Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Malaysia and Thailand and terminating the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Indonesia, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan
Date: 2000-11-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, anti-dumping duty, import policy, plastics, third country

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 06.11.2000
COM(2000) 699 final

Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION

imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty
imposed on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Malaysia
and Thailand and terminating the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of
certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Indonesia, the Republic of Korea and
Taiwan

(presented by the Commission)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting
definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate
originating in India, Malaysia and Thailand and terminating the anti-subsidy proceeding
concerning imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Indonesia,
the
Republic of Korea and Taiwan

On 6 November 1999, the Commission initiated an anti-subsidy investigation with regard to
imports into the Community of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India,
Indonesia, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand.

The Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 1741/2000 imposed a provisional countervailing
duty on certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Malaysia, Taiwan and
Thailand.

The attached proposal for a Council Regulation is based on the definitive findings of
subsidisation, injury, causation and Community interest which confirmed that the provisional
countervailing measures with regard to India, Malaysia and Thailand were warranted, and that
definitive measures should be imposed on imports from these countries.

The investigations concerning imports of the same product originating in Indonesia and the
Republic of Korea have confirmed the provisional findings of de-minimis subsidisation, and
the proceeding as regards these countries should now be terminated.

Following comments made to the disclosure of the provisional findings,
it has been
established that the level of subsidisation for Taiwan is de minimis. For this reason the
proceeding as regards Taiwan should be terminated.

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopts the attached proposal for a Regulation which
should be published in the Official Journal no later than 5 December 2000.

2

Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION

imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty
imposed on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Malaysia
and Thailand and terminating the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of
certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Indonesia, the Republic of Korea and
Taiwan

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on protection
against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community1, and in
particular Articles 14 and 15 thereof,

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

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1

2

3

A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES

By Commission Regulation (EC) No 1741/20002,
(“provisional Regulation”),
provisional countervailing duties were imposed on imports into the Community of
certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Malaysia, Taiwan and
Thailand.

As a result of a parallel anti-dumping investigation, provisional anti-dumping duties
were imposed under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1742/20003 on imports into the
Community of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Indonesia,
Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand.

It is recalled that the investigation of subsidisation and injury covered the period from
1 October 1998 to 30 September 1999 ("IP"). The examination of trends relevant for
the injury analysis covered the period from 1 January 1996 up to the end of the IP
("analysis period").

B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE

Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of
interested parties
which it was decided to impose provisional measures, several
submitted comments in writing. In accordance with the provisions of Article 11(5) of

OJ L 288, 21.10.1997, p. 1.
OJ L 199, 5.8.2000, p. 6.
OJ L 199, 5.8.2000, p. 48.

3

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

1.

(9)

Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 ("basic Regulation"), all interested parties who requested
a hearing were granted an opportunity to be heard by the Commission.

The Commission continued to seek and verify all information deemed necessary for
the definitive findings.

All parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of
which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive countervailing duties
and the definitive collection of amounts secured by way of provisional duties.

They were also granted a period within which they could make representations
subsequent to this disclosure.

The oral and written arguments submitted by the parties were considered, and, where
deemed appropriate, taken into account for the definitive findings.

Having reviewed the provisional findings on the basis of the information gathered
since then,
in the provisional
Regulation should be hereby confirmed.

the main findings as set out

is concluded that

it

C. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

Product concerned

The provisional Regulation described the product concerned as polyethylene
terephthalate ("PET") with a coefficient of viscosity of 78ml/g or higher, according to
DIN (Deutsche Industrienorm) 53728, falling within CN code 3907 60 20 and CN
code ex 3907 60 80 (TARIC code 3907 60 80 10). Since no new observations were
received concerning this definition, the provisional findings as regards the product
concerned are hereby confirmed.

2.

Like product

(10)

In recital (16) of the provisional Regulation, it was found that PET produced by the
Community industry and sold on the Community market as well as PET produced in
the countries concerned and exported to the Community were like products, since
there were no differences in the basic physical and technical characteristics and uses of
the existing different types of PET. Since no new evidence was submitted on this, the
provisional findings as regards the like product are confirmed.

D. SUBSIDIES

(11)

The findings made in the provisional Regulation concerning the countervailable
subsidies obtained by the exporting producers are hereby definitively confirmed,
unless it is expressly found otherwise in this document.

4

I. INDIA

General issues

1.

Initiation

(12)

(13)

India (GOI) alleges that

The Government of
the Commission initiated this
investigation in violation of Article 10 of the basic Regulation and Article 11(2) of the
WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement). The
GOI claims that the information in the complaint regarding subsidisation and injury
was inaccurate and incomplete and did not constitute sufficient evidence in order to
initiate this proceeding.

In reply to this argument, it was found that the complaint contained sufficient evidence
of subsidisation and injury within the meaning of Article 10(2) of the basic Regulation
and Article 11(2) of the SCM Agreement. The complaint contained information
regarding subsidisation, injury and causality which was reasonably available to the
complainant. As regards subsidisation, it should also be recalled that most of the
programmes available in India had already been examined and countervailed in
previous investigations involving imports from India e.g. PET film, flat rolled steel
products etc. The evidence in the complaint was examined by the Commission for its
accuracy and adequacy in accordance with Article 10(3) of the basic Regulation, and
was found to be sufficient
to warrant initiation. Therefore, this claim cannot be
accepted.

2.

Notice of initiation

(14)

The GOI alleges that the notice of initiation4 does not meet the criteria of Article 22(2)
of the SCM Agreement since it did not contain information on the basis on which
subsidisation is alleged in the application, and a summary of the factors on which the
allegation of injury is based.

(15) Article 22(2) of the SCM Agreement states that a public notice of an investigation
shall contain adequate information on, inter alia, a description of the subsidy practices
and a summary of the factors on which the allegation of injury is based. As regards the
allegation of subsidisation, it was stated in the notice of initiation that ‘It is alleged
that the producers of the product concerned from India have benefited from a number
of subsidies granted by the Government of India. These subsidies are income tax
exemption, import of raw materials and capital goods without payment of import
duties and benefits for export-oriented companies and companies located in export-
processing zones’, and that ‘It is alleged that the above schemes are subsidies since
they involve a financial contribution from the Government of India and confer a
benefit on the recipients, i.e. on exporters of polyethylene terephthalate. They are
alleged to be contingent upon export performance and therefore specific and
countervailable’. As regards the allegation of injury, it was said in the notice of
initiation that ‘The complainant had provided evidence that imports of the product
concerned from India, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan and
Thailand have increased overall in absolute terms and in terms of market share’ and
furthermore that ‘It is alleged that the volumes and the prices of the imported product

4

OJ C 319, 6.11.1999, p. 2.

5

concerned have, among other consequences, had a negative impact on the market
share and the level of prices charged by the Community producers, resulting in
substantial adverse effect on the overall performance and the financial situation of the
Community industry’.

The above text constituted an adequate summary of the allegations relating to subsidy
and injury.

Subsidies

1.

Duty Entitlement Passbook Schemes (DEPB)

(a) DEPB on pre-export basis

(16)

The GOI states that the DEBP on pre-export basis was abolished on 1 April 2000.
Therefore, no countervailing duties should be imposed under this programme since the
imposition of duties would be contrary to Article 15 of the basic Regulation.

(17) After disclosure, the GOI submitted evidence that this programme effectively expired
and will no longer confer benefits to exporting producers in India. Therefore, this
claim is accepted and the benefit is excluded from the calculation of the subsidy rates.
Since this programme is no longer countervailed, it is not necessary to deal with other
claims made by interested parties regarding this programme.

(b) DEPB on post-export basis

(18)

(19)

The GOI states that the Commission made a manifest error in the assessment of the
countervailability of this scheme. In particular, the Commission wrongly concluded
that the GOI has no verification system in place which verifies which inputs are
consumed in the production process and that
this system is applied effectively.
Furthermore, they claim that the Commission's assessment of the benefits under these
schemes was incorrect since only the excess duty drawback could be considered a
subsidy in accordance with Article 2 of the basic Regulation.

The Commission used the following method in order to establish whether the DEPB
on post export-basis constitutes a countervailable subsidy and if so, to calculate the
amount of benefit. Pursuant to Article 2(1)(a)(ii), it is concluded that this scheme
involves a financial contribution by the GOI since government revenue (i.e. import
duties on imports) otherwise due is not collected. There is also a benefit to the
recipient since the exporting producers did not have to pay normal import duties.

(20) However, Article 2(1)(a)(ii) provides for an exception to this general rule for, inter
alia, drawback and substitution drawback schemes which conform to the strict rules
laid down in Annex I item i and Annex II (definition and rules for drawback) and III
(definition and rules for substitution drawback).

(21)

The analysis revealed that DEPB on post-export basis is not a drawback or a
substitution drawback scheme. The scheme investigated lacks a built-in obligation to
import only goods that are consumed in production of the exported goods (Annex II of
the basic Regulation). Additionally, there is no verification system in place to check
whether the imports are actually consumed in the production process. It is also not a
substitution drawback scheme because the imported goods do not need to be of the

6

same quantity and characteristics as the domestically sourced inputs that were used for
export production (Annex III of the basic Regulation). Lastly, exporting producers are
eligible for the DEPB benefits regardless of whether they import any inputs at all. An
exporter obtains the benefit by simply exporting goods without the need to show that
any input material was indeed imported; thus, exporting producers which procure all
of their inputs locally and do not import goods which can be used as inputs are still
entitled to the DEPB benefits. Hence, the DEPB on post-export basis does not
conform to any of the provisions of Annex I to III. Since this exception to the subsidy
definition of Article 2 does therefore not apply, the countervailable benefit is the
remission of total import duties normally due on all imports.

(22)

From the above, it clearly follows that the excess remission of import duties is the
basis for calculating the amount of the benefit only in the case of bona fide drawback
and substitution drawback schemes. Since it is established that the DEPB on post-
export basis does not fall in one of these two categories, the benefit is the total
remission of import duties, not any supposed excess remission.

(23) As regards the verification system, this argument relates to the issue whether the
DEPB on post-export basis can be considered as a drawback scheme or a substitution
drawback scheme. Since it was established that the DEPB on post-export basis is not a
drawback or a substitution drawback scheme in the sense of Annex II and III of the
basic Regulation no further examination needs to be carried out. Even if the DEPB
were to meet the criteria of Annex II and III, it would be concluded that no reasonable
verification system exists. The input/output norms are a list of possible items that can
be consumed in the production process and in what amounts. However,
the
input/output norms are not a verification system in the sense of paragraph 5 of Annex
II of the basic Regulation. These norms do not provide for a verification of the inputs
that are actually consumed in the production process and do not provide for a
verification system whether these inputs were effectively imported.

(24)

For the above reasons, this claim cannot be accepted and the provisional findings as
regards the countervailability of this scheme and the calculation of the benefit are
confirmed.

2.

Export Processing Zones (EPZ / Export Oriented Units (EOU)

(25) One exporting producer and the GOI claimed that benefits obtained under the EOU
scheme should not be deemed to constitute a subsidy, since the excise tax and duty
exemption under this scheme is only granted for the quantity of inputs consumed in
the production of the final product which is exported. The scheme, it is alleged,
constitutes a drawback system in conformity with the conditions laid down in Annex
I(i) and Annex II of the basic Regulation.

(26)

Two Indian exporters are located in an EOU. Without prejudice to the question of
whether the scheme constitutes a drawback system in conformity with the provisions
of the basic Regulation, the Commission, following further examination, accepts that
there is in fact no excess remission of duty in the case of either company concerned.
Consequently, in the present investigation the duty exemption on raw material will for
these companies not be countervailed.

7

(27)

The subsidy amounts for the two companies located in EPZ/EOU have therefore been
limited to the custom duties exempted on capital goods, and respectively have been
reduced to 0.37% and 4.43%.

3.

Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS)

(28)

(29)

The GOI noted that under the EPCG scheme no obligation is imposed on the
beneficiary to export all products manufactured with the capital good, and that the
license holder is free to sell part of the production on the domestic market. The GOI
therefore argued that any benefit conferred under this scheme should be allocated over
total production.

In reply to this argument, it should be stressed that, as explained in recital (52) of the
provisional Regulation, depending on the level of export commitment which the
company is prepared to undertake, the company will be allowed to import capital
goods at either a zero rate of duty or at a reduced rate. The scheme is therefore
contingent in law upon export performance since no benefit can be obtained without a
commitment to export goods. As such, it is deemed to be specific under the provisions
of Article 3(4)(a) of the basic Regulation. Since the subsidy is an export subsidy, it is
considered to benefit only export sales. In conclusion, the correct denominator is total
export sales.

(30)

Since no other comments were received regarding this scheme subsequent to the
disclosure of the provisional findings, the findings of recital (50) to (57) of the
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

4.

Amount of countervailable subsidies

(31) All subsidies found were identified as being export subsidies. The amount of
countervailable export subsidies, expressed ad valorem, for the investigated exporting
producers is as follows:

8

DEPB

EPCGS

EPZ /EOU

Type of subsidy

Post-
export

6.52% 1.71%

Total

8.23%

Reliance
Industries
Limited

Futura Polymer
Limited

Pearl
Engineering
Polymers
Limited

Elque Polyesters
Limited

All Others

0.37%

0.37%

5.01% 0.79%

5.8%

4.43%

4.43%

8.23%

(32)

(33)

(34)

The weighted average countrywide subsidy margin for all exporting producers
investigated, which represents above 90% of exports of the product concerned to the
Community originating in India is above the applicable de minimis margin for this
country of 3%.

In view of the high level of co-operation, the residual rate for non-co-operating
companies was determined as the rate of the co-operating company with the highest
subsidy margin i.e. 8.23%

II. INDONESIA

Since no substantial comments were received subsequent to the disclosure of the
provisional findings, the conclusion that the subsidy margin for Indonesia has to be
considered negligible and the findings of recital (78) of the provisional Regulation is
hereby confirmed. Therefore,
the proceeding concerning Indonesia should be
terminated.

III. KOREA

(35)

Since no comments were received subsequent to the disclosure of the provisional
findings, the conclusion that the subsidy margin for Korea has to be considered
negligible and the findings of recital (79) of the provisional Regulation is hereby
confirmed. Therefore, the proceeding concerning Korea should be terminated.

IV. MALAYSIA

1.

Introduction

(36)

In the provisional Regulation, the benefit derived from Pioneer Status was in recital
(132) wrongly classified as an export
the findings of
countervailability of the scheme in recitals (93) to (95) as a specific domestic subsidy

subsidy. However,

9

are hereby confirmed. This would imply that the amount of subsidy found should no
longer be offset against the anti-dumping duty.

(37)

Since no other comments were received subsequent to the disclosure of the provisional
findings, the findings of recitals (80) to (133) of the provisional Regulation are hereby
confirmed, subject to the correction of certain calculation errors.

2.

Amount of countervailable subsidies

(38)

The amount of countervailable export subsidies in accordance with the provisions of
the basic Regulation, expressed ad valorem, for the investigated exporting producers is
as follows:

Export

Domestic Domestic

Export

Type of Subsidy

Double
Deductions

Pioneer

Status

Import duty
exemption and
Sales Tax
Exemption

Import duty
exemption
and Sales Tax
Exemption

Total

0

0

Hualon
Corporation (M)
Sdn. Bhd.

MPI Polyester
Industries Sdn.
Bhd.

All Others

3.3%

0

0.27%

3.57%

0

0.91%

0

0.91%

3.57%

(39)

The weighted average countrywide subsidy margin for all exporting producers
investigated, which represents above 90% of exports of the product concerned to the
Community originating in Malaysia is above the applicable de minimis margin for this
country of 2%.

V. TAIWAN

(40) One company claimed that the Commission made a calculation error for its benefit
obtained under the scheme for import duty exemption for machinery. The benefit
obtained under this scheme has been recalculated and it was found that a calculation
error occurred. The error was rectified and the benefit under this programme is
reduced from 1.92% to 0.27%.

(41)

(42)

The Commission hereafter undertook a thorough investigation of the whole dossier of
Taiwan, including checking the calculations for all four exporting producers in order
to investigate the impact of this revision for the determination of the countrywide
subsidy margin.

It was established that, as a result of the decrease in the subsidy rate for the above
company, the countrywide margin has decreased to 0.94%, which is below the de
minimis threshold for this country of 1%. Therefore, the investigation concerning
imports originating in Taiwan should be terminated.

10

VI. THAILAND

1.

General

(43) At the provisional stage, it was found that although one zone in Thailand (zone 3) is a
clearly designated geographical area which meets the definition of a disadvantaged
region according to Article 4(3) of the basic Regulation, the benefits of the different
subsidy schemes are sectorally specific since the access to the programmes is limited
to certain industries. The Government of Thailand (GOT) claims that the schemes are
available to a wide variety of industries and are consequently, generally available.

(44)

It was found that that the GOT has established a limited list of activities which are
eligible for investment promotion, which by definition limits the access to the subsidy
since companies which manufacture products which are not promoted are not eligible
for benefits under the Investment Promotion Act. Furthermore, this list should be
considered as a positive list, which clearly defines the specific products, the producers
of which are favoured over others. The fact that the benefits under the Investment
Promotion Act are available to 200 different products is irrelevant since companies,
which do not produce these products are excluded from any benefit. Therefore, the
provisional findings as regards specificity are confirmed.

(45)

In recitals (193) and (196) of the provisional Regulation, it was found that projects
which apply for Board of Investment (BOI) incentives need to meet a 20% value
added standard. It was provisionally found that this condition encourages enterprises
to use domestic over imported goods and is consequently, specific under Article
3(4)(b) of the basic Regulation.

(46) After disclosure, the GOT has submitted evidence that the value-added criterion does
not mandate PET producers to use domestic inputs over imported inputs. The GOT
provided evidence that shows that the value-added criterion can be met even if only
imported raw materials are used for the production of the finished product. Therefore,
for the product under investigation, this programme is not contingent upon the use of
domestic over imported goods within the meaning of Article 3(4)(b) of the basic
Regulation.

2.

Corporate Income Tax exemption

(47)

(48)

The exporting producer claims that it opted to use its accumulated net losses from the
instead of the corporate income tax exemption, to offset current
previous years,
taxable profit, and consequently no benefit was obtained during the period of
investigation.

It was established that a company which benefits from income tax exemption and at
the same time can offset its profits against losses carried forward under normal tax
provisions has a choice to use either option. The Ministry of Taxation and the Thai
Board of Investment confirmed this. In the present case, it was established that the
exporting producer used the corporate income tax exemption since the amount of taxes
payable was not offset against the accumulated net losses. In fact, the accumulated net
losses increased during the last
to
1,704,894,309 Baht). If the exporting producer had opted to offset its profit against the
accumulated net
it would not have completed the section on non-taxable
income which is only for income benefiting from BOI exemption. Furthermore, the

(from 1,655,089,790 Baht

financial year

losses,

11

WTO Appellate Body has established, in the Canada civil aircraft case5, that in order
to determine whether a financial contribution in the sense of Article 1(1)(a)(i) of the
SCM Agreement confers a "benefit", i.e., an advantage, it is necessary to determine
whether the financial contribution places the recipient
in a more advantageous
for the financial contribution. As
position than would have been the case but
mentioned above, the exporting producer is in a more advantageous situation through
the use of the corporate income tax exemption, because it was able to carry forward
for future use a greater amount of accumulated losses than would otherwise have been
the case. Therefore, the exporting producer used the income tax exemption and
obtained a benefit and this claim cannot be accepted.

3.

Import duty exemption on machinery

(49)

Since no comments were received regarding this scheme, the conclusions of recitals
(202) to (208) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

4.

Amount of countervailable subsidies

(50) On the basis of the comments received after the provisional findings, the amount of
countervailable subsidies in accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation,
expressed ad valorem, for the investigated exporting producer is determined at the
following rate:

Income tax
Exemption

Import duty
Exemption on
Machinery

8.13%

0.35%

Total

8.4%

Thai Shingkong
Industry Corporation
Limited

(51)

Since the investigated exporting producer accounted for virtually all of the imports of
the product concerned into the Community originating in Thailand, the weighted
average countrywide subsidy margin is well above the applicable 2% de minimis
margin for subsidisation.

E. DEFINITION OF THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY

(52)

In the absence of any new information submitted with respect to the definition of the
Community industry,
in recitals (226) to (231) of the
provisional Regulation are confirmed.

the findings as set out

5

Canada - Measures affecting the export of civilian aircraft, Report of the Appellate Body, Doc.
WT/DS70/AB/R, 2 August 1999 (recitals (149) and sub.)

12

1.

Preliminary remarks

F. INJURY

(53) Certain interested parties questioned why data submitted by the Community industry
was only used for the period 1996 onwards whilst developments in the market prior to
this period were based on independent market research information.

(54)

The Commission had considered that the data submitted by the Community industry
for the year 1995 could not be used due to the split of Kodak and Eastman in 1995 and
to the restructuring of the activities of Shell. Neither Shell nor Eastman was able to
provide complete figures for this year.

(55) However, the Commission had considered it essential to give an overview of the
shortage crisis that occurred in the Community market in 1995 in view of the impact
of this event on both the prices and profitability of the Community industry. As such
the use of independent market research information was considered appropriate in
establishing the necessary background data for the evaluation of the situation of the
Community industry during the analysis period, as explained in recital (236).

2.

Consumption

(56)

In the absence of any new information submitted to the contrary,
the findings
concerning the consumption of the product concerned in the Community as detailed in
recitals (239) and (240) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

3.

Imports from the countries concerned

Imports originating in Korea, Indonesia and Taiwan

(57)

(58)

(59)

The findings as described in recital (242) of the provisional Regulation concerning the
de minimis subsidy margins for imports originating in Korea and Indonesia are
confirmed. Both countries are thereby excluded from the injury assessment.

In the light of new findings described above, subsidy margins found for imports
originating in Taiwan are now de minimis, therefore, those imports are not taken into
consideration for the injury assessment.

Imports originating in India, Malaysia and Thailand

a)

Cumulation

The GOT claimed that imports originating in its country should not be assessed
cumulatively with the other
imports concerned because imports originating in
Thailand had the smallest market share of the three countries considered and they did
not undercut Community industry prices, thus showing that the Thai exporter did not
exhibit the same behaviour as the exporters from the other countries. It was considered
that these elements were not new, this claim was therefore rejected and it is confirmed
that imports originating in Thailand should be assessed cumulatively with imports
originating in India and Malaysia.

13

(60)

The governments of India and Malaysia claimed that only subsidised imports
originating in their respective countries should be cumulated. As it was established
that the country-wide weighted average subsidy margins for all investigated imports
originating in India and Malaysia were above the applicable de minimis margins for
subsidisation, all their export to the Community have to be taken into account. This
claim has thus been rejected and it is concluded that all imports originating in India,
Malaysia and Thailand should be cumulated in order to assess the injury suffered by
the Community industry.

b)

Volume of imports

(61) As the following table indicates, the volume of imports originating in India, Malaysia
and Thailand increased sharply between 1996 and the IP (an increase of nearly 7
times) to reach a level of 123 563 tonnes.

Imports

1996

1997

1998

IP

Total India, Malaysia,
Thailand

17 831 t

44 708 t

118 113 t

123 563 t

Index (1996 - 100)

100

251

662

693

(62) After dramatic growth between 1996 and 1998 when imports more than doubled each
year, the growth in imports levelled off from 1998 to the IP. It should be noted
however that imports continued to increase, albeit at a slower rate, despite the effort
made by the Community industry to match the price competition of the subsidised
imports and regain market share.

c) Market shares

(63)

The market share of imports concerned developed as follows:

Market shares of imports

1996

Total India, Malaysia,
Thailand

2.2%

1997

4.1%

1998

9.0%

IP

9.2%

Index (1996 - 100)

100

190

417

424

(64)

(65)

The market share of imports originating in India, Malaysia and Thailand reached 9.2%
during the IP. This figure was more than four times the level achieved in 1996, the
start of the analysis period. Between 1998 and the IP, the market share of these
imports levelled off, as result of the slow down in import volumes described above.

d)

Prices of imports

The prices of imports concerned originating in India, Malaysia and Thailand decreased
by 34% over the period 1996 to the IP. On an annual basis they fell by 16% between
1996 and 1997, by 5% between 1997 and 1998 and by 13% between 1998 and the IP.
On average, the CIF duty unpaid price for the product concerned originating in these
/t during he IP. It was confirmed, during the investigation, that a
countries was 516
large number of exporters were selling at a loss to the Community, indicating an
aggressive pricing policy regarding the Community market.

€

14

e)

Price undercutting

(66)

The price undercutting by the subsidised imports, calculated as detailed in recital (254)
of the provisional Regulation, is confirmed as follows:

Undercutting margins: ranges

India

1.2 - 7.9%

Malaysia

11.8 – 12.9%

Thailand

0%

(67)

In the absence of any representations and new information from interested parties to
suggest the contrary, the findings concerning price undercutting as noted in recital
(254) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed. In particular it is noted that the low
average rates of undercutting were due to the price suppression brought about by the
behaviour of the exporting producers in the countries concerned which sold the
product concerned on the Community market at prices which were not only subsidised
but also loss-making.

Impact of the change in imports concerned for the assessment of injury and

4.
causation

(68)

It is to be noted that the exclusion of the imports originating in Taiwan from the injury
analysis does not change the trends established for the imports concerned in the
provisional Regulation. It
the findings established in the
provisional Regulation regarding the impact of the imports concerned on the situation
of the Community industry and the causal link are not changed by the revised
information shown above.

is thus concluded that

5.

Situation of the Community industry

(69)

In accordance with Article 8(5) of the basic Regulation the examination of the impact
of the subsidised imports on the Community industry included an evaluation of all
relevant factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Community industry.
The examination included all factors specifically listed in Article 8(5) of the basic
Regulation. However, certain factors are not dealt with in detail as they were found not
to be relevant for the assessment of the situation of the Community industry in the
course of the investigation (wages and stocks see below). As concerns the impact on
the Community industry of the magnitude of the amount of countervailing subsidies,
given the volume and the prices of the imports from the countries concerned, this
impact cannot be considered to be negligible.

Factors examined in the provisional Regulation

–

Investments

(70)

It was found that some investments made by a cooperating Community producer had
not been taken into account at the provisional stage. After the inclusion of these
figures, the investment situation does not change the trend previously established.

Some interested parties argued that the extent of the investments made in 1998 by the
Community industry indicated that it was in good financial health. Others remarked
that if the level of investments was low during the IP, this was a consequence of the
previous years in which the Community industry had registered losses and that this

15

could not be attributed to the effect of the subsidised imports during the IP.

In this respect, the investigation has clearly shown that investment expenditure made
in 1997, 1998 and in the IP was mostly a consequence of decisions taken in 1995
when prospects in the PET sector were good (although losses were incurred in 1996
this situation was considered to be temporary). In such an industry, it is more relevant
to examine plans to invest than the timing of actual expenditure. As stated in recital
(264) of the provisional Regulation, it is confirmed that, as a consequence of the
further deterioration of its financial situation due to injurious subsidisation during the
IP, the Community industry has not planned any significant expansion in capacity to
meet increases in future demand.

– Wages and stocks

Wages and stocks were also examined, however wages were not considered to be a
relevant factor given that their share in the overall costs is small and remained stable
over the analysis period. As concerns stocks given the seasonal nature of the PET
market stock levels were found to vary significantly throughout the year and were
therefore not considered to be meaningful for the injury analysis.

–

Growth

Although it was not explicitly mentioned in the provisional Regulation,
the
Commission also examined growth in its analysis of market share which revealed a
slight loss for the Community industry over the analysis period.

Other factors examined

(71)

The situation of the Community industry regarding the following indicators was
further examined.

–

Ability to raise capital

As already mentioned in the provisional Regulation, the level of losses experienced
during the IP was such that no new investment plan could be agreed during the IP.
This clearly did not improve the Community industry's ability to raise capital during
this period despite the anticipated increase in demand.

–

Productivity

The productivity in terms of tonnes produced per employee increased by 67% from
1996 to the IP and by 21% from 1998 to the IP. Such a considerable increase in
productivity shows that the Community industry made all possible efforts to remain
competitive.

16

–

Return on Investments (ROI)

1996
Return on capital employed6 % -6%

1997

-7%

1998

1%

IP

-8%

The above indicator reflects the overall situation of the Community industry
(including mostly PET business lines). The verification showed that a large part of
the negative trend in the IP could be attributed to the PET sector. This indicator is in
line with the deterioration of the profitability of the Community industry.

–

Cash Flow

1996

1997

1998

IP

Net cash in(out)flow from operating activities

Net cash in(out)flow from operating activities

Net cash in(out)flow from operating activities

Net cash in(out)flow from operating activities

€

-79.002.884

84.901.988

132.915.718

51.115.757

The above indicator reflects the overall situation of the Community industry
(including mostly PET business lines). It represents the gross operational result of
these companies, before financial charges, depreciation and provisions. The
verification showed that a large part of the deterioration in the IP is attributable to the
PET sector.

6.

Further arguments raised

a)

General arguments raised as to the Commission's conclusions

(72)

(73)

Some interested parties questioned the Commission’s conclusions on injury since
some of the injury indicators showed either increasing or stable trends. In this respect,
a number of interested parties pointed to the low level of price undercutting, the
increase in sales volume and the overall stability of market share. They considered
these indicators showed that the Community industry was in good health and that
although prices were very low,
levels taking into account
prevailing market conditions.

they were at normal

This argument could not be accepted. As established in the provisional Regulation, the
increase in sales and the recovery of market share in the IP, after a loss of 5 percentage
points between 1997 and 1998, occurred when the Community industry considerably
decreased its prices to match those of subsidised imports. As explained in the
provisional Regulation, it was established that imports were made at subsidised prices.
In this respect, the low level of price undercutting resulted from the fact that the
Community industry's prices were depressed during the IP. This price depression was
the result of the subsidised imports which were substantial in terms of volume and

6

Return on capital employed is defined as pre-tax profit after proper adjustment for any preference share
dividends, debenture and long-term loan interest paid/received in arriving at that figure as divided by
total share capital and reserves together with debentures and other long-term loans.

17

market share and which forced the Community industry to react by decreasing its
prices.

b)

Developments occurring after the IP

(74) Many interested parties and delegates from the member states requested the
Commission to analyse and take into account certain developments that occurred after
the IP. In particular these parties underlined the rapid and substantial rise in
Community industry PET prices in relation to the increase in the cost of raw materials.
According to these parties,
the Community industry's situation had improved
dramatically since the IP and it was likely that the Community industry was no longer
suffering material injury.

(75)

(76)

(77)

It should be recalled that Article 11(1) of the basic Regulation provides that
information relating to a period after the IP should, normally, not be taken into
account. On the basis of the jurisprudence of the Court, developments after the IP can
only be taken in consideration if they make the imposition of countervailing measures
manifestly unsuitable.

The Commission analysed developments in the PET market during the nine-month
period following the IP, i.e. 1 October 1999 to 30 June 2000. It was found that the
prices for PET sales made by the Community industry on the Community market
showed a continued increase. The average selling price for the nine-month period was
around 40% higher than the average found for the IP. This increase was more rapid
than the increase in costs (around 20%) leading to an improvement of the Community
industry's financial situation. Nonetheless, on average, during this nine-month period,
the return on sales for the Community industry was still negative at –2% indicating
that its financial performance remained unsatisfactory and far from the level that can
ensure the viability of this industry.

This dramatic change in prices is, to a large degree, due to the increase in crude oil
prices that has occurred since the middle of 1999 and which noticeably affected all
polymer prices a few months later. It should also be noted that there has been a steady
increase in sales and market share of the Community industry at the expense of
subsidised imports. However, the decrease in the volume of subsidised imports may be
a consequence of the opening of an anti-subsidy investigation. In the present case, the
development in the dollar/euro exchange rate also rendered the imports concerned less
attractive.

(78)

It is to be noted that exchange rates, as well as the crude oil price, are extremely
volatile and changes may be temporary. Furthermore, should the on-going anti-subsidy
imposing measures, subsidised imports could
investigation be terminated without
rapidly regain market share.

(79) On the basis of the above, it was concluded that developments occurring after the IP
do not show that the injury caused by subsidised imports has disappeared. As a result,
the imposition of countervailing measures is not manifestly unsuitable.

18

7.

Conclusion on injury

(80) Given that no other arguments were received regarding the injury suffered by the
Community industry,
the Community industry has suffered
material injury within the meaning of Article 8 of the basic Regulation as set out in
recitals (265) to (268) of the provisional Regulation, is hereby confirmed.

the conclusion that

G. CAUSATION

(81)

Several interested parties continued to argue that the Commission wrongly concluded
that imports originating in the countries concerned were the cause of the injury
suffered by the Community industry whereas, in their opinion, the situation of this
industry and the level of prices on the Community market were due to a combination
of other factors. In this context, they reiterated the points already raised at
the
provisional stage (including the price of raw materials, the situation of over capacity,
the competition between PET producers).

(82) Given that no other arguments were received regarding the cause of the injury suffered
by the Community industry, the conclusion that imports of PET from the countries
concerned had caused injury to the Community industry as stated in recital (290) of
the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.

H. COMMUNITY INTEREST

1.

Likely effect of the imposition of measures on downstream industries

a)

Further investigation

(83)

In view of the low level of co-operation from the users during the first stage of the
investigation, the Commission decided to investigate further the likely effect of the
imposition of measures on the downstream industries. Therefore, the Commission sent
out 90 new, simplified questionnaires to users of PET, some of which had already
been contacted but had not replied. 19 previously non co-operating companies
submitted meaningful responses within the time limits set.

The new co-operating companies are:

- 3 preform/bottle converters:

Lux PET GmbH & Co. (Luxembourg)

Puccetti S.p.a. (Italy)

EBP SA (Spain)

- 4 producers of PET films and sheets using the product concerned:

RPC Cobelplast Montonate S.r.l. (Italy)

Moplast S.p.a. (Italy)

Alusuisse Thermoplastic (UK)

19

Klöckner Pentaplast BV (The Netherlands)

- 4 producers of soft drinks:

L'abeille (France)

Pepsico Food Beverages Intl. Ltd (Italy)

Pepsico France (France)

Europe embouteillage Snc (France)

- 8 producers of mineral and spring water:

Aguas Minerales Pasqual S.L. (Spain)

Eycam Perrier SA (Spain)

Font Vella SA & Aguas de Lanjarón SA (Spain)

Italaquae S.p.a. (Italy)

Neptune SA (France)

Roxane SA (France)

San Benedetto (Italy)

Società Generale delle acque minerali a.r.l. (Italy)

In total, the data submitted by the companies that completed either the first or the
second questionnaire covered 26% of the Community PET consumption during the
figures established by aggregating this information have been
IP. The cost
considered representative of the various user sub-sectors, as individual company
information showed a large level of consistency among companies belonging to the
same sub-sectors.

(84) After the imposition of provisional measures, several submissions by users or their
representative associations were received. These mostly comprised comments on the
past developments in the PET market and discussions on the possible impact of
measures on the user sectors. These submissions originated from:

–

–

–

–

Schmalbach-Lubeca, the biggest converter in Europe (18% of community PET
consumption);

the “European plastic Converters” association (EUPC);

UNESDA, an association representing soft drink producers;

The Nestlé group, reiterating that the figures given for the French market are
representative of their overall European market. (The total European purchases
of PET by the group represent some 9% of the Community consumption of
PET of which 3% is for the French market only).

20

These submissions, as well as those made by associations representing the water
the
producers (that had made themselves known during the first
investigation) have been taken into account, and in total all submissions represent at
least half of the market.

stage of

b)

Description of the user sectors

(85) After having analysed all the information provided, it was found that the user sector,
previously considered as 3 groups (preform makers, water producers and integrated
soft drink producers), is more accurately described as two groups:

–

–

The converters, including manufacturers of preforms and bottles as well as
producers of sheets. These users are performing a simple transformation
activity; therefore the cost of PET is by far their main cost element. The
manufacturers of bottles and preforms sell the vast majority of their production
to bottlers of non-alcoholic drinks. The sheet producers, that represent only a
types of
small proportion of the converters sector, sell to many different
industries that use sheets mainly to package their goods.

The bottlers of non-alcoholic drinks, including water carbonated and non-
carbonated soft drinks, milk, fruit juices etc. The division of this group of users
between producers of water and soft drinks is not relevant since in many cases
the same manufacturer bottles both water and soft drinks. It is more relevant to
distinguish between the different drinks they manufacture since, in relative
terms, the share of PET in their cost of production depends on the intrinsic cost
of those drinks (sodas or fruit juices require more expensive inputs than water).
In any case, PET remains a fairly important cost element and problems faced
by bottlers regarding their supply of PET are similar whatever the product they
bottle.

(86)

It is to be noted that there is a very close operational link between the converters (with
the exception of sheet manufacturers) and bottlers.

–

–

–

Bottlers buy almost all the production of the converters.

Every converter has a very limited number of clients (often only one).

Converters operate on a contractual basis with their clients, and these contracts
very often either include provisions that automatically take into account
changes in the price of PET or are renegotiated on a regular basis.

Consequently, the impact of measures as described below should not be cumulated as
most of the impact of the measures will be directly passed on to the converters' main
clients i.e. the bottlers of non-alcoholic beverages.

c)

Foreseeable impact of measures on the users

21

(87) After taking into account the new figures provided, the situation of the users, which

supplied fully quantified information, was as follows:

Consumption
of PET as % of
Community
consumption

PET as a % of
the cost of
Production

Employees
involved in
products using
PET

7%

1%

18%

1%

26%

66%

55%

24%

9%

770

186

6766

298

8020

Converters

Bottlers of
non-alcoholic
drinks

TOTAL

Preform and bottle
producers

Sheet producers

Mineral and spring
Water

Soft drinks

d)

Impact on converters

(88)

It was estimated that the imposition of the countervailing measures proposed, taking
into account their volumes of PET purchases originating in the countries concerned
during the IP, would result in an increase of 0.75% in the cost of production of
converters making preforms and bottles. In the same terms, the impact of measures on
the sheet producers would be around 0.4%. Due to their contractual link with their
customers, it is likely that converters will be able to pass most of this increase in cost
onto their clients. The impact of countervailing measures on the profitability of these
companies is therefore estimated to be very limited.

e)

Impact on bottlers of non-alcoholic drinks

(89)

It was estimated that the imposition of countervailing measures proposed, taking into
account their volumes of PET purchases originating in the countries concerned during
the IP, as well as their would result in an average increase of less than 0.2% in the cost
of production of bottlers of non-alcoholic drinks. It can thus be considered that the
increase in costs would be negligible.

2.

The retail price of drinks

(90)

It was found that the prices of bottled water and soft drinks have increased at a
relatively constant rate of 1-2% per year over the past decade (Eurostat retail price
index statistics). During the same period the prices of PET have been extremely
volatile, without, however, influencing the retail prices of bottled water and soft
drinks. Therefore, the claim about the potential inflationary impact of measures on
retail prices of bottled water and soft drinks is rejected.

Likely effect of the imposition of measures on the Community industry and the

3.
upstream industries

(91)

The measures proposed would, in all likelihood, benefit the Community industry,
which, by its restructuring efforts and impressive increase in productivity, has
demonstrated its determination to maintain its presence in the rapidly growing
Community market. The imposition of measures will allow this industry to improve

22

profitability and to have the possibility of making the new investments, which are
crucial, in such a capital-intensive activity, to insure its long-term viable presence in
the Community.

(92)

Since the situation of the Community upstream industry is dependent on the financial
health of Community PET producers, the improvement of the situation of the latter
due to the imposition of measures will also benefit the upstream industry. This has
been confirmed by cooperating companies in the upstream industries.

4.

Conclusions on Community interest

(93) On the basis of the additional information obtained from users, it is concluded that the
impact of the measures on users would be limited. Indeed, as converters are able to
pass most of the increase in costs on to their clients, the consolidated impact of
measures on the producers of drinks is estimated to be marginal on the overall
profitability of this sector.

(94)

In addition, it is confirmed that the delocalisation of the production of preforms
outside the Community is not likely, that retail prices of non alcoholic drinks are not
the imposition of
usually much affected by fluctuations in PET prices and that
measures is clearly in the interest of the Community industry and of the upstream
industries.

(95) Given that no other arguments were received regarding Community interest, the
conclusion, the conclusion of the provisional Regulation that there are no compelling
reasons not to impose measures, as set out in recital (344), is hereby confirmed.

I. NON-IMPOSITION OF DUTIES

(96)

(97)

(98)

(99)

In the light of the above findings that the country-wide weighted average subsidy
margin for imports originating in Indonesia, Korea and Taiwan are de-minimis, it is
to impose countervailing measures as regards imports
definitively decided not
originating in these countries. Consequently, the proceeding in respect of imports from
these countries should be terminated.

J. DEFINITIVE COURSE OF ACTION

In view of the conclusions reached regarding subsidisation, injury, causation and
Community interest, it is considered that definitive countervailing measures should be
taken in order to prevent further injury being caused to the Community by subsidised
imports originating in India, Malaysia and Thailand.

In the absence of any new information, the methodology used for establishing the
injury elimination level as described in recitals (349) and (350) of the provisional
Regulation is hereby confirmed.

In order to avoid that fluctuations in PET prices caused by fluctuations in crude oil
prices should result in higher duties being collected, it is considered appropriate that
duties in the form of a specific amount per tonne should be imposed. These amounts
result from the application of the countervailing duty rate to the CIF export prices used
for the calculation of the injury elimination level during the IP.

23

€
(100) This led to the following countervailing duty rates (

per tonne) for the co-operating

exporting producers:

(a) India

Reliance Industries Limited

Pearl Engineering Polymers Limited

Elque Polyesters Limited

Futura Polymer Limited

(b) Malaysia

MPI Polyester Industries Sdn. Bhd.

Hualon Corporation (M) Sdn. Bhd.

(c) Thailand

Thai Shingkong Industry Corporation
Limited

€

€

€

/t

/t

/t

41.3

31.3

22.0

0

0

16.6

€

/t

€

/t

49.1

(101)

In order to avoid granting a bonus for non-co-operation, it was considered appropriate
to establish the duty rate for the non-co-operating companies as the highest rate
/t for Indian producers,
established for any co-operating exporting producers, i.e. 41.3
€
16.6

/t for Malaysian producers and 49.1

/t for Thai producers.

€

€

the situation found during the investigation with respect

(102) The individual company specific countervailing duties specified in this regulation
were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore,
they reflect
to these
companies. These duties (as opposed to the countrywide duty applicable to “all other
companies”) are thus exclusively applicable to 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, included entities related to those
specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these duties and shall be subject to the
duties applicable to “all other companies”.

(103) Any claim requesting the application of these individual company countervailing 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 Commission7 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 Regulation accordingly
by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.

7

European Commission
Directorate-General Trade
Directorate C
TERV 0/13
Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200
B-1049 Brussels / Belgium

24

K. COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTY

(104)

In view of the amount of the countervailable subsidies found for the exporting
producers and in light of the seriousness of the injury caused to the Community
industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of provisional
countervailing duty under Regulation (EC) No 1741/2000 be definitively collected to
the extent of the amount of definitive duties imposed. In those cases, where the
definitive duties are higher than the provisional duties, only the amounts secured at the
level of the provisional duties shall be definitively collected. The amounts secured by
way of provisional countervailing duties on imports of certain polyethylene
terephthalate originating in Taiwan shall be released.

L. UNDERTAKINGS

(105) Subsequent

to the imposition of provisional countervailing duties, 2 exporting
producers in India offered a price undertaking in accordance with Article 13(1) of the
basic Regulation.

(106) The Commission considers that

the undertakings offered by Reliance Industries
Limited and Pearl Engineering Polymers Limited can be accepted8 since they
eliminate the injurious effect of subsidisation. Moreover, the regular and detailed
reports which the companies undertook to provide to the Commission will allow an
effective monitoring. Furthermore, the sales structure of these companies is such that
the risk of circumvention of the undertakings is
the Commission considers that
minimised.

(107)

In order to ensure the effective respect and monitoring of the undertakings, when the
request for release for free circulation pursuant to the undertakings is presented,
exemption from the duty is conditional upon presentation to the customs service of the
Member State concerned a valid "Undertaking Invoice" issued by the exporting
producers from whom the undertakings are accepted and containing the information
listed in the Annex. Where no such invoice is presented, or when it does not
correspond to the product presented to customs, the appropriate rate of countervailing
duty should be payable in order to ensure the effective application of the undertakings.

(108)

In the event of a breach or withdrawal of the undertakings a countervailing duty may
be imposed, pursuant to Article 13(9) and (10) of the basic Regulation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.

A definitive countervailing duty is hereby imposed on imports of polyethylene
terephthalate with a coefficient of viscosity of 78ml/g or higher, according to DIN
(Deutsche Industrienorm) 53728, falling within CN code 3907 60 20 and CN code ex
3907 60 80 (TARIC code 3907 60 80 10).

8

See page …. of this Official Journal.

25

2.

Except as provided for in paragraph 3 below, the rate of the definitive countervailing
for
duty applicable to the net, free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty,
products originating in the following countries, shall be as follows:

Country

Definitive Duty

TARIC

EUR per tonne

additional code

India

Malaysia

Thailand

41,3

16,6

49,1

A999

A999

A999

3.

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

Country

Company

India

India

India

India

Reliance Industries Limited

Pearl Engineering Polymers Limited

Elque Polyesters Limited

Futura Polymer Limited

Malaysia MPI Polyester Industries Sdn. Bhd.

Malaysia Hualon Corporation (M) Sdn. Bhd.

Thailand Thai Shingkong Industry Corporation

Limited

Definitive

TARIC

Duty

additional

EUR per tonne

code

41,3

31,3

22,2

0

0

16,6

49,1

A181

A182

A183

A184

A185

A186

A190

4.

5.

6.

1.

9

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
2454/939
, the amount of countervailing duty, calculated on the basis of the amounts
set above, shall be reduced by a percentage which corresponds to the apportioning of
the price actually paid or payable.

Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the definitive duty shall not apply to imports realised
for free circulation in accordance with the provisions of Article 2.

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

Article 2

Imports shall be exempt from the countervailing duties imposed by Article 1
provided that they are produced and directly exported (i.e. invoiced and shipped) to a

OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p.1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 502/1999 (OJ L 65,
12.3.1999, p. 1).

26

company acting as an importer in the Community by the companies mentioned in
paragraph 3, declared under the appropriate TARIC additional code and that the
conditions set in paragraph 2 are met.

When the request for release for free circulation is presented, exemption from the
duties shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs service of the Member
State concerned of a valid "Undertaking Invoice" issued by the exporting companies
mentioned in paragraph 3, containing the essential elements listed in the Annex to
this Regulation. Exemption from the duty shall further be conditional on the goods
declared and presented to customs corresponding precisely to the description on the
"Undertaking Invoice".

Imports accompanied by an "Undertaking Invoice" shall be declared under the
following TARIC additional codes:

2.

3.

Company

Country

Reliance Industries
Limited

Pearl Engineering
Polymers Limited

India

India

Article 3

TARIC additional
code

A181

A182

The amounts secured by way of provisional countervailing duties pursuant to Regulation (EC)
No 1741/2000 on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Malaysia
and Thailand shall be collected at the rate of the duty definitively imposed. Amounts secured
in excess of the definitive rate of countervailing duties shall be released.

The anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate
originating in Indonesia, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan is hereby terminated.

Article 4

Article 5

The amounts secured by way of provisional countervailing duties pursuant to Regulation (EC)
No 1741/2000 on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Taiwan shall be
released.

27

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

Article 6

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

Done at Brussels,

For the Council
The President

28

Elements to be indicated in the Undertaking Invoice referred to in Article 2(2):

ANNEX

1.

2.

3.

The Undertaking Invoice number

The TARIC additional code under which the goods on the invoice may be customs-
cleared at Community borders (as specified in the Regulation),

The exact description of the goods, including:

–

–

–

the product reporting code number (PRC) (as established in the undertaking
offered by the producing exporter in question).

CN code,

quantity (to be given in units),

4.

The description of the terms of the sale, including:

–

–

–

–

price per unit,

the applicable payment terms,

the applicable delivery terms,

total discounts and rebates.

5.

6.

Name of the company acting as an importer to which the invoice is issued directly by
the company.

The name of the official of the company that has issued the undertaking invoice and
the following signed declaration:

“I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for direct export to the European Community of the
goods covered by this invoice is being made within the scope and under the terms of the
undertaking offered by . . . [company], and accepted by the European Commission through
Decision (2000/…./EC). I declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete
and correct.”

29