Commission Regulation (EC) No 1742/2000 of 4 August 2000 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand
Date: 2000-08-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Far East, India, South-East Asia, anti-dumping duty, import, plastics

L 199/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.8.2000

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1742/2000

of 4 August 2000

imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
originating in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand

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:

(5)

(6)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

A. PROCEDURE

1. Initiation

On 6 November 1999, the Commission announced by a
notice (‘Notice of Initiation’) published in the Official
Journal of the European Communities (3) the initiation of
an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into
the Community of certain polyethylene terephthalate
originating in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Republic of
Korea (‘Korea’), Taiwan and Thailand.

of

The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint
lodged in September 1999 by the Association of Plastic
(‘complainant’) on
Manufacturers in Europe (A.P.M.E.)
behalf
the
producers
Community production of polyethylene terephthalate.
The complaint contained evidence of dumping of the
said product and of material injury resulting therefrom,
which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation
of a proceeding.

representing

85 % of

In November 1999 the Commission initiated an anti-
subsidy investigation concerning imports of the same
product originating in India, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia,
Taiwan and Thailand (4).

The Commission officially advised the exporting produ-
cers and importers/traders known to be concerned as
well as their associations,
the
exporting countries concerned, users, suppliers and the
complainant Community producers, about the initiation
Interested parties were given the
of
opportunity to make their views known in writing and

the representatives of

the proceeding.

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 128, 30.4.1998, p. 18.
(3) OJ C 319, 6.11.1999, p. 4.
(4) OJ C 319, 6.11.1999, p. 2.

to request a hearing within the time limit set in the
Notice of Initiation.

as well

Community

A number of exporting producers in the countries
concerned,
producers,
as
Community users and importers/traders made their
views known in writing. All parties who so requested
within the above time limit and indicated that there
were particular reasons why they should be heard were
granted the opportunity to be heard.

The Commission sent questionnaires to parties known
to be concerned and to all the other companies that
made themselves known within the deadlines set out in
the Notice of Initiation. Replies were received from nine
Community producers, 17 exporting producers in the
countries concerned, as well as from three importers in
the Community related to exporting producers. The
Commission also received replies from three unrelated
importers/traders in the Community as well as from
nine users, five suppliers and five professional associa-
tions. The Commission sought and verified all the infor-
mation it deemed necessary for the purpose of a prelimi-
nary determination of dumping, injury and Community
interest. Verification visits were carried out at the prem-
ises of the following companies:

1. Community producers

— Du Pont Polyesters Ltd (UK)

— Eastman Chemicals BV (The Netherlands)

— INCA International SpA (Italy)

— Italpet Preforme SpA (Italy)

— KOSA GmbH (Germany)

— Shell Chemicals Ltd (UK)

— Wellman PET Resins Europe (The Netherlands)

— Aussapol SpA (Italy)

— CEP-Tergal Fibre (France)

2. Unrelated Importers in the Community

— Polytrade GmbH (Germany)

— Global Services International (Italy)

3. Users

— Crown Cork and Seals

- European division

(France)

— Guala Closures, Polybox Group (Italy)

— Evian - Volvic, Danone Group (France)

— Perrier Vittel M.T, Nestlé Group (France)

— Cott Beverages Ltd. (UK)

5.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 199/49

4. Suppliers

— BP Amoco Chemicals Ltd (UK)

5. Exporting producers

I n d i a

— Reliance Industries Ltd - Mumbai

— Pearl Engineering Polymers Limited - New Delhi

(9)

I n d o n e s i a

— P.T. Bakrie Kasei Corporation — Jakarta

— P.T. Indorama Synthetics Tbk — Jakarta

— P.T. Polypet Karyapersada — Jakarta

M a l a y s i a

— Hualon Corporation - Kuala Lumpur

— MPI Polyester Industries - Shah Alam

K o r e a

— Honam Petrochemical Corporation — Seoul

— Tongkook Corporation — Seoul

— Daehan Synthetic Fiber Corporation — Seoul

— SK Chemicals Corporation — Seoul

(10)

T a i w a n

— Tuntex Distinct Corporation — Taipei

— Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corporation — Taipei

— Far Eastern Textile Ltd. — Taipei

— Nan Ya Plastics Corporation — Taipei

(11)

T h a i l a n d

— Thai Shingkong Industry Corporation Limited —

Bangkok

The investigation of dumping and injury covered the
period from 1 October 1998 to 30 September 1999
(‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of trends
in the context of the injury analysis covered the period
from 1 January 1996 up to the end of the investigation
period (‘analysis period’).

(12)

2. Product concerned and like product

Product concerned

The product concerned is polyethylene terephthalate
normally used in the plastic industry, for the production
of bottles and sheet. There is also another kind of poly-
ethylene terephthalate for use in polyester fibre produc-
tion. The production process of the two kinds of poly-
ethylene terephthalate is identical up to a certain stage
since they are both produced by the polycondensation
of purified terephtalic acid (PTA) or dimethyl terephtha-
late with mono ethylene glycol
(MEG). Polyethylene
terephthalate for use in the plastics industry is polymer-
ised in a similar way to that for polyester fibre produc-
tion, in some cases in common facilities. The difference
between the two kinds of polyethylene terephthalate is
primarily determined by the fact
the product
concerned undergoes a further process called ‘solid state

that

(7)

(8)

processing’ which increases its ‘intrinsic viscosity’ value
(IV value or ItV value). It is thus the level of IV that
differentiates the product concerned from the polyethy-
lene terephthalate used in the polyester fibre industry.
Polyethylene terephthalate with an IV value below 0,7 is
used for the production of polyester fibre and is thus not
concerned by this anti-dumping investigation.

The viscosity of polyethylene terephthalate may also be
expressed in a different form, namely in terms of the
‘coefficient of viscosity’ or ‘viscosity number’. During the
investigation it was found that the equivalent of an IV
value of 0,7 is a coefficient of viscosity of 78 ml/g as
measured by tests performed according to DIN 53728
and not, as indicated by the complainant, a coefficient of
173. This value resulted from the incorrect use of the
test standard DIN 53728 in a report issued by Hoechst
in 1991. Consequently the Commission has decided to
use the corresponding value of 78 ml/g or higher that,
according to the correctly applied DIN 53728 test, is the
coefficient of viscosity for the type of polyethylene
terephthalate used in the production of plastic bottles
and sheets.

In view of the above, the product concerned is polyethy-
lene terephthalate with a coefficient of viscosity of
78 ml/g or higher, corresponding to an intrinsic
viscosity value of 0,7 or higher (‘PET’ or ‘polyethylene
terephthalate’) imported under CN code 3907 60 20 and
CN code ex 3907 60 80.

The investigation has shown that there are a number of
different types of PET, which were defined by a variety
of factors such as viscosity, additives, melting behaviour,
etc, although they all share the same basic characteristics
and uses.

Like product

The Commission found that PET produced by the
Community producers and sold on the Community
market is a like product to PET produced in the coun-
tries concerned and exported to the Community, since
there are no differences in the basic characteristics and
uses. The same is true with regard to PET sold on the
domestic market of the exporting countries and PET
exported to the Community. Therefore, these products
are alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of
the
Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (‘Basic Regulation’).

B. DUMPING

1. General methodology

(13)

The general methodology set out hereinafter has been
applied for all exporting countries concerned. The
presentation of the findings on dumping for each of the
six countries concerned therefore only describes what is
specific for each exporting country.

L 199/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.8.2000

Normal value

(14) As

far as

the determination of normal value

is
concerned, the Commission first established, for each
exporting producer, whether its total domestic sales of
PET were representative in comparison with its total
export
to the
the product
Community. In accordance with Article 2(2) of the Basic
Regulation, domestic sales of an exporting producer
were considered representative when the total domestic
sales volume was at least 5 % of its total export sales
volume to the Community.

concerned

sales of

(15)

(16)

The Commission subsequently identified those types of
PET sold domestically by the companies having overall
representative domestic sales that were identical or
directly comparable to the types sold for export to the
Community.

these types,

it was established whether
For each of
domestic sales were sufficiently representative for the
purposes of Article 2(2) of
the Basic Regulation.
Domestic sales of a particular type were considered suffi-
ciently representative when the total domestic sales
volume of PET of that type during the IP represented
5 % or more of the total sales volume of PET of the
comparable type exported to the Community.

(17) An examination was also made as to whether the
domestic sales of each type could be regarded as having
been made in the ordinary course of trade, by estab-
lishing the proportion of profitable sales to independent
customers of the type in question. In cases where the
sales volume sold at a net sales price equal to or above
the calculated cost of production (also referred to as
‘profitable sales’) represented 80 % or more of the total
sales volume and where the weighted average price of
that type was equal to or above cost of production,
normal value was based on the weighted average of the
prices of all domestic sales made during the IP, irrespec-
tive of whether all these sales were profitable or not. In
cases where the volume of profitable sales represented
less than 80 % but 10 % or more of the total sales
volume, normal value was based on the weighted
average price of profitable sales only.

(18)

In cases where the volume of profitable sales of any type
of PET represented less than 10 % of the total sales
volume, it was considered that this particular type was
sold in insufficient quantities for the domestic price to
provide an appropriate basis for the establishment of the
normal value.

them, using domestic prices of other exporting produ-
cers would have meant in this case making numerous
adjustments, most of which would have had to be based
on
that
constructed value of each exporting producer formed a
more appropriate basis to establish normal value.

considered

estimates.

therefore

It was

(20)

Consequently,
in accordance with Article 2(3) of the
Basic Regulation, normal value was constructed by
adding to the manufacturing costs of the exported types,
adjusted where necessary, a reasonable percentage for
selling, general and administrative expenses (‘SG&A’) and
a reasonable margin of profit. To this end, the Commis-
sion examined whether the SG&A incurred and the
profit
the exporting producers
concerned on the domestic market constituted reliable
data.

realised by each of

(21) Actual domestic SG&A expenses were considered reli-
able when the total domestic sales volume of
the
company concerned could be regarded as representative
when compared to the volume of export sales to the
Community. The domestic profit margin was deter-
mined on the basis of domestic sales of those types
which were sold in the ordinary course of trade. For this
purpose, the methodology set out in recital (17) was
applied. Where these criteria were not met, a weighted
average SG&A expenses and/or profit margin of the
other companies with sufficient sales in the ordinary
course of trade in the country concerned was used.

Export price

(22)

In all cases where PET was exported to independent
customers in the Community,
the export price was
established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the Basic
Regulation, namely on the basis of export prices actually
paid or payable.

(23) Where the export sale was made to a related importer,
the export price was constructed pursuant to Article 2(9)
of the Basic Regulation, namely on the basis of the price
at which the imported products were first resold to an
independent buyer.
In such cases, adjustments were
made for all costs incurred between importation and
resale and for profits accruing, in order to establish a
reliable export price. This profit was set at 5 %. This was
considered to be reasonable for the function performed
by the parties concerned.

(19) Wherever domestic prices of a particular type sold by an
exporting producer could not be used, constructed
normal value had to be used in preference to domestic
prices of other exporting producers. Due to the number
of different types and the variety of factors (such as
viscosity, additives, melting behaviour, etc) affecting

(24)

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.

Comparison

5.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 199/51

Dumping margin for the companies investigated

Export price

(25) According to Article 2(11) of the Basic Regulation, for
each exporting producer the weighted average normal
value by type was compared with the weighted average
export price by type. However, whenever it was estab-
lished that there was a pattern of export prices which
differed significantly among different purchasers, regions
or time periods and that the above-mentioned method
did not reflect the full degree of dumping, the weighted
average normal value was compared with the export
prices of all individual transactions to the Community.

(32) All sales for export were to independent importers in the
Community. Consequently, the export price was estab-
lished according to Article 2(8) of the Basic Regulation
by reference to the prices actually paid or payable.

Comparison

(33) Allowances

for differences

insurance,
handling,
loading and ancillary costs, credit, commis-
sions and duty drawback have been granted where
applicable and justified.

in transport,

Residual dumping margin

(26)

(27)

For non-co-operating companies, a ‘residual’ dumping
margin was determined in accordance with Article 18 of
the Basic Regulation, on the basis of the facts available.

Taking into account the high level of co-operation of all
countries,
it was decided to set the residual dumping
margin at the level of the co-operating company with
the highest dumping margin in order to ensure the
effectiveness of any measures.

2. India

(28)

Two companies
exporting producers.

replied to the questionnaire

for

(34) One Indian company's claim for an adjustment for duty
drawback was found to be unjustified. It was established
that any benefit from the duty benefit scheme would
affect equally both domestic and export costs and prices.
Thus, the claim could not be accepted.

(35)

The same company claimed an adjustment to normal
value for a so-called ‘loyalty discount’. The investigation
revealed that this was in fact a sales promotion expense
payable to sales agents after the IP and which was
conditional upon achieving specific sales targets. More-
this claim was related to hypothetical perfor-
over,
mances and it was not shown that the discount scheme
was consistently or historically utilised. Therefore, the
claimed adjustment was rejected.

(36) An allowance for salesmen's salaries on both domestic
and export markets was also claimed by this company.
However, it was unable to provide the requisite evidence
to support this request or to show that it affected price
comparability. The claim was consequently rejected on
both the domestic and export side.

Normal value

Dumping margin

(29) One Indian company in its questionnaire reply deducted
in the
from the domestic selling prices, as set out
invoices, an amount for sales taxes arguing it had been
indirectly paid in advance. The investigation revealed
that the company had in fact been exempted from sales
taxes during the IP. The domestic sales listing was conse-
quently corrected.

(30)

(31)

For all types of PET exported by the Indian exporting
producers except one, the Commission could establish
normal value on the basis of the domestic sales price in
accordance with Article 2(1) of the Basic Regulation.

the

remaining type of PET the Commission
For
constructed normal value in accordance with Article
2(3) of the Basic Regulation. Given that the company
had sufficient domestic sales of other types of PET, the
SG&A expenses and profit margin realised on these sales
was used to construct the normal value.

(37) As provided by Article 2(11) of the Basic Regulation, the
weighted average normal values of each type of the
product concerned exported to the Community were
compared to the weighted average export price of each
corresponding type of the product concerned.

(38)

The comparison showed the existence of dumping in
respect of the co-operating exporting producers. The
provisional dumping margins expressed as a percentage
of the cif import price at the Community border are

Reliance Industries Ltd.

52,6 %

Pearl Engineering Polymers Limited

30,0 %

Residual dumping margin

52,6 %

L 199/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.8.2000

3. Indonesia

to Article 2(8) of the Basic Regulation by reference to
the prices actually paid or payable.

(39)

Three companies
replied to the questionnaire for
exporting producers. One company in the Community
related to an exporting producer and a company located
outside the Community related to the same exporting
producer also sent a reply.

Normal value

(40) One Indonesian company submitted misleading infor-
mation within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the Basic
Regulation concerning its organisation and its SG&A
expenses incurred for the production and sales of the
product concerned. Moreover, as the company only
reported a portion of the SG&A expenses it had incurred
for the production and sales of PET, it was decided, in
conformity with Article 18(1) of the Basic Regulation, to
disregard the expenses reported and to make use of facts
available, by using the average domestic SG&A expenses
established for the other two co-operating Indonesian
exporting producers.

(41) Another exporting producer did not report all SG&A
expenses incurred for the production and sales of the
product concerned. However, given the fact that the
party had acted to the best of its ability, and that the
information submitted was verifiable, the Commission
was able to correct the figures reported in the question-
naire on the basis of the information obtained and veri-
fied on spot.

(42)

(43)

For one Indonesian exporting producer the Commission
could establish for a number of product
types the
normal value on the basis of the domestic sales prices of
comparable types in accordance with Article 2(2) of the
Basic Regulation.

In all other cases the Commission constructed normal
value in accordance with Article 2(3) of the Basic Regu-
lation. For one exporting producer with representative
domestic sales (see recital (21)), this was done by adding
to the manufacturing cost of the exported types the
company's own SG&A expenses and the company's own
profit. For another exporting producer, its own SG&A
expenses and the profit margin of the company with
sufficient sales in the ordinary course of trade on the
domestic market were used. For the company for which
Article 18(1) was applied, the company's own cost of
manufacturing of the exported types, the average SG&A
expenses of the other co-operating exporting producers,
and the profit margin of the company with sufficient
sales in the ordinary course of trade in Indonesia were
used.

(45) One Indonesian exporting producer made all exports
sales to independent customers in the Community via
two related trading companies, of which one was located
in the Community. The Commission had thus
to
construct the export price according to Article 2(9) of
the Basic Regulation.

Comparison

(46) Allowances

for differences

insurance,
handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing, credit and
commissions have been granted where applicable and
justified.

in transport,

Dumping margin

(47) As provided by Article 2(11) of the Basic Regulation, the
weighted average normal values of each type of the
product concerned exported to the Community were
compared to the weighted average export price of each
corresponding type of the product concerned.

(48)

The comparison showed the existence of dumping in
respect of the co-operating exporting producers. The
provisional dumping margins expressed as a percentage
of the cif import price at the Community border are:

P.T. Bakrie Kasei Corporation

P.T. Indorama Synthetics Tbk

P.T. Polypet Karyapersada

Residual dumping margin

63,5 %

15,2 %

73,7 %

73,7 %

4. The Republic of Korea

(49)

companies

replied to the questionnaire

for
Five
exporting producers. One of these exporting producers
finally decided not to co-operate because it did not allow
the Commission to conduct the verification visit at its
premises. Two companies related to one of the co-oper-
ating exporting producers, one in Korea and one in the
Community, replied to the questionnaire intended for
related companies.

Export price

Normal value

(44) All sales for export to the Community of the product
concerned made by two Indonesian exporting producers
were to independent customers in the Community.
Consequently, the export price was established according

(50)

For two Korean exporting producers, some reported cost
items had to be corrected pursuant to Article 2(5) of the
Basic Regulation.

5.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 199/53

the
For all Korean exporting producers except one,
Commission could establish normal value on the basis
of the domestic sales price in accordance with Article
2(1) of the Basic Regulation.

agreed, they were actually ignored. Therefore, no adjust-
ment could be granted in accordance with Article 2(10)
of the Basic Regulation.

(51)

(52)

For one company the Commission constructed normal
value in accordance with Article 2(3) of the Basic Regu-
lation. For
that exporting producer, having repres-
entative domestic sales, albeit not in the ordinary course
of trade, the Commission used its own SG&A expenses
and the weighted average profit margin of the other
Korean companies with sufficient sales in the ordinary
course of trade.

(58)

Three exporting producers claimed an adjustment to the
normal value for duty drawback. The verification
revealed that the first company also benefited from duty
drawback for part of its domestic sales. In the absence of
a factor affecting the price comparability, these domestic
sales were found to be not eligible for an allowance. The
Commission reduced the allowance accordingly. The
second company did not provide
evidence
concerning the link between the amount of duty draw-
back claimed and the raw materials physically incor-
porated in the product during the IP. Consequently, the
amount of duty drawback has been recalculated to
reflect
the amount of duty paid for raw materials
imported during the IP. The third company provided
misleading information concerning the method of calcu-
lation for their claim and an accurate quantification of
the adjustment requested for duty drawback could not
be established. Consequently,
the allowance for duty
drawback could not be granted.

any

Export price

(53) All sales of the product concerned made by three Korean
exporting producers were made directly to independent
customers to the Community, therefore the export price
was established according to Article 2(8) of the Basic
Regulation.

(54) One Korean exporting producer made export sales to
the Community both directly to independent customers
and via a related importer in the Community. Conse-
quently, for the latter a constructed export price has
been established pursuant to Article 2(9) of the Basic
Regulation while the export price for the remaining sales
was determined pursuant to Article 2(8) of the Basic
Regulation.

(59) One company claimed an allowance for level of trade
differences between domestic and export sales. The
alleged different levels were not present at the domestic
market. Since the company did not demonstrate consis-
tent and distinct differences in functions relating to the
different levels of trade as required by Article 2(10)(d)(ii)
of the Basic Regulation, the claim had therefore to be
rejected.

(55) One Korean company claimed that export prices of
sample sales should not be used in order to determine
the export price. However, the verification has shown
that the quantities of some of these so-called samples
were higher than those of normal commercial transac-
tions and that such sales were part of a marketing
strategy in order to gain market share. It was therefore
considered justified to include the export sample sales,
with the exception of those which were clearly not made
in normal commercial quantities.

Dumping margin

(60) As provided by Article 2(11) of the Basic Regulation, the
weighted average normal values of each type of the
product concerned exported to the Community were
compared to the weighted average export price of each
corresponding type of the product concerned.

Comparison

(61)

(56) Allowances

in transport,

for differences

insurance,
loading and ancillary costs, credit, packing,
handling,
taxes
commissions and import charges and indirect
(duty drawback) were granted where applicable and
justified.

For one Korean exporting producer, this method would
not have reflected the full degree of dumping being
practised. As moreover there was a pattern of export
prices which differed significantly among different
purchasers and regions, the normal value established on
a weighted average basis has been compared to the
prices of all
to the
Community.

individual export

transactions

(57)

Three Korean exporting producers claimed an adjust-
ment to the normal value for credit costs. However, the
companies sold the product concerned to their domestic
customers under the so-called ‘open account’ system
used on the Korean domestic market. Payment terms
were not agreed at the time of sale or when previously

(62)

The comparison showed the existence of dumping in
respect of the co-operating exporting producers. The
provisional dumping margins expressed as a percentage
of the cif import price at the Community border are:

L 199/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.8.2000

Honam Petrochemical Corporation

Tongkook Corporation

Daehan Synthetic Fiber Corporation

SK Chemicals Corporation

Residual dumping margin

19,8 %

55,8 %

5,1 %

3,2 %

55,8 %

5. Malaysia

tiate its claim. Furthermore, the claim was based on only
four transactions to so-called distributors whose func-
tions were not shown to be consistently and appro-
priately different from those of other purchasers. The
claim was consequently rejected.

Dumping margin

(70) As provided by Article 2(11) of the Basic Regulation, the
weighted average normal values of each type of the
product concerned exported to the Community were
compared to the weighted average export price of each
corresponding type of the product concerned.

Two companies
exporting producers.

replied to the questionnaire

for

(71)

The comparison showed the existence of dumping in
respect of the co-operating exporting producers. The
provisional dumping margins expressed as a percentage
of the cif import price at the Community border are:

(63)

(64)

(65)

Normal value

For one of the types of PET sold by one of the Malaysian
exporting producers, the Commission could establish
normal value on the basis of the domestic sales price in
accordance with Article 2(1) of the Basic Regulation.

For the only other type of PET sold by the above
company, as well as for all types sold by the remaining
company, the Commission constructed normal value in
accordance with Article 2(3) of the Basic Regulation. The
companies' own SG&A and profit margin were used, in
accordance with Article 2(6) of the Basic Regulation.

(66) One Malaysian company incorrectly allocated certain
SG&A expenses, notably finance expenses. The Commis-
sion consequently corrected the reported SG&A by real-
locating the relevant expenses based on the facts deter-
mined during the verification visit.

Export price

(72)

Hualon Corporation

MPI Polyester Industries

Residual dumping margin

8,3 %

34,2 %

34,2 %

6. Taiwan

companies

Four
exporting producers.

replied to the questionnaire

for

(67) All sales of the product concerned made by the two
co-operating Malaysian exporting producers on the
Community market were to independent customers in
the Community. Consequently,
the export price was
established according to Article 2(8) of the Basic Regula-
tion by reference to the prices actually paid or payable.

Comparison

(68) Allowances

for differences

insurance,
handling charges, commissions, credit and other factors
have been granted where applicable and justified.

in transport,

(69) One company claimed an adjustment to normal value
for an alleged difference in the level of trade. However,
the company was unable to show that the alleged differ-
ence in the level of trade affected price comparability or
to provide the requisite supporting evidence to substan-

(73) One Taiwanese company did not export the product
concerned during the IP to the Community. However,
the company claimed that in order to determine which
sales fell within the IP the date of contract and not the
invoice date should be used as the date of sale. It is the
Commission's long-standing practice to use the date of
invoice as the date of sale since the material terms of the
sale are normally irrevocable fixed on the invoice issued
to a customer. Exceptions can be made to this rule, e.g.
in cases where the date of contract, purchase order or
order confirmation may be more appropriate to estab-
lish the material terms of the sale as referred to in
Article 2(10)(j) of the Basic Regulation. However, none
of these exceptions applied to this company. Conse-
quently, the claim has to be rejected. In view of the
absence of any relevant export sales to the Community
during the IP, no individual dumping margin was estab-
lished for the company in question.

5.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 199/55

Normal value

Normal value

For all except one of the three remaining Taiwanese
exporting producers, the Commission could establish
normal value on the basis of the domestic sales price in
accordance with Article 2(1) of the Basic Regulation.

(81)

For the Thai exporting producer, the Commission could
establish normal value on the basis of the domestic sales
price in accordance with Article 2(1) of the Basic Regula-
tion.

(74)

(75)

the

company,

remaining

For
Commission
constructed normal value in accordance with Article
2(3) of the Basic Regulation. The company's own SG&A
and profit margin were used, in accordance with Article
2(6) of the Basic Regulation.

the

Export price

(76) All sales for export to the Community of the product
concerned made by the Taiwanese exporting producers
were to independent customers in the Community.
Consequently, the export price was established according
to Article 2(8) of the Basic Regulation by reference to
the prices actually paid or payable.

Comparison

Export price

(82)

The Thai exporting producer made export sales to the
Community both directly to independent customers and
via a related importer in the Community. Consequently,
for the latter a constructed export price has been estab-
lished pursuant to Article 2(9) of the Basic Regulation.

Comparison

(83) Allowances for differences in import charges, transport,
handling, packing, credit and commissions have been
granted where applicable and justified.

(77) Allowances for differences in transport, freight,

insur-
ance, charges, packing, credit and commissions have
been granted where applicable and justified.

Dumping margin

Dumping margin

(78) As provided by Article 2(11) of the Basic Regulation, the
weighted average normal values of each type of the
product concerned exported to the Community were
compared to the weighted average export price of each
corresponding type of the product concerned.

(79)

The comparison showed the existence of dumping in
respect of the co-operating exporting producers. The
provisional dumping margins expressed as a percentage
of the cif import price at the Community border are:

(84) As provided by Article 2(11) of the Basic Regulation, the
weighted average normal values of each type of the
product concerned exported to the Community were
compared to the weighted average export price of each
corresponding type of the product concerned.

(85)

The comparison shows the existence of dumping in
respect of
the exporting producer. The provisional
dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the cif
import price at the Community border are the following:

Shingkong Synthetic Fibers Corporation

Far Eastern Textile Ltd

Tuntex Distinct Corporation

Residual dumping margin

8,1 %

8,1 %

12,4 %

12,4 %

(86)

7. Thailand

(80) One company replied to the questionnaire for exporting
producers. One company in the Community related to
the exporting producer and a company located outside
the Community related to the same exporting producer
also sent a reply.

Thai Shingkong Industry Corporation

32,5 %

Residual dumping margin

32,5 %

8. Conclusion

substantial

dumping
The Commission established
margins for all co-operating companies and for all the
countries concerned by the proceeding. In the case of six
of these companies in four different countries (India,
Indonesia, Malaysia and Korea) the export prices were so
low that they did not cover the companies' full cost of
production for the product. For some of the companies
the losses made on sales to the Community were consid-
erable and exceeded in one case 50 % on turnover. This
behaviour
indicative of an extremely aggressive
pricing policy regarding exports to the Community.

is

L 199/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.8.2000

C. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY

(87)

The following 9 Community producers co-operated in
the investigation, i.e. replied to the Commission's ques-
tionnaires, allowed on-spot verifications and provided
information when
the Commission with additional
requested:

polyethylene terephthalate chips used to produce poly-
ester fibres. As the Community production of the poly-
ester fibres in which they are used was stable between
1996 and the beginning of the IP (1), the Commission
estimated that imports of PET chips used for the produc-
tion of polyester fibres remained stable too.

— Du Pont Polyesters Ltd (UK);
— Eastman Chemicals BV (NL);
— INCA International SpA (I);
— Italpet Preforme SpA (I);
— KOSA GmbH (D);
— Shell Chemicals Ltd (UK);
— Wellman PET Resins Europe (NL);
— Aussapol SpA (I);
— CEP-Tergal Fibre (F).

(94) According to the complaint,

the

the product concerned
represented, in terms of quantity, 90 % of all imports in
remaining 10 % (approximately 47 000
1998,
tonnes) being used to produce polyester fibres. This
information was confirmed during the investigation on
the basis of estimates established by various Community
producers and market research publications. For all the
the same estimated amount of
years under review,
imports of PET chips used for the production of poly-
ester fibres (47 000 tonnes) was deducted from imports
shown in Eurostat
to establish the total quantities
imported into the Community of the product concerned.

It should be noted that, although Aussapol SpA and CEP
- Tergal fibres were not among the companies on whose
behalf
these companies
supported the complaint and co-operated in the invest-
igation.

the complaint was

lodged,

(95) On a country basis, imported quantities were established
by the same methodology but also taking into account
data submitted by co-operating exporting producers.

(88)

(89)

It should also be noted that, although it operates a plant
in Malaysia, Eastman has been considered part of the
Community industry because its affiliated company has
exported only insignificant quantities of PET to Eastman
itself. No other co-operating companies did import PET
from the countries concerned during the IP.

(96)

(90) None of the three other European producers replied to
the Commission's questionnaires or expressed opposi-
tion to the proceeding.

(91)

(92)

the nine co-operating
The cumulated production of
producers
period was
during
1 042 350 tonnes out of an estimated total Community
production of 1 220 000 tonnes,
the
Community production.

i.e. 85 % of

investigation

the

The Commission, therefore, considers that the nine co-
operating producers constitute the ‘Community industry’
within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of
the Basic Regulation.

D. INJURY

1. Preliminary remarks

(98)

Information used

( a )

I m p o r t d a t a

(93)

Eurostat information, together with data submitted by
exporting producers, was used as the source of
the
import data. The CN heading used, CN 3907 60 00,
includes polyethylene
terephthalate under primary
i.e. not only the product concerned but also
forms,

( b ) C o m m u n i t y i n d u s t r y d a t a

Community industry data were obtained from the veri-
fied questionnaire responses of the nine co-operating
Community producers. Data were requested for the
period 1995 to the IP; however, during this period, the
Community industry was considerably restructured with
several mergers and demergers. As a consequence, it was
not possible for all the companies to provide data as far
back as requested. As a result, 1996 is the earliest year
the
for which data are
Community industry in the structure it had in the IP.

sufficiently complete

for

(97) However to have a full understanding of the situation of
the Community industry, especially concerning prices
and profitability, it is necessary to have a view on the
development of
the Community PET market over a
longer period. Data submitted by the Community
industry and obtained from external professional sources
were thus used wherever necessary.

2. Development of

the Community PET market

since the beginning of the 90s

PET is a product which started to be widely used in the
Community to bottle soft drinks in the late 80s and
mineral and spring water progressively thereafter. As a
consequence, Community demand for PET has been
growing very quickly since the beginning of the 90s (by
more than 10 % per year). The growth potential of this
market is still considerable, with the water market not
yet mature in many Community countries and demand
for other applications
(beer, milk, prepared food)
starting to develop.

(1) See inter alia OJ L 16, 21.1.2000, p. 30, Commission Regulation

(EC) No 124/2000.

5.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 199/57

(99) At the beginning of the 90s, the Community PET industry started to develop through the conversion
of existing polyester fibres or yarn plants. Rapidly, however, growing demand required completely
new production lines to be built specifically for PET and for its major raw materials. Despite the
rapid expansion of investments in new facilities, supply did not meet demand, and this was also the
case in other parts of the world. As a result, during the first half of 1995, there was a worldwide
shortage of PET. This resulted in huge increases in prices of PET and of its major raw materials.
These increases proved temporary because sufficient capacities for PET and its raw materials came
into production in the Community a few months later. Users of PET, anticipating that prices would
drop, stopped purchasing as soon as the summer 1995 peak was over (the consumption of PET
follows the same seasonality as the consumption of soft drinks and water). Prices started then to
decrease dramatically. This drop came earlier and was more significant than the drop in prices of raw
materials. As a result of this gap, the Community industry registered losses at the beginning of 1996.
These losses were expected to be temporary, but as a result of the arrival of dumped imports on the
Community market, as will be shown below, the situation in fact deteriorated further.

3. Consumption

(100) Apparent consumption of PET in the Community was established on the basis of the total imports of
the product concerned into the Community, plus the total verified sales of the Community industry
on the Community market, and estimates of sales of the non-co-operating Community producers
(based on their known production capacities and the average sales to capacity rates calculated for the
Community industry).

(101) Community consumption of PET reached approximately 1 350 000 tonnes during the IP. As shown
in the table below, it increased by 63 % from 1996 to the IP. Compared to 1998, consumption in
the IP remained almost stable, due mainly to the building of stocks by users in 1998, taking
advantage of the very low level of prices at that time.

Community consumption

1996

1997

1998

IP

825 608 t

1 090 915 t

1 311 008 t

1 349 169 t

Index (1996 — 100)

100

132

159

163

4. Imports into the Community from the countries concerned

Cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports concerned

(102)

It was first examined whether imports from all countries concerned should be assessed cumulatively,
taking into account the findings on dumping as established above.

( a )

I m p o r t s o r i g i n a t i n g i n I n d i a , K o r e a , M a l a y s i a a n d T h a i l a n d

(103)

It was found that:

— the dumping margins found were more than de minimis for all four countries;

— the volumes of imports were not negligible during the IP, as is illustrated by the market shares of
these countries that ranged from 2,6 to 8 % (9 to 28,5 % in terms of import shares);

L 199/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.8.2000

— the cumulative assessment appeared appropriate in view of the conditions of competition both
between the imports originating in these countries, and between these imports and the like
Community product. This is evidenced by the fact that volumes and market shares of these
imports have been multiplied by at least a factor of 3 between 1996 and the IP. Their price
behaviour was similar, with a decrease ranging from 42 % to 66 % between 1996 and the IP. In
the IP, their prices were at levels close to each other and they undercut the Community industry's
average prices up to 15,4 %. Furthermore, they used the same or similar channels of trade.

(104) For these reasons, it was provisionally concluded that imports originating in India, Korea, Malaysia

and Thailand should be assessed cumulatively.

( b )

I m p o r t s o r i g i n a t i n g i n I n d o n e s i a a n d T a i w a n

(105) Similarly to imports originating in the above countries,

— the dumping margins found were more than de minimis for both countries;

— the volumes of imports were not negligible during the IP, as is illustrated by market shares of
2,7 % for imports originating in Indonesia and 2,8 % for imports originating in Taiwan;

— their price behaviour was similar, with a decrease of 40 % for imports originating in Indonesia
and 42 % for imports originating in Taiwan between 1996 and the IP. In the IP, their prices were
at levels close to each other and close to the prices of the countries above and they undercut the
Community industry's average prices up to 5 %. Furthermore, they used the same or similar
channels of trade.

(106) The development of volume imported, though, differed from that of the countries above. The
volume of imports originating in Indonesia decreased by 18 % overall between 1996 and the IP, but
this is the result of a decrease of 30 % between 1996 and 1997, an increase of 100 % between 1997
and 1998 and a decrease of 42 % between 1998 and the IP. Between 1996 and the IP, volumes of
imports originating in Taiwan decreased by 23 %, and they showed an annual pattern similar to
those originating in Indonesia (– 51 % between 1996 and 1997, + 92 % between 1997 and 1998,
– 18 % between 1998 and the IP).

(107)

In view of the above, it is provisionally concluded that imports originating in Indonesia and Taiwan
were mostly made under the same conditions of competition, used the same channels of trade, grew
steadily between 1997 and 1998 (like imports of the countries above), had substantial market shares
during the IP and were made at the same level of prices that were found to be dumped. It was
therefore appropriate to assess imports originating in all the six countries concerned cumulatively.

Volume of imports concerned

(108) Volume of imports concerned developed as follows:

Imports

1996

1997

1998

IP

Total countries concerned

130 036 t

161 188 t

346 059 t

307 184 t

Index (1996 — 100)

100

124

266

236

5.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 199/59

(109) The volume of imports concerned grew by 136 %, between 1996 and the IP, to reach a level of
307 184 tonnes. After a steady rise that took place from the beginning of 1998 to the end of that
year, imports started to decrease at the beginning of 1999, at a time when the Community industry
had decreased its prices, and users' and importers' stocks were high; imports, however, remained
substantial.

Market shares of imports concerned

(110) Market share of imports concerned developed as follows:

Market shares of imports

1996

Total countries concerned

15,8 %

1997

14,8 %

1998

26,4 %

IP

22,8 %

Index (1996 — 100)

100

94

168

145

(111) The market share of the imports concerned nearly reached 23 % during the IP, an increase by 45 %
on its 1996 level. Between 1998 and the IP, the market share of these imports decreased slightly, as
a result of the reduction in import volumes described above.

Prices of imports concerned

(112) Prices of imports concerned decreased by 45 % from 1996 to the IP, by 24 % between 1996 and
1997, by 10,5 % between 1997 and 1998 and by 19 % between 1998 and the IP. On average, the
cif duty unpaid price for the product concerned originating in the countries concerned was
550 EUR/t during the IP. The investigation showed that a large number of exporters were selling at
a loss to the Community, indicating an aggressive pricing policy regarding the Community market.

Price undercutting

(113) A comparison of selling prices on the Community market during the IP was made between the
prices of the Community industry and those of the exporting producers in the countries concerned.
This comparison was made after deduction of rebates and discounts. The prices of the Community
industry were adjusted to ex-works prices. The prices of the dumped imports were cif Community
frontier, plus duties, and with an adjustment for level of trade and handling costs. The adjustments
have been based on information collected during the investigation, notably from co-operating
unrelated importers.

(114) On this base, the price undercutting by the dumped imports was:

Undercutting margins: ranges

India

Indonesia

Korea

Malaysia

Taiwan

Thailand

1,2 — 7,9 %

0 — 2,2 %

0 %

11,8 — 12,9 %

0 %

0 %

L 199/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.8.2000

These low average rates of undercutting are due to the price suppression caused by the behaviour of
the exporting producers in the countries concerned which sold not only at dumped prices, but also
at loss-making prices. The Community industry was in fact forced to match the prices of the dumped
imports to try and keep its market share. It should be borne in mind that, given the market power of
several
large buyers of products made of PET, the market is driven almost entirely by price
considerations.

5. Situation of the Community industry

Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation

(115) As shown in the table below, production over the period 1996 to the end of the IP increased by
89 %. During the same period, capacity increased by 83 % reflecting the investment efforts made by
the Community industry to be in a position to supply the fast-growing Community market. The
capacity utilisation rate of the Community industry remained fairly stable over the period. The plant
and equipment used by the Community industry are almost totally dedicated to production of the
product concerned.

Production

543 318 t

750 254 t

920 988 t

1 030 781 t

1996

1997

1998

IP

Index (1996 — 100)

100

138

169

189

Capacity

721 252 t

1 031 086 t

1 276 569 t

1 325 745 t

Index (1996 — 100)

Capacity utilisation

100

75 %

142

73 %

176

72 %

183

78 %

Sales volume, value and unit prices

(116) As shown in the table below, sales made by the Community industry to unrelated customers on the
Community market during the period 1996 to the investigation period increased in volume by 62 %
(in this context, selling prices of Italpet have not been considered reliable and have been disregarded).
Average selling prices fell by 36 % over the same time period, and between 1998 and the IP alone,
prices decreased by 18 % to reach a level of 670 EUR/t delivered to the final customer.

Sales volume

522 925 t

708 272 t

783 415 t

847 376 t

1996

1997

1998

IP

Index (1996 — 100)

100

135

150

162

Av. Selling price (delivered)

1 055 EUR/t

861 EUR/t

827 EUR/t

670 EUR/t

Index (1996 — 100)

100

82

78

64

5.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 199/61

Market share

(117) The Community industry's market share was 63 % in 1996, 65 % in 1997, 60 % in 1998 and 62 %
during the IP. Between 1997 and 1998, market share fell by 5 percentage points,
it partially
recovered in the IP, at a time when the Community industry considerably decreased its prices as
shown above.

Profitability

(118) Before 1995, the Community industry was profitable at a time when, as explained earlier, it was
operating on a fairly new and fast growing market. In 1995, when supply was very tight, the
Community industry was earning a profit around 20 % return on sales. As the fall in PET prices from
the last quarter of 1995 was not immediately matched by corresponding reductions in costs, losses
started to be registered in 1996: on annual averages, raw material costs, especially those of PTA,
increased by 8 % between 1995 and 1996, whereas prices for PET fell by 35 %. As a result, losses of
19 % were registered in 1996. The price decrease, however, was seen as an overreaction of the
market after a shortage. The Community industry had been expecting to see prices and profit
margins slowly recover, but at a time of low priced imports from the countries concerned, margins
did not rise and,

losses remained at 19 %.

in 1997,

(119)

In 1998, losses started to be reduced, but towards the end of the year, at the beginning of the IP, the
Community industry had to match prices of dumped imports in order to regain lost market share.
As a result, financial losses deteriorated by a further 15 percentage points to reach 32 % of net
turnover during the IP.

(120) Several interested parties have claimed that the PET market is cyclical, with regular under-capacity
crises that lead to price increases and thus profits at high levels, followed by over-capacities that
depress prices and may result in losses. They requested that this cyclical element be taken into
consideration in the analysis and claimed that the IP corresponded to the low phase of the cycle.
Furthermore, they claimed that it was already clear that the Community industry was recovering and
that a new peak in the cycle would be reached sometime between 2002 and 2003. They therefore
asked that profits should be looked at over a longer period and not viewed at a given moment of
time.

(121) The Commission has rejected this claim, considering that PET is a product in which large consump-
tion developed fairly recently and that it was too early to judge whether the market was cyclical or
not. Furthermore, the bottom of the cycle, if it can be seen as such, lasted from mid-1996 to
mid-1999; this is too long to be attributed to the cycle.

Employment

(122) At the end of the IP, approximately 1 450 persons were employed by the Community industry, an
increase of 20 % compared to 1996. Between 1998 and the IP, this trend ended as approximately 30
persons were made redundant in order to reduce costs.

Investment

(123) From 1996 to 1998 the Community industry invested a total of 516 million EUR in new or
extended capacities, an average of 172 million EUR per year. During the IP, only 31 million EUR
were invested.

(124) To meet future demand, which is expected to continue to grow steadily in the coming years, new
investment will be needed. Most of the Community producers had plans to invest, but losses during
the IP were so significant that shareholders refused to agree to these plans. As a result, no significant
increase in the capacity of the Community industry will take place between 2000 and the beginning
of 2002, since it takes approximately two years to bring a new PET plant into production.

L 199/62

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.8.2000

6. Conclusion on injury

(125) From 1996 to the IP, imports concerned increased by 136 %, gaining 7 percentage points in market
share to reach a share of nearly 23 %. This share reached 26,4 % in 1998, before the Community
industry decided to defend its market position (that had declined by 5 percentage points between
1997 and 1998) by decreasing its prices significantly.

(126) From 1996 to the IP, average prices of the imports concerned decreased by 45 %, with a decrease of
19 % between 1998 and the IP alone. Between 1996 and the IP, prices of the Community industry
decreased by 36 %, with a similar decrease of 18 % between 1998 and the IP.

(127) The Community industry, which had been suffering from depressed profit margins and financial
losses since 1996 was not able to return to a healthier situation. On the contrary, during the IP, the
Community industry experienced worsening financial losses because it had to decrease its prices to
defend its market position. Furthermore, despite a rapidly expanding market, the Community
industry was not able to invest due to its precarious situation.

(128) The Commission therefore considers that the Community industry has suffered material

injury

within the meaning of Article 3 of the Basic Regulation.

E. CAUSATION OF INJURY

1. Introduction

(129)

In accordance with Article 3(6) of the Basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether the
material injury suffered by the Community industry had been caused by the dumped imports from
the countries concerned. 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 attributed
to the dumped imports.

2. Effect of the dumped imports

(130)

In 1997, low priced imports from the countries concerned started to depress prices and suppress
price increases that would have been necessary to take into account the development in raw material
costs. The structure of the market, with a limited number of large buyers and, in comparison, many
suppliers, was such that the effect of the dumped imports spread rapidly across the market.

(131) Between 1997 and the IP,

imports from these countries developed as follows:

— volumes more than doubled (in the second half of 1998, imports were growing even faster than
in the first half of the year, a pattern totally contradicting the seasonal pattern of consumption
and confirming that some customers or traders were taking advantage of the low level of price,
of the imports concerned);

— their market share nearly reached 23 % whereas it had been 14,8 % in 1997;

— their prices fell by 27 %.

(132) During the same period, the Community industry:

— was forced to match price decreases because some major customers were halting purchases and

demanding prices as low as those of dumped imports;

— saw its profitability further deteriorate;

— completely halted all

its investment plans.

(133)

In view of this clear coincidence in time between the development of import volumes and prices, on
one hand, and, the deterioration of the situation of the Community industry on the other, it was
concluded that the low priced dumped imports from the countries concerned had a significant
negative impact on the situation of the Community industry.

5.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 199/63

3. Effect of other factors

Imports from other countries

(134) During the investigation period, other imports into the Community of the product concerned
originated mainly in Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United States. During the IP, these imports had
market shares of 1,3 %, 1 % and 1,6 % respectively. The volume of imports originating in the United
States nearly halved between 1996 and the IP, while imports originating in Saudi Arabia doubled
and those originating in Turkey increased by 7 %, as shown in the table below.

1996

1997

1998

IP

Countries other than the 6 concerned

Quantities

83 054 t

88 994 t

79 376 t

71 186 t

Market share

10 %

8 %

6 %

5 %

cif prices

1 358 EUR/t

1 674 EUR/t

1 869 EUR/t

1 431 EUR/t

Of which USA

Quantities

40 978 t

37 109 t

30 479 t

21 983 t

Market share

5,0 %

3,4 %

2,3 %

1,6 %

cif prices

1 242 EUR/t

1 023 EUR/t

1 181 EUR/t

1 250 EUR/t

Of which Turkey

Quantities

12 013 t

19 430 t

11 939 t

12 811 t

Market share

1,5 %

1,8 %

0,9 %

0,9 %

cif prices

995 EUR/t

848 EUR/t

903 EUR/t

740 EUR/t

Of which Saudi Arabia

Quantities

8 373 t

22 212 t

17 512 t

16 952 t

Market share

1,0 %

2,0 %

1,3 %

1,3 %

cif prices

605 EUR/t

711 EUR/t

691 EUR/t

512 EUR/t

(135) The prices of imports originating in the United States and Turkey were well above those of imports
originating in the countries concerned and also above the Community industry's average selling
prices.

(136) Prices of imports originating in Saudi Arabia reached a very low level during the IP. Although their
market share was only 1,3 %, it cannot be excluded that they contributed to the injury suffered by
the Community industry.

Development of Community consumption

(137) Community consumption of PET has grown quickly and is estimated to continue do so for the next

ten years at least. A contraction of the market, therefore,

is not a cause of injury.

L 199/64

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.8.2000

Over-capacity and exacerbated price competition on the Community market

(138) Several interested parties contended that the Community industry had misjudged the cyclical nature
of the market, thus creating an over-capacity that had depressed prices and exacerbated price
competition between Community producers. Certain parties also claimed that the Community
industry's injury was self-inflicted because of an attempt by the industry to exclude Asian exporting
producers from the Community market by substantially decreasing selling prices.

(139)

In addition, certain users claimed that the Community industry had over-reacted to pricing pressures
and should have known that considerations of security of supply on the part of major users in the
Community would have afforded it a substantial degree of protection.

(140) The Commission has examined these claims:

— Regarding over-capacity of PET producers located in the Community market, the investigation
did not support this contention. It was found that, over the analysis period, the capacity of the
Community industry and of the other Community PET producers was approximately of the same
size as the Community consumption,
furthermore increases in capacity were in the same
proportion as increases in consumption on a medium term basis. On the other hand, a large
excess capacity existed in Asia, that was worsened by a collapse of demand in China at the
beginning of 1998 for the closely allied PET product used for the production of polyester fibres
produced in identical facilities. This meant that exporting producers in the countries concerned
had spare capacity available for the production of PET, and that they used this to sell products in
the Community at dumped prices.

— Regarding an exacerbation of price competition between Community producers, the investigation
has shown that since 1996, competition on the Community market was indeed intense between
all suppliers, including exporting producers in the countries concerned. Nonetheless, the pricing
pressure exercised by the imports concerned increased in mid-1998 because import volumes
were growing rapidly (volumes nearly doubled in a few months) and very low price offers were
being made. Attempts made by the Community industry to resist the price decreases demanded
by users led to falling sales. The Community industry's reaction to these developments was to
follow the prices of the dumped imports down in an effort not to lose customers.

— As to the security of supply considerations, the Commission found that the fact that some
customers halted their purchases was a clear indication to the Community industry that users
could very well find other suppliers, provided they were offering cheaper prices.

— The contention that price decreases had been made only to try and exclude competitors from the
countries concerned from the Community market cannot be accepted since the Community
industry decreased its prices mainly in reaction to market share losses.

(141) The claim that injury was self-inflicted and/or due to an over-capacity situation on the Community

market was, therefore, not retained.

Prices of raw materials

(142) Several interested parties claimed that price decreases were driven by decreases in the prices of the

main raw materials.

(143) Raw material costs represent approximately 60 % of the total costs of production of PET. Purified
terephthalic acid (PTA) is the major raw material used in PET. PTA is mostly made with paraxylene
(PX),
itself a distillate of oil. PX, PTA and PET, therefore, roughly follow oil price and US$
fluctuations, with mark-up effects that depend on the supply/demand situation at a given time for
these 3 different products.

5.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 199/65

(144) There is a strong link between PTA prices and PET prices, and PET producers, therefore, do not have
much room to set their prices. Indeed, the investigation has shown that PET users carefully followed
PTA prices in order to be in a good position to negotiate PET prices.

(145) The Commission noted that from the second quarter 1998 to the fourth quarter 1998, there was a
severe erosion in margins vis-à-vis PTA prices. This deterioration corresponds to the time when
dumped imports from the countries concerned nearly doubled their already significant market share,
and the Community industry had to react by decreasing its prices to a greater extent than the
decreases in PTA prices. The contention that prices decreased only because raw material prices were
decreasing has therefore not been confirmed by the investigation.

4. Conclusion on causation

(146) The Commission found that there was strong evidence of the causal

link between the dumped
imports and the material injury. This conclusion is based, in particular, on the fact that prices on the
Community market were depressed and suppressed since the beginning of 1997, when prices of
imports originating in the countries concerned started to decrease more rapidly than prices of the
Community industry. During the 3rd quarter of 1998, a new phase started as the dumped imports
grew very rapidly and nearly doubled their market share (from 14,8 % in 1997 it went to 26,4 % in
1998) while the Community industry had lost 5 percentage points in market share. With the prices
of these dumped imports still decreasing, the Community industry was forced to further decrease its
prices to stop its market share falling; this resulted in deteriorating financial losses and a complete
halt in investment plans, despite a clearly foreseeable rapid growth in demand.

(147) The investigation has further shown that it cannot be excluded, though, that imports originating in
Saudi Arabia may have contributed to the injury suffered by the Community industry. However, the
investigation has shown that neither this factor nor the other factors examined above had an impact
on the situation of the Community industry such as to break the causal link between the dumped
imports from the countries concerned and the injury suffered by the Community industry.

(148)

is therefore provisionally concluded that

the dumped imports originating in the countries
It
concerned have caused material injury to the Community industry within the meaning of Article 3(6)
of the Basic Regulation.

F. COMMUNITY INTEREST

1. General remarks

(149) The Commission examined whether, despite the conclusion on injurious dumping, compelling
reasons existed that could lead to the conclusion that it is not in the Community interest to adopt
measures in this particular case. For this purpose and in accordance with Article 21(1) of the Basic
Regulation, the impact of possible measures on all parties involved in this proceeding, and the
consequences of taking or not taking measures, were considered on the basis of all evidence
submitted.

L 199/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.8.2000

2. The investigation

(150) The Commission sent questionnaires to importers, suppliers of raw materials, industrial users of the
product concerned, and to associations representing mineral water and soft drinks producers. In
total, 93 questionnaires were sent out, but only 17 replies were received within the time limits set.

(151) Questionnaire responses were received within the time limits set from:

Three importers

— Polytrade Gmbh (Germany)

— Global Services International (Italy)

— Helm AG (Germany)

These importers represent 35 % of the imports concerned.

Five direct suppliers of raw materials:

— BASF AG (Germany)

— BP Amoco Chemicals Ltd (UK)

— Exxon Mobil Chemical Europe Inc (Belgium)

— INEOS plc (UK)

— Interquisa (Spain)

These suppliers represent more than 75 % of raw materials purchased by the Community industry.

Nine users of PET in three sectors (for the description of these sectors, see below):

P r e f o r m s / b o t t l e c o n v e r t e r s :

— Crown Cork and Seals - European division (France)

— Guala Closures, Polybox Group (Italy)

— IFAP spa (Italy)

— Sodripack NV (Belgium)

M i n e r a l a n d s p r i n g w a t e r p r o d u c e r s :

— Evian — Volvic, Danone Group (France)

— Perrier Vittel M.T, Nestlé Group (France)

S o f t d r i n k s i n t e g r a t e d b o t t l e r s :

— Cott Beverages Ltd. (UK)

— Schweppes Belgium (Belgium)

— Silver Spring Mineral Water Ltd (UK)

These users represent 16 % of the imports concerned and 17 % of the Community consumption of
PET.

(152) The Commission was also contacted by five professional associations that gave some aggregated

information, and made comments on behalf of their members:

The Union of EU Soft Drinks Associations

UNESEM (the European association of mineral and spring water producers)

ANEABE (the Spanish association of Mineral Water producers)

MINERACQA (the Italian association of Mineral Water producers)

Chambre Syndicale des eaux minérales (the French association of Mineral Water producers)

5.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 199/67

3. Likely effects of imposition of measures on the Community industry

(153) As mentioned above, the Community industry consists of nine producers which suffered material
injury caused by dumped imports originating in the countries concerned. This injury consists mainly
of increased and substantial financial losses due to price depression and suppression. Moreover,
because of these losses, the Community industry has postponed investments in new plants (the
average cost of a PET plant is more than 100 million €) despite foreseeable growth in demand. Since
1996, this industry has been heavily restructured and during the last two years, because of prolonged
financial losses, two of the multinationals engaged (ICI and Shell) have sold their PET activities.

(154)

It is clear that the measures proposed would benefit the Community industry which, by its
restructuring efforts, has demonstrated its ambition to maintain a presence in a sector in full
expansion, and which is totally viable, as is demonstrated by its export performance: its sales outside
the Community represented 18 % of its total sales during the IP and they developed more rapidly
than sales in the Community.

(155)

If, on the other hand, measures are not imposed, losses at the level observed in the IP are not
sustainable and the future of the Community industry, which employs 1 450 people, would be
seriously jeopardised.

(156) Although certain volatile factors, evoked by several interested parties, such as exchange rate fluctu-
ations and oil prices, can have temporary positive effects on the industry's performance (in this
industry it seems that periods of increasing prices of raw materials are favourable to increase profit
margins of PET producers), without anti-dumping measures to remove the effects of unfair trade, the
industry has little prospect of a lasting recovery from its present poor financial situation. Further-
more, to allow the new investments necessary for the long-term viability, it is essential that the
industry is given the opportunity to improve its profits.

4. Likely effects of imposition of measures on importers

(157) For one of the co-operating importers, the product concerned represented the majority of its
turnover. If duties were imposed on imports of PET, the importer argued that the whole company
would be endangered.

(158) For the second co-operating importer, the product concerned represented around a quarter of its

turnover. Therefore it is likely that this importer would be less affected by measures.

(159) For the third co-operating importer, the product concerned represented a very minor percentage of
its turnover. Therefore it is likely that this importer would not be seriously affected by measures.

(160) Total staff directly employed in selling the product concerned is only some ten people for the three

co-operating companies in the Community.

(161) As the purpose of anti-dumping measures is only to restore fair trade and not to prohibit imports,
the Commission considers it likely that a number of clients of importers will continue to purchase
PET originating in the countries concerned. Therefore the existence of these importers seems not to
be at stake.

L 199/68

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.8.2000

5. Likely effects of imposition of measures on upstream industries

The PTA and PX producers

(162) The three co-operating producers (BP AMOCO, Interquisa, and Exxon) are part of petro-chemical
groups and made huge investments in the last five years in order to respond to the growing
Community demand for these products.

(163) Total staff employed in their PTA/PX production facilities was around 700 people during the IP.

(164) The only purchaser of PTA is the polyester industry (of which the PET industry represents 60 % of
Community purchases of PTA). Community PTA producers sell more than 75 % of their production
in the Community. Therefore the situation of
the Community PTA producers is very much
dependent on the health of Community PET producers. In a situation of very low prices of PET, the
producers of PTA are also obliged to lower their prices. Indeed, during the IP, the co-operating
suppliers lowered their profit margins, because their clients were in such a difficult situation that
they were afraid they would stop producing and thus consuming PTA.

(165) The co-operating PX Community producer situation is even worse because it operates in a very
competitive market and, in the recent years, its profit margin was very low or negative. In 1999,
Community PX production has been reduced because the level of prices was considered unaccept-
able.

(166) The imposition of measures, therefore, will benefit both these industries and allow new investments

to be made to match the growing demand.

The MEG producers

(167) The two co-operating producers (BASF, INEOS) are part of chemical groups and produce a large

range of chemical products. The staffs employed in MEG production was about 100 people.

(168) PET production is not the only possible outlet for this product, which is widely used for other
purposes and notably in the car industry. Hence, these companies are less directly affected by the
price and demand trends of PET. The investigation has shown, however, that the market for this
product is very competitive and that profitability has deteriorated in the last two years because of the
difficulties of the Community PET industry.

Conclusion

(169) The imposition of anti-dumping measures clearly appears to be in the interest of the upstream
industries. They would not only improve their situation but also be in a position to invest in the
coming years.

6. Likely effects of imposition of measures on downstream industries

Description of the user sectors

(170) PET is at present mostly used to produce bottles for soft drinks and mineral and spring water. Its use
to produce packages other than for drinks (solid foodstuffs or detergents) and to produce sheets is
still marginal. Bottles in PET are produced in two steps in order to obtain enough strength:
‘preforms’ are obtained by mould injection of PET, these preforms are then blown and transformed
into bottles. Preforms can be fairly easily transported because they are small and dense, while empty
bottles are fragile and very expensive to transport.

5.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 199/69

(171) The water and soft drinks markets are organised differently in terms of bottling:

— Mineral and spring water producers have more constraints in terms of health regulations. They
are generally obliged to have a bottling plant close to their springs, their raw materials have to
follow strict norms and, in certain countries, to be authorised by health authorities. The large
majority of preforms used by water producers are self produced, usually in workshops close to
the blowing and filling lines.

— Soft drinks producers tend to locate in places convenient to minimise distribution costs.

— Producers with well-known trademarks tend to buy preforms and/or blown bottles. They
have a network of certified suppliers called preforms/bottle converters. None of
these
producers replied to the questionnaire or made themselves known. Hence, the Commission
has not been able to take them into account.

— Smaller soft drink producers or producers of products branded by customers (especially the
mass retailing trade sector), tend to produce their own preforms and to blow their own
bottles.

(172) On this basis three major groups of users of PET can be identified:

— preforms/bottle converters, that account for approximately 40 % of PET consumption in the

Community;

— mineral and spring water producers, whose share in PET consumption is around 35 %;

— soft drinks integrated bottlers, that account for around 7 % of PET consumption.

The remaining consumption of PET is used by different food and pharmaceutical packaging sectors
and by plastic sheet producers.

Preforms/Bottle converters

(173) The preform converters are the main users of PET, but the four co-operating companies represented
only some 7 % of Community consumption of PET. The imports of these companies were some
10 % of imports from the countries concerned. These imports represented more than 30 % of their
consumption of PET.

(174) Some of the major converters (Schmalbach Lubeca, Alpla and Resilux) did not cooperate in the

investigation.

(175) Total staff employed by the co-operating companies amounted to more than 400.

(176) On the basis of information available to the Commission, the amount of PET used to produce
preforms represents some 75 % of the manufacturing costs of a preform and some 70 % of the total
cost of production. It is therefore a critical element for these companies. The investigation found
that, in most cases, the negotiation of selling price of preforms includes a mechanism for reflecting
the variation of PET prices.

(177) However, since competition in the industry is very strong and purchases of soft drinks preforms/
bottles are concentrated in the hands of a few big buyers (the well known branded soft drink
producers), it is not clear to what extent the converters will be able to transfer the increase of PET
prices on to the prices of preforms.

L 199/70

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.8.2000

(178) Users, as well as importers, argued that duties would push some multinational preform converters
and/or soft drink bottlers to move their highly standardised preforms production plants to countries
in Eastern Europe in order to avoid the anti-dumping duties. Most of the big companies in this
industry already have some plants in these countries and would seem, therefore, able to quite easily
move part of their production outside the Community. The import of preforms is free of custom
duties.

(179) According to the information made available to the Commission, the cost of transport is not a
sufficient barrier to avoid such relocation. e.g. a truck of 0,5 litre preforms contains some 17 tonnes
instead of 24 tonnes of PET chips; the transport cost of preforms is therefore some 30 % higher than
the transport cost of PET but the overall impact on such increase in transport price on costs of
production is only some 2,5 %. However, competitive advantages already existed in the Community's
neighbouring countries at the time when no anti-dumping duties were applicable without causing
relocation. This is due to the fact that these advantages were more than compensated by considera-
tions of proximity, flexibility and reliability of supplies essentials to the users.

(180) On the basis of the information provided by the co-operating companies, it was concluded that the
imposition of anti-dumping measures would have a major impact on the manufacturing cost of
converters. However, the impact on profitability of converters cannot be clearly stated. Moreover, as
mentioned above, the co-operating companies represent only a very small proportion of the
converter industry. It is therefore difficult to assess the likely effect on this industry as a whole.

The mineral and spring water producers

(181) The two co-operating companies in this industry represented approximately 10 % of Community
consumption of the product concerned. The imports of these companies were some 1 % of imports
from the countries concerned. These imports represented less than 4 % of their consumption of PET.

(182) Total staff employed in production using the product concerned amounted to more than 4 000 in

the two companies considered together.

(183) The two co-operating companies are the two biggest players in the French mineral water market. The
Danone and Nestle groups also own mineral water springs in other Member States but replied only
for their French branches. Therefore the co-operating companies represent a rather small part of the
Community mineral water sector, which is itself only a part of the bottled water sector. Moreover,
the co-operating companies are only involved in the production of branded mineral water and have
thus a specific cost structure.

(184) The cost of PET is the biggest component in these companies' manufacturing cost (less than a

quarter) and some 10 % of the total cost of production.

(185) Concerning low ranged mineral water and spring water, the associations representing these compa-
nies pointed out that, since their general and administrative costs are very low compared to those of
branded mineral water producers, the cost of PET has a bigger impact on their total cost of
production and on profitability. Therefore, the increases in price consequent to the imposition of
anti-dumping measures would severely affect these producers, that already operate with low margins
and would not be able to increase their selling prices because their main customers, the supermarket
chains, would refuse price increases.

5.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 199/71

(186) With regard to the low range mineral water and spring water sectors, no producers cooperated on an
individual basis. The only information provided to the Commission, by associations of water
producers, has been submitted very late and has not been verified, therefore it did not allow
conclusions to be reached on the impact of measures on companies in these sectors.

(187) On the basis of the verified information provided by the co-operating companies, the Commission
concludes that the impact of the measures proposed on the mineral water producers will not be
significant, because they are very profitable and because they import only small volumes of PET.
Moreover, given their position on the market, the top range mineral water producers can probably
increase their selling prices.

The soft drink integrated bottlers

(188) The three co-operating companies in this industry represented approximately 2 % of Community
consumption of the product concerned. The imports of these companies were some 5 % of imports
from the countries concerned. These imports represented more than 65 % of their consumption of
PET.

(189) Total staff employed in production using the product concerned amounted to some 200 people in

the three companies considered together.

(190) The co-operating companies are vertically integrated backwards and forwards i.e. they produce
preforms, convert them into bottles and fill them with soft drinks. These companies represent only a
small percentage of the total soft drinks industry and are mainly producing for distributors and low
range brands.

(191) On the basis of information available to the Commission, the PET used to produce soft drink
containers represented more than 10 % of manufacturing costs and some 8 % of the total cost of
production. It was therefore an important cost element for these companies.

(192) The soft drink integrated bottlers sold mainly to supermarket chains. Since the retail prices of low
range soft drinks have decreased in recent years, and since the large retailers involved have very
strong market power, the producers of soft drinks will face resistance to any attempt at increasing
their selling prices.

(193) The Commission considers that the imposition of measures may reduce margins in this industry as
the increase in costs resulting from the measures is unlikely to be matched by a corresponding
increase in revenues.

7. Likely effects of imposition of measures on supply of PET on the Community market

(194) Several users and importers of PET have expressed their concern about a possible shortage of PET on
the Community market in the next two years and the fact that imports will be necessary and should
not be discouraged by high duties.

(195) The Commission considered that, if there is a shortage of supply on the Community market, this
would be because the Community industry suffered injury from dumped imports and was not in a
position to invest, despite the foreseeable growth in demand.
is therefore urgent that the
Community industry be assured of the fair competitive conditions to allow it to make the invest-
ments that have been postponed as a result of injurious dumping.

It

(196)

Imports at fair non dumped prices will, in any case, be possible, since existing overcapacities in Asia
will not be exhausted before the necessary new investments by the Community industry enter into
production.

L 199/72

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.8.2000

8. Conclusion on Community interest

(197)

It is clear that the imposition of anti-dumping measures is in the interest of both the Community
industry and its suppliers of raw materials.

(198) The imposition of measures will allow these sectors to improve profitability and to have the
possibility of making the new investments which are crucial for the long-term viability of these
capital-intensive sectors.

(199) The assessment of the effects on the other sectors concerned is much less clear, principally because
conclusions are being drawn on the basis of information provided by the co-operating companies,
the representativeness of which was estimated to be low. Although there are indications that
it is difficult, at this stage, to draw firm
measures could have an impact in certain sectors,
conclusions on the effect of measures on a wider basis due to a lack of information. As such, this
lack of co-operation suggests that any negative effect for the sectors concerned is not significant.

(200) What is clear, however is that the Community industry has suffered from injurious dumping which
has suppressed its prices and prevented the restoration of a healthier financial situation. If this
situation remains unchanged, losses at the levels reached during the IP will be unsustainable and the
Community industry will cease producing PET in the Community.

(201)

If the Community industry were forced to cease, or dramatically reduce, the production of PET, the
Community would become dependent on external supplies and would face stronger price fluctu-
ations in case of shortages. Such a situation would indeed be detrimental to the interest of users
which have said that they do not want to rely only on imported PET.

(202)

In view of the above, the Commission concluded that, at the provisional stage, no compelling
reasons exist not to impose provisional anti-dumping measures in the present case.

G. PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

1. Injury elimination level

(203)

In order to prevent further injury being caused by the dumped imports, it was considered appro-
priate to adopt anti-dumping measures in the form of provisional duties.

(204) For the purpose of determining the level of these duties, the Commission took account of the
dumping margins found and the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the injury sustained by the
Community industry.

(205) As the injury consists principally of price depression and the suppression of price increases necessary
to restore profitability, the removal of such injury requires that the industry should be able to
increase selling prices. To achieve this, prices of imports of the product concerned originating in the
countries subject to investigation should be increased to a non-injurious level.

(206) To this end, the Commission determined a non injurious price based on production costs of the
Community industry (not taking into account costs of some companies of the Community industry
considered as exceptional or unduly high), together with a reasonable profit margin of 7 %, this
being considered necessary to ensure the viability of the industry and being a profit which this
industry could expect in the absence of dumped imports. In view of the financial losses incurred by
the Community industry in the years prior to the IP, the Commission will examine, at the definitive
stage, whether this non injurious price accurately reflects the situation in the present case, in the
in particular, of developments in exchange rates and in the prices of raw materials.
light,

5.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 199/73

(207) The non-injurious price was compared with the prices of the dumped imports used to establish
undercutting, as outlined at recital 115. Differences resulting from this comparison were then
expressed as a percentage of the total cif import value.

2. Provisional measures

(208)

(209)

In the light of the foregoing, it is considered that a provisional anti-dumping duty should be imposed
at the level of the dumping margin found, but should not be higher than the injury margin
calculated above in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation.

In the parallel anti subsidy proceeding countervailing duties on PET originating in India, Malaysia,
Taiwan and Thailand are also imposed. Since no product shall be subject to both anti-dumping and
countervailing duties for the purpose of dealing with one and the same situation arising from
dumping or from export subsidisation, the level of anti-dumping duties takes into account the
amount of countervailing duty established in this anti-subsidy proceeding, in accordance with Article
14(1) of the basic Regulation.

(210) For India and Malaysia it was not considered appropriate to impose both countervailing and
anti-dumping duties to the full extent of the relevant subsidy and dumping margins established
because the subsidies found were either export subsidies or de minimis.

(211) With regard to Taiwan and Thailand, the subsidies found in the parallel investigation are not export
subsidies and are therefore considered not to have affected the export price and the corresponding
dumping margin. Consequently, the countervailing duties can be imposed together with the anti-
dumping duties, to the extent that both duties taken together do not exceed the injury elimination
margin.

(212) As regards, the residual duty to be applied to non co-operating exporting producers, the level of
co-operation was considered good for all countries. The residual duty was fixed therefore on the
basis of the highest total duty rate established for a co-operating producer in each country, i.e. on the
basis of both anti-dumping and countervailing duties taken together (and therefore, for India, the
residual anti-dumping duty is lower than the anti-dumping duties attributed to specific companies).

(213) On the basis of the above, anti-dumping duty rates have been established by comparing the injury
elimination margins, the dumping margins and, where applicable, the countervailing duty rates and
their nature.

(214) That PET prices can fluctuate in line with fluctuations in crude oil prices, should not entail a higher
duty. It was therefore considered appropriate to impose duties in the form of a specific amount per
tonne. These amounts result from the application of the anti-dumping duty rate to the cif export
prices used for the calculation of the injury elimination level during the IP.

(215) The proposed anti-dumping duties are the following:

INDIA

Company

Injury
elimination
margin

Dumping margin

Countervailing
duty rate
(resulting from
export subsidies)

Anti-dumping
duty rate

Proposed
anti-dumping
duty

Reliance Industries Ltd

44,3 %

52,6 %

12,5 %

31,8 %

160,1 EUR/t

Pearl Engineering Polymers
Ltd

33,6 %

30,0 %

5,8 %

24,2 %

130,8 EUR/t

Elque Polyester Ltd (*)

44,3 %

51,2 %

11,1 %

33,2 %

167,1 EUR/t

Futura Polymers Ltd (*)

44,3 %

56,9 %

16,8 %

27,5 %

138,4 EUR/t

All Others

16,8 %

27,5 %

138,4 EUR/t

L 199/74

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.8.2000

INDONESIA

Company

Injury elimination
margin

Dumping margin

Anti-dumping duty
rate

Proposed
anti-dumping duty

Bakrie Kasei

35,1 %

63,5 %

35,1 %

187,7 EUR/t

Polypet

Indorama

All others

Honam

Tongkook

Daehan

SK Chemicals

All tohers

32,9 %

73,7 %

32,9 %

178,9 EUR/t

17,8 %

15,2 %

15,2 %

92,1 EUR/t

35,1 %

187,7 EUR/t

KOREA

Company

Injury elimination
margin

Dumping margin

Anti-dumping duty
rate

Proposed
anti-dumping duty

16,9 %

19,8 %

16,9 %

101,4 EUR/t

26,5 %

55,8 %

26,5 %

148,3 EUR/t

28,5 %

11,0 %

5,1 %

3,2 %

5,1 %

28,2 EUR/t

3,2 %

20,1 EUR/t

26,5 %

148,3 EUR/t

MALAYSIA

Company

Injury
elimination
margin

Dumping margin

Countervailing
duty rate
(resulting from
export subsidies)

Anti-dumping
duty rate

Proposed
anti-dumping
duty

MPI Polyester Industries

54,2 %

34,2 %

0 %

34,2 %

160,1 EUR/t

Hualon Corporation

52,1 %

8,3 %

4,2 %

4,1 %

19,4 EUR/t

All others

4,2 %

34,2 %

160,1 EUR/t

TAIWAN

Company

Injury
elimination
margin

Dumping margin

Countervailing
duty rate

Anti-dumping
duty rate

Proposed
anti-dumping
duty

Nan Ya Plastics (*)

26,3 %

12,4 %

1,5 %

12,4 %

69,5 EUR/t

Far Eastern

Shingkong

Tuntex

All others

8,2 %

16,6 %

8,1 %

8,1 %

26,3 %

12,4 %

0 %

2 %

0 %

2 %

8,1 %

52,1 EUR/t

8,1 %

48,8 EUR/t

12,4 %

69,5 EUR/t

12,4 %

69,5 EUR/t

5.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 199/75

THAILAND

Company

Injury
elimination
margin

Dumping margin

Countervailing
duty rate

Anti-dumping
duty rate

Proposed
anti-dumping
duty

Thai Singkong Ltd.

22,6 %

32,5 %

All others

8,5 %

8,5 %

14,1 %

82,6 EUR/t

14,1 %

82,6 EUR/t

(*) Co-operating in the parallel anti-subsidy proceeding. The injury margin was determined on the highest injury margin found for a
company co-operating in both proceedings. The dumping margin was determined on the basis of the export subsidy found and
of the highest dumping margin reached in a company co-operating in both proceedings had it not benefited from an export
subsidy. (i.e. 56,2 % - 12,5 % = 40,1 %).

(216) The individual company specific anti-dumping duties 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 duties (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 duties and shall be subject to the duties applicable
to ‘all other companies’.

(217) 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 e.g. 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 Regula-
tion accordingly by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.

H. FINAL PROVISION

(218)

In the interest of sound administration, a period should be fixed within which the interested parties
which made themselves known within the time limit specified in the notice of initiation may make
their views known in writing and request a hearing. Furthermore, it should be stated that the findings
concerning the imposition of duties made for the purposes of this regulation are provisional and
may have to be 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 polyethylene terephthalate with a
coefficient of viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher, according to DIN (Deutsche Industrienorm) 53728,
classified under CN code 3907 60 20 and CN code ex 3907 60 80 (TARIC code 3907 60 80 10) and
originating in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand.

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

2.
before duty, shall be as follows for products originating in:

Country

Provision duty EUR/t

TARIC Additional code

138,4

187,7

160,1

A999

A999

A999

India

Indonesia

Malaysia

(1) European Commission

Directorate-General for Trade
Directorate E
DM 24 - 5/77
Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200

B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel.

L 199/76

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.8.2000

Country

Provision duty EUR/t

TARIC Additional code

Republic of Korea

Taiwan

Thailand

148,3

69,5

82,6

A999

A999

A999

The above rates shall not apply to the products manufactured by the companies listed below, which shall
be subject to the following anti-dumping duty

Country

Company

Provisional duty
EUR/t

TARIC Additional
Code

India

India

India

India

Indonesia

Indonesia

Indonesia

Malaysia

Malaysia

Pearl Engineering Polymers Limited

Reliance Industries Ltd.

Elque Polyester

Futura Polyester

P.T. Bakrie Kasei Corporation

P.T. Indorama Synthetics Tbk

P.T. Polypet Karyapersada

Hualon Corporation

MPI Polyester Industries

The Republic of Korea

Daehan Synthetic Fiber Corporation

The Republic of Korea

Honam Petrochemical Corporation

The Republic of Korea

SK Chemicals Corporation

The Republic of Korea

Tongkook Corporation

Taiwan

Taiwan

Taiwan

Taiwan

Far Eastern Textile Ltd.

Tuntex Distinct Corporation

Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corporation, Taipei

Nan Ya Plastics Corp., Taipei

Thailand

Thai Shingkong Industrial Corporation Limited

130,8

160,1

167,1

138,4

187,7

92,1

178,9

19,4

160,1

28,2

101,4

20,1

148,3

52,1

69,5

48,8

69,5

82,6

A182

A181

A183

A184

A191

A192

A193

A186

A185

A194

A195

A196

A197

A188

A198

A189

A187

A190

3.
In cases where goods have been damaged before entry into free circulation and, therefore, the price
actually paid or payable is apportioned for the determination of the customs value pursuant to Article 145
of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (1), the amount of anti-dumping duty, calculated on the basis
of the fixed amounts set out above, shall be reduced by a percentage which corresponds to the appor-
tioning of the price actually paid or payable.

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.

(1) OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1.

5.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 199/77

Article 2

1. Without prejudice to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 interested parties may make their
views known in writing and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within 10 days 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

2.
application of this Regulation within one month of the date of its entry into force.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following 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, 4 August 2000.

For the Commission

Pascal LAMY

Member of the Commission