Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating, inter alia, in India
Date: 2002-02-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, India, anti-dumping duty, import, originating product, plastics

29.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 262 E/11

Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 imposing a definitive
anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating, inter alia, in India

(2002/C 262 E/03)

COM(2002) 106 final

(Submitted by the Commission on 27 February 2002)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

The above review was initiated by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1240/2001 which was published in the
Official Journal of the European Communities L 171 of 26 June 2001. All interested parties were given the
opportunity to submit their comments in due course.

The investigation revealed the practice of dumping for the exporting producer which requested the
initiation of the proceeding. The level of dumping established is lower than the country-wide injury
margin established for India in the original
investigation. Consequently, pursuant to the ‘lesser duty
rule’ it is decided to set the duty at the level of the established dumping margin, i.e. 14,7 %.

On this basis it is proposed to amend the Council Regulation in force accordingly.

Member States were consulted and the majority supported the imposition of an individual anti-dumping
duty.

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopts the attached proposal to amend Council Regulation (EC)
No 2604/2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate
originating, inter alia, in India.

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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),
and in particular Article 11(4) thereof,

inter alia,
from several

in India, with the
concerned’) originating,
exception of
India companies
imports
specifically mentioned, which are subject to a lesser rate
of duty. By Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 (3),
the
imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty in the
Council
form of a specific amount per tonne of EUR 181,7/t on
imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating,
in India, with the exception of imports from
inter alia,
Indian companies specifically mentioned, which
several
is
to different rate of duty. The product
are subject
currently classifiable under CN code 3907 60 20.

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

B. CURRENT INVESTIGATION

Whereas:

A. MEASURES IN FORCE

(1) By Regulation (EC) No 2603/2000 (2),

the Council
imposed a definitive countervailing duty in the form of
a specific amount per tonne of EUR 41,3/t on imports of
‘product
certain polyethylene terephthalate (hereinafter

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation

(EC) No 2238/2000 (OJ L 257, 11.10.2000, p. 2).

(2) The Commission subsequently received a request

it was not

to
initiate a ‘new exporter’ review of Regulation (EC) No
2604/2000, pursuant to Article 11(4) of Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 384/96 (the ‘Basic Regulation’), from the
Indian producer Futura Polymers Ltd (hereinafter referred
to as the ‘company concerned’). This company claimed
exporting
that
producers in India subject to the anti-dumping measures
in force with regard
concerned.
Furthermore,
it had not exported the
product concerned during the original period of investi-
gation (1 October 1998 to 30 September 1999), but had
exported the product concerned to the Community since
then.

related to any of

to the product

it claimed that

the

(2) OJ L 301, 30.11.2000, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 301, 30.11.2000, p. 21.

C 262 E/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

29.10.2002

(3) The product covered by the current review is the same as
in the original
i.e. polyethylene tereph-
thalate (‘PET’) with a coefficient of viscosity of 78 ml/g
or higher, according to DIN (Deutsche Industrienorm)
53728.

investigation,

(4) The Commission examined the evidence submitted by the
Indian exporting producer concerned and considered it
sufficient to justify the initiation of a review in accordance
with the provisions of Article 11(4) of the Basic Regu-
lation. After consultation of the Advisory Committee and
after the Community industry concerned had been given
the opportunity to comment, the Commission initiated,
by Regulation (EC) No 1240/2001 (1), a review of Regu-
lation (EC) No 2604/2000 with regard to the company
concerned and commenced its investigation.

(5) By the Regulation initiating the review, the Commission
also repealed the anti-dumping duty imposed by Regu-
lation (EC) No 2604/2000 with regard to imports of
the product concerned produced and exported to the
Community by the company concerned and directed
the
customs authorities, pursuant
Basic Regulation,
to take appropriate steps to register
such imports.

to Article 14(5) of

(6) The Commission

advised

officially

company
the
the exporting
concerned and the representatives of
country of the initiation of the review. Furthermore,
it
gave other parties directly concerned the opportunity to
make their views known in writing and to request a
hearing. However no such request was received by the
Commission.

(7) The Commission sent a questionnaire to the company
concerned and received a reply within the deadline. The
Commission also sought and verified all the information
deemed necessary for the determination of dumping. A
verification visit was carried out at the premises of the
company concerned.

(8) The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1
April 2000 to 31 March 2001 (the ‘investigation period’).

(9) The same methodology as that used in the original inves-

tigation was applied in the current investigation.

C. SCOPE OF THE REVIEW

(10) As no request for a review of the findings on injury was
the review was limited to

made in this investigation,
dumping.

D. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

1. New exporter qualification

(11) The investigation confirmed that the company concerned
had not exported the product concerned during the
original period of investigation and that it had begun
exporting to the Community after this period.

(1) OJ L 171, 26.6.2001, p. 3.

according

documentary

evidence
to
Furthermore,
submitted, the company was able to satisfactorily demon-
strate that it did not have any links, direct or indirect,
with any of the Indian exporting producers subject to the
in force with regard to the
anti-dumping measures
product concerned.

Accordingly, it is confirmed that the company concerned
should be considered a new exporter in accordance with
Article 11(4) of the Basic Regulation, and thus an indi-
vidual dumping margin should be determined for it.

2. Dumping

Normal value

for

sales to the Community.

(12) As far as the determination of normal value is concerned,
the company,
the Commission first established,
whether its total domestic sales of polyethylene tereph-
thalate were representative in comparison with its total
export
In accordance with
Article 2(2) of the Basic Regulation, domestic sales were
considered representative since the total domestic sales
volume of the exporting producer was at least 5 % of
to the Community.
its
Domestic sales of
type exported to the
Community were also representative, i.e. at least 5 % of
the sales volume exported to the Community.

sales volume
the product

export

total

(13) An examination was also made as

to whether

the
domestic sales could be regarded as having been made
in the ordinary course of
trade, by establishing the
proportion of profitable sales to independent customers.
The sales volume of the product concerned sold at a net
sales price equal
to or above the calculated cost of
production (‘profitable sales’) represented 80 % or more
of the total sales volume and the weighted average price
of that type was above cost of production. Consequently
normal value was based on the actual domestic price,
calculated as a weighted average of
the prices of all
domestic sales made during the investigation period, irres-
pective of whether all these sales were profitable or not.

Export price

(14) Since all export sales to the Community were made 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.

Comparison

(15) For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between
normal value and 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.

(16) All

the export sales allowances were accepted. These
related to inland freight, other freight, bank charges,
other charges and packing.

29.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 262 E/13

(17) All the domestic sales allowances claimed by the company
were accepted, i.e. credit costs, commissions and indirect
taxes. Since test certificates for the product showed a
quality difference between that sold domestically and
for
that exported to the Community, an adjustment
differences in physical characteristics was made. This
difference was quantified by comparing prices of
the
two qualities sold to third countries.

Dumping margin

(18) According to Article 2(11) of the Basic Regulation, the
dumping margin was established on the basis of a
comparison between the weighted average normal value
by type and the weighted average export price.

(19) This weighted average dumping margin established for
the free-

the company, expressed as a percentage of
at-Community-frontier price, amounts to 14,7 %.

E. AMENDMENT OF THE MEASURES BEING REVIEWED

(20) In the light of

it

the foregoing,

is considered that a
definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed at the
in accordance
level of the dumping margin found but,
with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, should not be
higher than the country-wide injury margin established
for India by the definitive Regulation in the original anti-
dumping investigation. In this case the anti-dumping duty
was based on the dumping margin mentioned above since
the investigation, pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic
Regulation, was
the
the company concerned and
situation of dumping of
the country-wide injury margin of the original
investi-
gation was higher.

limited to the examination of

(21) In accordance with Article 14(1) of the Basic Regulation,
no product shall be subject to both antidumping and
countervailing duties for the purposes of dealing with
one and the same situation arising from dumping or
anti-dumping duties
from export
should
the product
imposed on imports of
concerned it is necessary to determine whether, and to
what extent, the subsidy and the dumping margin arise
from the same situation.

subsidisation. As

be

G. UNDERTAKING

(24) The company, Futura Polymers Ltd, offered a price under-
taking concerning its exports of the product concerned to
the Community, in accordance with Article 8(1) of the
basic Regulation.

(25) After

the offer,

examination of

the Commission
considered the undertaking as acceptable since it would
eliminate the injurious effects of dumping pursuant to
the
Article 8(1) of
regular
company
undertook to provide to the Commission will allow
the
effective monitoring. Furthermore,
product and the sales structure of the company is such
that the Commission considers that the risk of circum-
vention is limited.

the basic Regulation. Moreover,
reports which the

the nature of

detailed

and

(26) In order to ensure the effective respect and monitoring of
the undertaking, when the request for release for free
circulation pursuant
to the undertaking is presented,
exemption from the duty is conditional upon presentation
to the customs service of the Member State concerned a
valid ‘Commercial Invoice’ issued by Futura Polymers Ltd
and containing the information listed in the Annex of
Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000. Where no such invoice
is presented, or when it does not correspond to the
product presented to customs, the appropriate rate of
anti-dumping duty should be payable in order to ensure
the effective application of the undertaking.

(27) In the event of a breach or withdrawal of the undertaking
an anti-dumping duty may be imposed, pursuant
to
Article 8(9) and (10) of the basic Regulation.

H. DISCLOSURE AND DURATION OF THE MEASURES

(28) The company concerned was informed of the facts and
considerations on the basis of which it was intended to
impose the amended definitive anti-dumping duty on its
imports into the Community.

(29) This review does not affect the date on which Regulation
(EC) No 2604/2000 will expire pursuant to Article 11(2)
of the Basic Regulation,

(22) In the case in question the company concerned coop-
erated in the initial anti-subsidy case and the counter-
vailing duty has been established at 0 %.

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

F. RETROACTIVE LEVYING OF THE ANTI-DUMPING
DUTY

(23) As the review has resulted in a determination of dumping
in respect of the company concerned, the anti-dumping
duty applicable to this company shall also be levied retro-
actively from the date of
this review on
imports which have been made subject to registration
pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1240/2001.

initiation of

Article 1

1.
The text concerning Futura Polymer Limited in Article
1(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 is hereby replaced by:

Country

Company

Definitive duty
(EUR/t)

TARIC
additional code

India

Futura Polymer Limited

161,2

A184

C 262 E/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

29.10.2002

The

2.
2604/2000 is hereby amended by:

table

in Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No

Company

Futura Polymer Limited

Country

India

TARIC
additional code

A184

The duty hereby imposed shall also be levied retroactively
the product concerned which have been
(EC)

of Regulation

to Article

pursuant

3

3.
on imports of
registered
No 1240/2001.

Unless otherwise

4.
concerning customs duties shall apply.

specified,

the provisions

in force

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publi-
cation in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

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