Council Regulation (EC) No 496/2002 of 18 March 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating, amongst other countries, in India
Date: 2002-03-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: India, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, import, originating product, plastics

L 78/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.3.2002

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 496/2002

of 18 March 2002

amending Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
certain polyethylene terephthalate originating, amongst other countries, in India

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

had exported the product concerned to the Community
since then.

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,

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

Whereas:

A. MEASURES IN FORCE

(1)

(2)

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/tonne on
imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate (herein-
after referred to as ‘the product concerned’) originating,
inter alia, in India, with the exception of imports from
several Indian companies specifically mentioned, which
are subject to a lesser rate of duty. By Regulation (EC)
No 2604/2000 (3), the Council imposed a definitive anti-
dumping duty in the form of a specific amount per
tonne of EUR 181,7/tonne on imports of certain poly-
in India,
ethylene terephthalate originating,
with the exception of
Indian
companies specifically mentioned, which are subject to
different rates of duty. The product is currently classifi-
able under CN code 3907 60 20.

imports from several

inter alia,

B. CURRENT INVESTIGATION

The Commission subsequently received a request
to
initiate a ‘new exporter’ review of Regulation (EC) No
2604/2000, pursuant to Article 11(4) of Regulation (EC)
No 384/96 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Basic Regula-
tion’), from the Indian producer Futura Polymers Ltd
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the company concerned’). This
company claimed that it was not related to any of the
exporting producers in India subject to the anti-dumping
measures in force with regard to the product concerned.
Furthermore,
it claimed that it had not exported the
product concerned during the original period of invest-
igation (1 October 1998 to 30 September 1999), but

(1) OJ L 56, 06.03.1996, p.1. Regulation as last amended by Regula-

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

(2) OJ L 301, 30.11.2000, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 301, 30.11.2000, p. 21.

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

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

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

of

By the Regulation initiating the review, the Commission
also repealed the anti-dumping duty imposed by Regula-
tion (EC) No 2604/2000 with regard to imports of the
product concerned, produced and exported to the
Community by the company concerned and directed
customs authorities, pursuant to Article 14(5) of the
Basic Regulation, to take appropriate steps to register
such imports.

The Commission officially
advised
the
company
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.

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.

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

The same methodology as that used in the original
investigation was applied in the current investigation.

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

21.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 78/5

C. SCOPE OF THE REVIEW

made during the investigation period,
whether all these sales were profitable or not.

irrespective of

(10) As no request for a review of the findings on injury was
made in this investigation, the review was limited to
dumping.

E x p o r t p r i c e

D. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

1. New exporter qualification

(11)

confirmed

investigation

company
The
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.

that

the

to

according

documentary

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

it

is

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

that

the

2. Dumping

N o r m a l v a l u e

(12) As

the determination of normal value
the Commission first established,

is
far as
concerned,
for the
company, whether its total domestic sales of polyethy-
lene terephthalate were representative in comparison
with its total export sales to the Community. In accord-
ance 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
sales volume to the
least 5 % of
Community. Domestic
type
exported to the Community were also representative, i.e.
at
the sales volume exported to the
Community.

least 5 % of

the product

total export

sales of

its

(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 propor-
tion 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

(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.

C o m p a r i s o n

(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.

(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 domesti-
cally and that exported to the Community, an adjust-
for differences in physical characteristics was
ment
made. This difference was quantified by comparing
prices of the two qualities sold to third countries.

D u m p i n g m a r g i n

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

E. AMENDMENT OF THE MEASURES BEING REVIEWED

(20)

In the light of the foregoing,
it is considered that a
definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed at the
level of the dumping margin found but, in accordance
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.
anti-
dumping duty was based on the dumping margin
mentioned above since the investigation, pursuant to
Article 11(4) of the Basic Regulation, was limited to the
examination of
the
company concerned and the country-wide injury margin
investigation was higher.
of the original

situation of dumping of

In this

case

the

the

L 78/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.3.2002

(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
subsidisation. As anti-dumping duties
from export
should be imposed on imports of the product concerned
it is necessary to determine whether, and to what extent,
the subsidy and the dumping margin arise from the
same situation.

(22)

In the case in question the company concerned cooper-
ated in the initial anti-subsidy case and the counter-
vailing duty has been established at 0 %.

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 retroactively from the date of initiation of this
review on imports which have been made subject to
registration pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No
1240/2001.

G. UNDERTAKING

(24)

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

(25) After examination of the offer, the Commission consid-
ered the undertaking as acceptable since it would elimi-
nate the injurious effects of dumping pursuant to Article
8(1) of the Basic Regulation. Moreover, the regular and
detailed reports which the company undertook to
allow effective
provide
monitoring. Furthermore, the nature of the product and
the sales structure of the company is such that the
Commission considers that the risk of circumvention is
limited.

to the Commission will

(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 presenta-
the Member State
tion to the customs
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 corre-
spond to the product presented to customs, the appro-

service of

priate rate of anti-dumping duty should be payable in
order to ensure the effective application of the under-
taking.

(27)

In the event of a breach or withdrawal of the under-
taking, 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)

(29)

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.

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,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

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

Country

Company

Definitive duty
(Euro/t)

TARIC addi-
tional code

India

Futura Polymers Limited

161,2

A184

The table in Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2604/
2.
2000 is hereby amended by the insertion of the following as a
third entry:

Company

Country

TARIC additional code

Futura Polymers Limited

India

A184

The duty hereby imposed shall also be levied retroactively
3.
on imports of the product concerned which have been regis-
tered pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1240/2001.

4.
Unless otherwise specified,
concerning customs duties shall apply.

the provisions

in force

Article 2

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

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

Done at Brussels, 18 March 2002.

For the Council

The President

M. ARIAS CAÑETE