was reduced faster than the decrease of the sales prices,
allowing thus the Community industry to return to profits from 1998 onwards. In fact,
it is
considered that the current profit is the maximum that can be achieved given the price pressure from
imports. The increased efficiency of the industry cannot be improved upon in the short term.

(h) Investments

(80)

Investments

(Thousand ECU)

1996

17 652

Index (1996 — 100)

100

1997

10 177

58

1998

19 508

111

IP

15 980

91

Yearly investments made by the Community industry were important during the period examined, as
indicated in the table above. It should be noted that this significant effort represents, for the most
investments in replacement machinery as part of an overall restructuring programme.
part,

L 16/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21. 1. 2000

(i) Employment

(81) Due to a certain degree of reduction in production capacity and restructuring, employment of the

sector of the product concerned decreased by 20 %, as shown in the table below.

Employment

Index (1996 — 100)

1996

3 111

100

1997

2 817

91

1998

2 475

80

IP

2 474

80

(j) Conclusion on the situation of the Community industry

(82)

(83)

(84)

(85)

The above analysis has revealed that during the period considered some economic indicators such as
capacity (- 7 %), sales volume (- 6 %), sales prices (- 11 %), market share (- 26 %), stocks (+ 22 %),
investments (- 9 %) and employment (- 20 %) showed negative trends, in particular between 1997
and the IP.

In the meantime, production increased marginally by 1 %. Following a reduction in the capacity of
production, capacity utilisation increased by 8 %. Profitability which was negative in 1996 and 1997
became positive in 1998 and in the IP without reaching a level that was considered satisfactory.

The investigation has also shown that the Community industry has suffered significant price
pressure. Indeed, substantial price undercutting (40 % on average) has been established for imports
originating from the countries concerned.

In the light of the foregoing analysis, in particular the high loss in market share, the decrease in sales
price, the Commission has concluded that the Community industry has suffered injury which is
classified as material.

F. CAUSATION

1. Introduction

(86)

The Commission examined whether the material injury suffered by the Community industry had
been caused by the dumped imports from Indonesia, Thailand and Australia. In accordance with
Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission also examined other factors in order to ensure
that injury caused by other factors was not wrongly attributed to the dumped imports subject to
investigation.

2. General

(87)

In the recent past, the Community Institutions have found that the Community industry suffered
injury and that this injury was caused by dumped imports from a number of countries among which
Taiwan and Belarus. This industry has therefore been weakened since the beginning of the present
investigation and was seen to be still vulnerable during the period under examination.

3. Effect of the dumped imports

(88)

investigation has shown that

The present
imports from the countries concerned onto the
Community market significantly increased during the period examined, namely by almost seven
times. In 1996, 7 549 tonnes of PSF were imported from the countries concerned whereas the
volume imported during the IP was 51 911 tonnes. As a consequence of the above import
development the market share held by the countries concerned increased from 1,66 % in 1996 up to
8,97 % during the IP. During the same period, the average sales prices of these imports decreased by
22 %. They undercut those of the Community industry by 40 %.

(89)

These developments took place at a moment when the Community industry was particularly
vulnerable recovering after a long period of dumped imports from other third countries.

21. 1. 2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 16/43

(90)

(91)

(92)

instead of benefiting from the
This resulted in a situation in which the Community industry,
re-establishment of fair trading conditions following the imposition of antidumping measures with
respect to imports from other third countries, faced further deterioration. The injury investigation
concluded, as indicated above, that an overall worsening of the situation in that industry existed with
major decreases in market share (- 26 %), sales volume (- 6 %) and sales prices (- 11 %).

It should also be mentioned that the major losses suffered by the Community industry occurred for
those product types of PSF mainly imported from the said countries. Indeed, imports of woven PSF
products represent around 50 % and of regular nonwoven products about 29 % of all imports of PSF
the profits realised by the
from the countries concerned. For these particular product
Community industry was 3,1 % and 0,86 % respectively, whereas the average profits for more
specialised products, which are imported to a lesser degree, was about 18,85 %.

types,

The above appears to be particularly relevant as imported PSF and PSF produced in the Community
are like products, offered through similar sales channels in the Community market. Therefore the
increasing presence of high volumes of dumped PSF imported from the countries concerned has had
a significant impact on that market overall. Furthermore, the market being transparent, the effect of
the low prices offered for PSF imported from the countries concerned and well known to all
potential customers in the Community market, had a major impact on the level of prices of the
Community industry.

(93)

Based on the above, it was concluded that the low-priced dumped imports had a significant negative
impact on the situation of the Community industry.

4. Impact of other factors

(a) Development of consumption

(94) As mentioned in recital 65, from 1996 to the IP, consumption in the Community market increased
by 27 % indicating a fast growing PSF market. Therefore, consumption cannot be held responsible
for the injurious situation suffered by the Community industry.

(b) Imports of PSF from other third countries

(95)

Total imports of PSF onto the Community market from countries other than Indonesia, Thailand and
Australia developed as follows:

Imports

1996

1997

1998

IP

Taiwan, South Korea (1)

38 541 t

58 198 t

102 636 t

103 441 t

Index (1996 — 100)

100

Belarus (2)

Index (1996 — 100)

4 463 t

100

153

243 t

5

268

35 t

1

271

35 t

0

Other countries

60 084 t

78 100 t

81 109 t

76 155 t

Index (1996 — 100)

100

130

135

127

Total other imports

103 088 t

136 541 t

183 780 t

179 615 t

Index (1996 — 100)

100

y/y difference

132

+ 32 %

178

+ 35 %

174

– 2 %

(1) PSF imported from Taiwan is subject to a 13,0 % definitive anti-dumping duty since September 1993.

PSF imported from Korea was subject to a 4,8 % definitive anti-dumping duty until August 1999.

(2) PSF imported from Belarus is subject to a 43,5 % definitive anti-dumping duty since July 1996.

L 16/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21. 1. 2000

Average import price
evolution
Index (1996 — 100)

1996

1997

1998

Taiwan, South Korea

100

Belarus

Other countries

100

100

Total (other imports)

100

95

84

90

91

83

75

88

83

IT

77

75

86

79

(96)

It should be underlined that the two major exporting countries, namely Taiwan and South Korea, are
subject to an anti-subsidy investigation which was initiated in parallel to the present investigation.
The anti-subsidy investigation concluded that imports from South Korea were not subsidised.
However, it showed that the subsidised imports from Taiwan combined with the imports from the
countries concerned by the present anti-dumping investigation contributed to the injury suffered by
the Community industry.

An analysis of the development of import prices of South Korea and Taiwan reveals that they also
contributed to the pressure exerted on prices in the Community. The information available shows
that the average prices of imports from these countries fluctuated between those practised by the
countries concerned by this proceeding and those of the Community industry. As far as imports
from other third countries, their limited volume and their prices which were at the level of those of
the Community industry, indicate that such imports did not contribute to the price deterioration
noticed in the market.

On the basis of the above, it cannot be excluded that imports from South Korea and Taiwan onto
the Community market did have an impact on the economic situation of the Community industry.
However, taking into account the level and prices of these imports these cannot break the causal link
between the imports from the countries concerned and the injurious situation suffered by the
Community industry.

(c) Export activity and other activities of the Community industry

(97)

Exports to third countries have always represented a minor activity for the Community industry.
From a level of around 9 % of total sales in 1996, exports decreased to a level of 5 % during the IP.
The table below shows the volumes exported:

Exports

1996

1997

1998

IP

27 649 t

29 200 t

16 300 t

14 854 t

Index (1996 — 100)

100

106

59

54

Exports sales made by the Community industry nearly halved during the period considered.
However,
it is considered that these sales are limited as compared to total production of the
Community industry. Consequently, any injury in terms of reduced production caused by a reduced
export sales volume is thus very limited.

21. 1. 2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 16/45

(98)

It has been argued that imports have increased at a time when the Community industry has reduced
its production capacity by 7 %, which corresponds to a significant share of the import volume,
making an increase in imports inevitable in order to satisfy demand. In this respect, it should be
noted that the Community industry has still spare capacity. In addition, the decrease in capacity
reflects only roughly half of the increase in imports from the countries concerned.

Furthermore, the investigation has shown that the capacity reduction was the result of the closure or
conversion to other products of certain production sites, which could not operate economically in
view of the low priced imports. Should measures in the present case not be imposed, further
production site closures could occur. On the contrary, if fair trading conditions are restored, the
Community industry would be able in the future to suppply a bigger share of the Community
market, considering its past record and the fact that certain production lines can be converted back
to PSF products.

5. Conclusion on causation

(99)

It cannot be excluded that factors other than dumped imports from the countries concerned, in
particular the imports from other third countries which are subject to a parallel anti-subsidy
investigation, contributed to the difficult state of the Community industry. However, the substantial
increase in import volume from the countries concerned, the considerable degree of price decreases
and price undercutting had material negative consequences on the situation of the Community
industry. It was therefore concluded that these imports, taken in isolation, have caused material
injury to the Community industry.

G. COMMUNITY INTEREST

1. Introduction

(100)

In order to reach its final conclusions the Commission examined, whether, despite the conclusions
on injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed which would lead to the conclusion that it is not
in the Community interest to adopt measures in this particular case. For this purpose, and pursuant
to Article 21 (1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission considered the impact of measures for all
parties involved in the proceedings.

2. Interest of the Community industry

(101) The Community industry has for almost a decade been suffering from low-priced imports of PSF.
The objective of the eventual adoption of anti-dumping measures is to re-establish fair competition
in the Community market between the Community producers and their exporting counterparts in
third countries.

The Community industry has been making considerable efforts to improve its productivity in recent
years, in an attempt to lower its cost of production and to enhance its competitiveness in this price
sensitive market. It has deployed particular efforts of rationalisation during the period examined. By
way of example, one Community producer shut down two of his production facilities in an effort to
reduce costs and to improve its productivity.

In view of the nature of the injury suffered by the Community industry, in particular the fact that it
was prevented from recovering from the injurious situation caused by other dumped imports, the
Commission considers that, in the absence of the imposition of anti-dumping measures, the further
deterioration of the situation of the Community industry is quite probable. This could entail a further
reduction in numbers employed and may ultimately lead to a reduction of the number of producers
in the Community.

Furthermore, the ongoing restructuring efforts made by the Community industry show that it is not
ready to abandon this segment of production, particularly as the market is rapidly growing. The
adoption of anti-dumping measures would therefore be in the interest of the Community industry.

L 16/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21. 1. 2000

3. Impact on importers and users

(102) The Commission sent questionnaires to 11 known importers unrelated to the exporting producers in
the countries concerned, as well as to users of PSF in the Community. None of the importers
answered the questionnaire sent by the Commission during the current investigation, whereas three
users submitted their replies. Furthermore, two users' associations made submissions concerning this
proceeding.

(103) The analysis of the data submitted by the three user companies revealed that only one of them
imported PSF from the countries concerned by this proceeding. This user argued that the particular
type of PSF used in the production of its finished product is not produced by the Community
industry and consequently any imposition of antidumping measures would jeopardise its profit-
ability. The Commission however, based on the description of the PSF type imported by this user,
established that at least three complaining Community producers offer this product in the market. In
any event, the imposition of anti-dumping measures will not foreclose the Community to imports it
will merely re-establish fair trading conditions. It was therefore considered that the argument put
forward by this user could not be accepted.

Since no further evidence was provided by users concerning any potential disadvantage that the
anti-dumping measures could bring to their business, any subsequent analysis was not performed.

(104) One Community user association requested the exclusion of certain types of PSF allegedly not
produced by the Community industry. This allegation was however not further substantiated by
sufficient technical information. It was therefore not possible for the Commission to conclude on the
validity of this argument.

(105) On the basis of the above it can be concluded that the eventual imposition of antidumping measures
against imports of PSF from the countries concerned would not imply a significant deterioration, if
any, of the situation of the users.

4. Conclusion

(106) On the basis of the above facts and considerations in particular, and having examined the arguments
submitted by the Community industry and Community users of the product concerned,
it was
concluded, that there were no compelling reasons not to impose measures concerning imports from
Indonesia, Australia and Thailand, in order to ensure competitive conditions of fair pricing and to
revert the continuation of injury in the Community industry.

H. PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

(107)

In order to prevent further injury being caused by the dumped imports concerned before the end of
the investigation, provisional anti-dumping measures should be adopted. These measures should take
the form of ad valorem duties.

1. Injury elimination level

(108) For the purpose of establishing the level of the provisional duties, account has been taken both of
the dumping margins found and of the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the injury sustained
by the Community industry. In this respect it should be noted that the price undercutting margins
calculated for all types of the like product were significantly higher than the relevant dumping
margins. It follows that also the injury elimination level expressed as a percentage of the free-at-
Community-frontier price would be higher than the respective dumping margins established for
exporting producers. In this context, it is recalled that the injury elimination level is established on
the basis of the difference between the export price and the cost of production of the Community
producers increased by an amount of profit which could be expected in the absence of dumped
imports, whereas the undercutting margin is established using the same export prices but a lower
actual sales price of the Community industry.

2. Provisional measures

(109) Since in all cases the dumping margin has been found to be lower than the price undercutting
the
in

margins and therefore,
in the present case, also lower than the injury elimination level,
provisional duties to be imposed should correspond to the dumping margins established,
conformity with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation.

21. 1. 2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 16/47

(110) However, with regard to the parallel anti-subsidy proceeding, in accordance with Article 24(1) of
Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 (1) (hereinafter ‘the basic anti-subsidy Regulation’) and Article
14(1) of the basic Regulation, no product shall be subject to both anti-dumping and countervailing
duties for the purposes of dealing with one and the same situation arising from dumping and from
export subsidisation. In the present investigation, it was found that an anti-dumping duty should
provisionally be imposed on imports of the product concerned originating in Australia, Indonesia
and Thailand and therefore, it is necessary to determine whether, and to what extent, the subsidy and
the dumping margins arise from the same situation.

(111)

In the parallel anti-subsidy proceeding it was found that in, inter alia, Indonesia and Thailand, the
level of subsidisation was below the de minimis level and therefore, no countervailing duty should be
imposed.

(112) With regard to Australia, a provisional countervailing duty corresponding to the amount of subsidy,
which was found to be lower than the injury margin, was proposed in accordance with Article 12(1)
of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation. All of the subsidy schemes investigated in Australia constituted
export subsidies within the meaning of Article 3(4)(a) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation. As such,
the subsidies could only affect the export price of the Australian exporting producer, thus leading to
an increased margin of dumping. In other words, the provisional dumping margin established for the
sole cooperating Australian producer is partly due to the existence of export subsidies. In these
circumstances it is not considered appropriate to impose both countervailing and anti-dumping
duties to the full extent of the relevant subsidy and dumping margins provisionally established.
Therefore, the provisional anti-dumping duty should be adjusted to reflect the actual dumping
margin remaining after the imposition of the provisional countervailing duty offsetting the effect of
the export subsidies.

(113) On the basis of the above, the provisional duty rates, expressed as a percentage of the CIF

Community border price, customs duty unpaid are as follows:

Country

Company

Rate of duty
(%)

Australia

All companies

Indonesia

P.T. Indorama Synthetics Tbk

P.T. Panasia Indosyntec

P.T. GT Petrochem Industries Tbk

P.T. Susilia Indah Synthetic Fiber Industries

P.T. Teĳin Indonesia Fiber Corporation Tbk

All other companies

Thailand

Indo Poly (Thailand) Ltd

Tuntex (Thailand) Public Co., Ltd

All other companies

13,6

5,2

14,8

13,7

13,7

13,7

20,8

15,5

35,3

36,6

(114) The individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the
basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during
that investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the country-wide
duty applicable to,
‘all other companies’) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products
originating in the country concerned and produced by the companies and thus by the specific legal
entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned
in the operative part of this Regulation with its name and address, including entities related to those
specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate
applicable to ‘all other companies’.

(1) OJ L 288, 21.10.1997, p. 1.

L 16/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21. 1. 2000

(115) Any claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty rates (e.g.
following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales
entities) should be addressed to the Commission (1) forthwith with all relevant information,
in
particular any modification in the company's activities linked to production, domestic and export
sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales
entities. The Commission, if appropriate, will, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, amend
the Regulation accordingly by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.

I. FINAL PROVISION

(116)

In the interests of sound administration, a period should be fixed within which the interested parties
may make their views known in writing and request a hearing. Furthermore, it should be stated that
this Regulation are provisional and may have to be
the findings made for the purposes of
reconsidered for the purposes of any definitive duty,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.
A provisional anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of synthetic fibres of polyesters, not
carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, currently classifiable within CN code 5503 20 00,
originating in Australia, Indonesia and Thailand.

2.
The rate of the provisional anti-dumping duty for Australia has been adjusted to reflect the actual
dumping margin remaining after the imposition of the countervailing duty as provisionally determined in
Commission Regulation (EC) No 123/2000 (2).

The rate of the provisional duty applicable to the net free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty,

3.
for products produced by the following companies shall be as follows:

Rate of
(%)

TARIC
additional code

13,6

—

5,2

A051

14,8

A052

13,7

A053

13,7

A054

Country

Company

Australia

All companies

Indonesia

P.T. Indorama Synthetics Tbk
Graha Irama, 17th floor
Jl. H.R. Rasuna Said Blok X-1 Kav. 1-2
PO Box 3375
Jakarta 12950

P.T. Panasia Indosyntec
Jl. Garuda 153/74
Bandung 40184

P.T. GT Petrochem Industries Tbk
Exim Melati Building, 9th floor
Jl. M.H. Thamrin Kav. 8-9
Jakarta 10230

P.T. Susilia Indah Synthetic Fiber Industries
Jl. Kh. Zainul Arifin Kompleks
Ketapang Indah
Blok B 1 No 23
Jakarta 11140

(1) European Commission

Trade Directorate-General
Directorate C
DM 24 — 8/38
Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200
B-1049 Brussels

(2) See page 3 of this Official Journal.

21. 1. 2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 16/49

Country

Company

Thailand

P.T. Teijin Indonesia Fiber Corporation Tbk
5th floor Mid Plaza 1
Jl. Jend. Sudiman Kav. 10-11
Jakarta 10220

All other companies

Indo Poly (Thailand) Ltd
35/8 MOO 4, Tambol Khunkeaw
Amphur Nakhonchaisri
Nakornpathom 73120

Tuntex (Thailand) Public Co., Ltd
Room 1812, 18th floor
54 Sukhumvit 21 Road (Soi Asoke)
Klongtoey, Wattana
Bangkok 10110

All other companies

Rate of
(%)

TARIC
additional code

13,7

A055

20,8

15,5

A999

A056

35,3

A057

36,6

A999

4.

Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.

The release for free circulation in the Community of the product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be

5.
subject to the provision of a security, equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.

Article 2

Without prejudice to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, the interested parties may make known
their views in writing and apply to be heard by the Commission within one month of the date of entry into
force of this Regulation.

Pursuant to Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, the parties concerned may comment on the
application of this Regulation within one month of its entry into force.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the
European Communities.

Article 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of six months.

Article 3

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 January 2000.

For the Commission

Pascal LAMY

Member of the Commission