Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1950/97 imposing definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of sacks and bags made of polyethylene or polypropylene originating, inter alia, in India
Date: 2002-08-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: India, anti-dumping duty, dumping, import, originating product, packaging product, plastics

31.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 331 E/181

Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1950/97 imposing definitive
anti-dumping measures on imports of sacks and bags made of polyethylene or polypropylene
originating, inter alia, in India

(2002/C 331 E/34)

COM(2002) 461 final

(Submitted by the Commission on 26 August 2002)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

In 1997, by Regulation (EC) No 1950/97 the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports
of sacks and bags made of polyethylene or polypropylene originating in India. Two subsequent reviews
have introduced individual antidumping duties for a number of new exporters.

The present interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 was initiated on 26
January 2001. The review was limited to the aspects of dumping.

Dumping has been established at significant levels for all companies concerned and ranges from 6,7 % to
33,5 %.

Member States were consulted and unanimously supported the proposal of the Commission Services.

It is consequently proposed to amend the existing duties applicable to imports of sacks and bags made of
polyethylene or polypropylene originating in India, and approve the publication of the attached Regulation
in the Official Journal of the European Community.

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

(2) This Regulation was subsequently amended by Regu-
lations (EC) No 96/1999 (3) and (EC) No 2744/2000 (4)
with the purpose of determining dumping margins for
new exporters as foreseen in Article 11(4) of the Basic
Regulation.

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)
(the
‘Basic Regulation’) and in particular Article 11(3) thereof,

2. Present investigation

(i) Initiation

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

Whereas:

A. PROCEDURE

1. Previous investigations

(1) By Regulation (EC) No 1950/97 (2), the Council imposed
definitive anti-dumping measures on certain imports of
sacks and bags made of polyethylene and polypropylene
(‘product concerned’) originating, inter alia, in India.

(3) The European Association for Textile Polyolefins (‘the
for an interim review,
applicant’)
lodged a request
limited to the aspects of dumping for
the product
concerned originating in India, pursuant to Article 11(3)
of the Basic Regulation, on behalf of European producers
representing a major proportion, in this case 65 %, of the
total Community production of the product concerned.

that

sufficient

(4) Having determined, after consultation of

the Advisory
existed for
the
Committee,
initiation of
the Commission
published a notice of initiation in the Official Journal of
the European Communities (5) and commenced the investi-
gation.

an interim review,

evidence

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No

2238/2000 (OJ L 257, 11.10.2000, p. 2).

(2) OJ L 276, 9.10.1997, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 11, 12.1.1999, p. 1.
(4) OJ L 316, 15.12.2000, p. 67.
(5) OJ C 26, 26.1.2001, p. 2.

C 331 E/182

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.12.2002

(ii) Investigation and sampling

— Neo Sack Ltd, Indore,

(5) The Commission

advised

officially

the originating country, and the applicant, of

exporting
the representatives
producers known to be concerned,
the
of
initiation of
review investigation, and gave all
parties directly concerned the opportunity to make their
views known in writing and to request a hearing.

the

the

(6) A number of exporting producers

in the countries
concerned, as well as Community importers made their
views known in writing. All parties who so requested
were granted the opportunity to be heard.

(7) The Commission has determined that

the number of
exporting producers of the product concerned in India
has increased significantly since the original investigation.
It has therefore been decided to apply sampling tech-
niques in accordance with Article 17 of the Basic Regu-
lation.

(8) In order to enable the Commission to select a sample,
exporting producers and representatives acting on their
behalf were requested to make themselves known within
15 days of
the notice of
the date of publication of
initiation and to provide basic information on their
production, domestic and export sales. The authorities
of the country concerned were also contacted by the
Commission with a request to assist it in the selection
of the sample.

(9) A total of forty-five companies replied to the sampling
questionnaire within the time limits. Of those, 22 had
production and sales to the Community of the product
concerned during the period between 1 December 2000
and 30 November 2001 (‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’).

(10) The choice of the sample was made in consultation with
the representatives of the companies and the authorities
of the country concerned. An agreement was reached on
a sample of eight companies covering more than 80 % of
the total exports of
the product concerned to the
Community during the IP.

(11) Nine companies not selected in the sample have requested
individual examination. In view of the large number of
requests which was even exceeding the number of
companies selected in the sample, it was considered that
unduly
such
burdensome in the sense of Article 17(3) of the Basic
Regulation. Therefore, no such requests could be granted.

examinations would

individual

be

— Polyspin Private Ltd, Rajapalayam and its
company Polyspin Exports Ltd, Rajapalayam,

related

— Pithampur Poly Products Ltd, Indore,

— Shankar Packaging Ltd, Vadodara.

(13) Subsequent to the verification carried out in India, the
Commission collected information from importers of the
product concerned in the Community. The following
importers were also visited:

— Cojubel NV, Lendelede, Belgium,

— Eurea BVBA, Antwerp, Belgium,

— Rova NV, Oudenaarde, Belgium,

— Texbern SARL, Lyon, France,

— Markopulos SA, Athens Greece,

— Alex Pak SA, Athens, Greece.

(14) The Commission also collected information from and

visited custom authorities in the Member States.

(15) Owing to the complexity of the case and the difficulties
found, the duration of the investigation has taken more
than 12 months.

B. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE
PRODUCT

1. Product under consideration

(16) The product covered by the current review is the same
product as the one under consideration in Regulation (EC)
No 1950/97.

(17) The product concerned is woven sacks and bags of a kind
used for the packaging of goods, not knitted or crocheted,
obtained from a polyethylene or polypropylene strip or
the like of woven fabrics, weighing 120 g/m2 or less and
originating in India. This product is currently classifiable
within
6305 33 91,
ex 3923 21 00, ex 3923 29 10 and ex 3923 29 90.

6305 32 81,

codes

CN

(12) The Commission sent questionnaires to the companies
selected in the sample, and carried out verifications at
the premises of the following selected companies in India:

2. Like product

— Gilt Pack Ltd, Indore,

— Hyderabad Polymers Private Ltd, Hyderabad,

— Kanpur Plastipack Ltd, Kanpur,

(18) It was established that the sacks and bags sold on the
Indian market and the sacks and bags exported from
India to the Community were identical, or closely
in terms of physical characteristics and end
resembling,
uses. Therefore,
these sacks and bags were considered
alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the Basic
Regulation.

31.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 331 E/183

C. DUMPING

2. Normal value

1. Non-cooperation

even

forged

deliberately

(19) The Commission's investigation revealed that 4 exporters
representing the majority of exports from India supplied
false and misleading information, and in a number of
cases
and manipulated
documents. A number of irregularities has been estab-
reporting of product
incorrect
lished including the
types, specifications, export destination, quantities and/or
values on invoices and shipping documents in order to
increase the average export price to non-dumped levels,
the deliberate omission of transactions, or the presen-
tation of unreliable accounting information. Product
descriptions, quantities and weights found on the official
documents provided by unrelated importers and custom
authorities were often different from the ones submitted
during the on-spot verification and from the information
that had been reported to the Commission in the ques-
tionnaire reply. Evidence was also received of at least two
attempts to persuade importers to submit manipulated
documents to the Commission.

(20) The non-cooperating exporters have been informed indi-
vidually in detail of the Commissions findings in this
respect. Some of
the
verified data for domestic sales and cost of production
should not be disregarded because those irregularities
would relate only to the export data.

them nevertheless argued that

(21) However,

the

the nature and extent of

false and
misleading information cast doubt on the integrity of all
the data submitted by the companies, be it for the export
or domestic market.
It has therefore been decided to
entirely disregard all the information provided and use
other
these four
companies,
in accordance with Article 18 of the Basic
Regulation. No individual dumping margin was calculated
for these companies.

information available in respect of

(22) For another company, whose information on the costs of
it
production could not be considered entirely reliable,
the information
was necessary to disregard some of
provided and make partial use of
in
accordance with Article 18(1) of the Basic Regulation.
Findings were
on the
nevertheless mostly
information provided by the company.

facts available,

based

(23) For the remaining three companies, it was considered that
reasonably accurate findings could be established on the
basis of
the information provided, adjusted wherever
necessary in view of the results of the on-spot verifi-
cations, in order to arrive at a dumping determination.

(24) Normal value was established according to Article 2 of
the Basic Regulation. Therefore,
it was first established
whether the companies' total domestic sales of the like
product were representative in comparison with their
the product concerned to the
total export
Community.
the
Basic Regulation, and since the total domestic sales
volume exceeded 5 % of the total export sales volume
to the Community,
the like
product were found to be representative for three of the
four companies for which an individual dumping margin
was calculated.

sales of
In accordance with Article 2(2) of

the domestic sales of

(25) A similar test was subsequently performed for each of the
product types sold domestically that were identical or
directly comparable to the types sold for export to the
Community. For each product type, it was established that
the domestic sales were sufficiently representative in
the Basic Regulation,
accordance with Article 2(2) of
when the sales volume of that type exceeded 5 % of the
sales volume of
the identical or comparable types
exported to the Community.

(26) An examination was also made as

to whether

the
domestic sales of each product type could be regarded
as having been made in the ordinary course of trade, by
establishing the proportion of the profitable sales to inde-
pendent customers of the type in question. Domestic sales
were considered profitable when the net sales value was
equal or above the calculated cost of production of each
type concerned (‘profitable sales’).

(27) As far as the costs of production are concerned, none of
the companies had an established cost accounting system.
A number of corrections had to be introduced to the cost
allocation methods, which the companies had elaborated
exclusively for the purpose of the present investigation, in
particular regarding the allocation of raw material costs,
on the basis of the findings of the on-spot verification.

(28) The cost of production of each product type sold on the
domestic market, corrected as explained above, was
compared to its net domestic sales price. In cases where
profitable sales of each type represented 80 % or more of
the total sales volume, the normal value was based on the
actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of
the prices of all domestic sales of that type made during
the IP, irrespective of whether all these sales were prof-
itable or not. In cases where the proportion of profitable
sales amounted to less than 80 %, but at least 10 % of
total domestic sales, normal value was established as a
weighted average of
the domestic prices of profitable
sales.

C 331 E/184

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.12.2002

(29) In cases where the volume of profitable sales of any
product
the total
type represented less than 10 % of
sales volume, it was considered that this particular type
was sold in insufficient quantities for the domestic price
to provide an appropriate basis for the establishment of
the normal value. This was the case for all but one
product type of one company.

(30) In the absence of domestic sales made by other producers
in the ordinary course of trade, normal value could not be
established on the basis of prices of other sellers or
producers.

(31) Normal value was therefore constructed in accordance
with Article 2(3) of the Basic Regulation, by adding to
the manufacturing cost of the exported types, adjusted
where necessary, a reasonable percentage for selling,
general and administrative costs (‘SG&A’) and a reasonable
margin of profit.

price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of
the Basic Regulation.

(36) All companies claimed adjustments for differences in the
level of trade on the basis that they sell to end users on
the domestic market and to traders on the export market.

(37) The investigation showed export prices which were at a
different level of trade than the normal value, and that
there were distinct differences in functions for these levels
of trade as required by Article 2(10)(d) of the Basic Regu-
lation. However, as the existing difference in level of trade
could not be quantified because of the absence of the
relevant levels of trade on the Indian domestic market,
a special adjustment was granted under Article 2(10)(d)(ii).
This allowance was 10 % of the gross margin as used for
the construction of the normal values, in the absence of
any other information.

(32) For

the companies with a representative volume of
domestic sales their own SG&A expenses were used.
One company did not have a representative volume of
domestic sales. For this company the weighted average of
three
the actual amounts determined for
companies
of
production and sales of the like product in the domestic
Indian market was used, in accordance with Article 2(6)(a)
of the Basic Regulation.

to investigation in respect

the other

subject

(38) Some

companies

claimed an adjustment

for duty
drawback under Article (2)(10)(b) of the Basic Regulation.
However, none of the companies could demonstrate that
any import charges or indirect taxes were borne by the
like product or by materials physically incorporated
therein, when
the
exporting country, as required by Article (2)(10)(b) of
the Basic Regulation. Therefore, no such adjustment
could be granted.

consumption

intended

for

in

(33) None of the cooperating companies had profitable sales
representing 10 % or more of total domestic sales volume
of the product concerned. In the absence of sales of the
same general category of products from which a profit
rate could have been derived, the Commission decided to
use a profit rate of 5 % according to Article 2(6)(c) of the
Basic Regulation. This
considered a conservative
estimate and is in line with the findings of the previous
investigations.

is

for alleged differences

(39) Some companies claimed an adjustment to the normal
costs
in raw material
value
between those used for
the production of exported
products and those used for domestic products. The
claimed differences
raw
materials are purchased domestically, either because a
to
producer
drawback when the products are exported, or because
he can obtain an import
to a
domestic supplier and in exchange for a discount in the
raw material price.

license, endorse it

claim an amount

case where

equivalent

can still

in the

arise,

3. Export price

(34) All companies made their export sales to the Community
directly to independent
In accordance with
Article 2(8) of the Basic Regulation, their export prices
were therefore established on the basis of
the prices
actually paid or payable by these independent importers.

importers.

(40) However,

this kind of mechanism falls under Article
(2)(10)(b) of
the Basic Regulation. and therefore any
such claims should be discussed in the scope of that
Article. Consequently, there is no justification to make
an adjustment under Article 2(10)(k). As
explained
under recital
(38) an adjustment under Article 2(10)(b)
is also not justified.

4. Comparison

(35) For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between
the normal value and the export price, due allowance in
the form of adjustments was made for differences in
transportation, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary
costs, credit cost, commissions and level of trade, affecting

(41) Several companies claimed that in this review investi-
gation a different methodology was applied as compared
to the one applied in the investigation which led to the
duty. Their allegation was that
the Commission had
requested a more detailed product classification had
been requested in order to compare normal value to
export price than in the original investigation.

31.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 331 E/185

and market value of

(42) This claim cannot be accepted. It is not considered that a
request for a clear, precise and realistic identification of
the different types of product concerned produced and
sold constitutes a change in methodology. The investi-
gation has confirmed that the request of the Commission
was relevant, justified and would not constitute an unduly
burdensome requirement for the companies in question.
The number of specifications having an impact on the
cost
concerned
required a more detailed product specification than the
one provided in the original
investigation. This more
detailed product description would allow a more precise
comparison between normal value and export price of
In fact,
clearly defined and identical product
in
when confronted with the striking discrepancies
the companies
terms of prices and costs within what
these
claimed to be a same product
companies has reconsidered its refusal
the
types as requested, and within 24 hours has
product
provided such information.

type, one of

the product

to report

types.

5. Dumping margins

(i) Companies with an individual dumping margin

(43) For the companies within the sample for which no use
was made of the provisions of Article 18 of the Basic
Regulation (see recital (23)) dumping margins were estab-
lished individually on the basis of a comparison of the
weighted average normal value by product type with a
weighted average export price by product type.

companies,

In view of

(44) Polyspin Exports was found to be related to Polyspin
Private during the investigation period. Both companies
the close
have two directors in common.
relationship found between these
there
would be a high risk that the anti-dumping measures
could be circumvented by channelling exports to the
Community through the
lower
dumping if two different dumping margins were estab-
lished. It was therefore concluded that only one margin,
based on the weighted average of the dumping margins
found in each company, should be established for the two
companies as was also the case in the original
investi-
gation. The dumping margins
expressed as a
free-at-Community-frontier
percentage of
price, before duty:

company with the

the CIF net

are,

— Hyderabad Polymers Pvt Ltd: 24,3 %

— Polyspin Export Ltd and Polyspin Private Ltd: 17,2 %.

(45) For the company in respect of which partial use was
made of the provisions of Article 18 of the Basic Regu-

type. The company argued that

lation (see recital (22)), a pattern of export prices which
differ significantly between purchasers and regions was
established. The export prices varied significantly by
the full degree of
region, and by purchaser. Hence,
reflected in the
dumping being practised was not
comparison of a weighted average normal value by
product type with a weighted average export price by
product
the variation
among customers and regions could actually be attributed
types. However, a breakdown by
to different product
product type shows a similar range of variation for the
types which are sold in sufficient quantity to allow for
such an analysis. This argument was therefore rejected. A
comparison of
individual export prices and individual
normal values for individual transactions, on the other
hand, would
and
consequently would not have reflected the full degree of
dumping due in particular to the lack of a sufficient
number of comparable domestic transactions. Since it
there was a pattern of export prices
was found that
and
which differed significantly between purchasers
the weighted average
regions,
to
the transaction by transaction
weighted average nor
full degree of
reflected the
method would have
dumping, the dumping margin was established on the
basis of a comparison by product type of the weighted
average normal value with the prices of all
individual
export transactions in accordance with Article 2(11) of
the Basic Regulation. The dumping margin, expressed as
a percentage of the CIF net free-at-Community-frontier
price, before duty is:

and as neither

feasible

been

have

have

not

— Pithampur Poly Products Ltd: 6,7 %.

(ii) Companies for which no individual margin was calculated

(46) The dumping margin for companies which submitted the
necessary information requested in Article 17 of the Basic
Regulation in due time, which expressed their willingness
to cooperate in the sample, and which produced and
exported the product concerned to the Community
during the investigation period, but which were not
selected in the sample and were not examined indi-
vidually, has been established on the basis of
the
weighted average dumping margin of the companies in
the sample pursuant to Article 9(6) of the Basic Regu-
lation. Since, according to this Article, the margins estab-
lished in the circumstances referred to in Article 18 of the
Basic Regulation must be disregarded, the sample now
represents only 20 % of
the product
concerned to the Community during the investigation
period by the companies willing to cooperate. Given the
circumstances, namely the impossibility of re-constituting
a new and more representative sample,
still
considered sufficiently representative of the total exports
to the Community.
the
companies which were not chosen for the sample also
account
Indian exports to the
Community (see recital
(10)). This weighted average
dumping margin was, expressed as a percentage of the
CIF net
free-at-Community-frontier price before duty,
20,6 %.

It should also be noted that

for only 20 % of

the exports of

total

this

is

C 331 E/186

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.12.2002

for

(47) For the four companies for which an individual dumping
margin could not be calculated for the reasons given in
recital (20) the Commission made use of the information
available pursuant to Article 18 of the Basic Regulation.
The Commission also considered that the level of the
dumping margin established
companies,
relative to that
found for the cooperating companies,
should not provide an incentive to non-cooperation.
Accordingly it was decided to apply the weighted
the highest dumping margins found for a
average of
number of product types sold in representative quantities
by the companies for which an individual calculation
could be made, that is, 33,5 %. This duty should also
apply to Naviska Packaging, a company related to Gilt
Pack Ltd which changed its name to Giltpac International
India Private Limited after the investigation period.

these

(48) The dumping margin for all other non-cooperating
companies was set according to the information available,
at the same level as that for companies under recital (47).
This approach was considered necessary in view of the
high degree of non-cooperation and in order to avoid the
risk of circumvention.

D. PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE MEASURES UNDER
REVIEW

(49) According to Article 9(4) of the Basic Regulation, the
duties should not exceed the margin of dumping estab-
lished but should be less than the margin if such lesser
duty would be adequate to remove the injury of
the
Community industry. Given the fact that this review is
limited to the examination of the dumping aspects, the
level of duties imposed should not be higher than the
injury levels found in the original investigation.

(50) Since the injury levels found in the original investigation
are in every case higher than the dumping margins found
in the present review, the level of the duties should be set
at that of the dumping margins found:

— Aditya Bags Ltd: 20,6 %

— Big Bags India Pvt Ltd: 20,6 %

— Big Bags International Pvt Ltd: 20,6 %

— Buildmet Fibres Private Ltd: 20,6 %

— Cigfil Limited: 20,6 %

— Kanpur Plastipack Ltd: 33,5 %

— M/S Polyweave: 20,6 %

— M/S TPI India Limited: 20,6 %

— Neo Sack Ltd: 33,5 %

— Olive Commercial Co Ltd: 20,6 %

— Polyspin Export Ltd and Polyspin Private Ltd: 17,2 %

— Pithampur Poly Products Ltd: 6,7 %

— Sangam Cirfab Pvt Ltd: 20,6 %

— Shankar Packaging Ltd: 33,5 %

— Subham Polymers Ltd: 20,6 %

— Superpack Ltd: 20,6 %

— Synthetic Fibres (Mysore) Pvt Ltd: 20,6 %

— Tulsyan Nec Ltd: 20,6 %

— Vijay Chemicals & Plastics Pvt Ltd: 20,6 %

— Virgo Polymer Ltd: 20,6 %

— All other companies: 33,5 %.

E. UNDERTAKINGS

(51) In the light of

the
the provisions of Article 15 of
Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of
the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 concerning
Developing Country Members, the Commission informed
the co-operating exporting producers that it was ready to
explore
remedies,
possibilities
including any offer of price undertakings.

constructive

the

of

(52) Fourteen Indian exporting-producers offered price under-
takings in accordance with Article 8(1) of the Basic Regu-
lation.

— Gilt Pack Ltd and Giltpac International India Private

Ltd: 33,5 %

— Hyderabad Polymers Pvt Ltd: 24,3 %

— Innova Polypak Private Ltd: 20,6 %

(53) The investigation has shown that the product concerned
comprises numerous and evolving differentiating features,
which can substantially affect sales prices. These features
would make any system of undertaking prices (in the
form of minimum import prices) particularly complex
and difficult
in particular given the poor
record of cooperation shown in the sampling exercise.

to enforce,

31.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 331 E/187

(54) Moreover, in a number of cases the product classification
proposed was not sufficiently detailed to allow a proper
monitoring, or the price level proposed did not allow for
the removal of the injurious dumping.

(55) In addition, most of the exporters which offered under-
takings also sell similar products not covered by the
present investigation (such as ‘jumbo bags’) to by and
customers
in the Community and
same
the
large
job work for other Indian
perform different
types of
companies. The potential
the
circumvention of
for
measures through price compensation and export chan-
nelling is therefore considered high.

(56) In view of the above, it was concluded that any under-
takings would present both considerable monitoring and
enforcement difficulties and unacceptable risks. Therefore,
it was not considered appropriate to accept any of the
undertakings offered.

(57) The companies concerned were informed of the facts and
considerations on the basis of which it is intended to
the Regulation (EC) No
propose the amendment of
1950/97 and were given the opportunity to comment.
Comments were received and taken into consideration
where appropriate.

(58) The review carried out does not affect the date on which
Regulation (EC) No 1950/97 will expire pursuant
to
Article 11(2) of the Basic Regulation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In Regulation (EC) No 1950/97, Article 1(2)(a) is replaced by:

factured by the following companies, which shall be subject
to the following rates of duty:

Company

Aditya Bags Ltd

Big Bags India Pvt Ltd

Big Bags International Pvt Ltd

Buildmet Fibres Private Ltd

Cigfil Limited

Gilt Pack Ltd and Giltpac Inter-
national India Private Ltd

Hyderabad Polymers Pvt Ltd

Innova Polypak Private Ltd

Kanpur Plastipack Ltd

M/S Polyweave

M/S TPI India Limited

Neo Sack Ltd

Polyspin Export Ltd and Polyspin
Private Ltd

Pithampur Poly Products Ltd

Sangam Cirfab Pvt Ltd

Shankar Packaging Ltd

Subham Polymers Ltd

Superpack Ltd

Synthetic Fibres (Mysore) Pvt Ltd

Tulsyan Nec Ltd

Vijay Chemicals & Plastics Pvt Ltd

Virgo Polymer Ltd

Article 2

Rate
of duty
(%)

20,6 %

20,6 %

20,6 %

20,6 %

20,6 %

33,5 %

24,3 %

20,6 %

33,5 %

20,6 %

20,6 %

33,5 %

20,6 %

17,2 %

6,7 %

20,6 %

33,5 %

20,6 %

20,6 %

20,6 %

20,6 %

20,6 %

20,6 %

Taric
additional
code

8424

8424

8424

8944

8424

8945

8106

8424

8946

8424

8424

8947

8424

8948

8155

8156

8949

8424

8424

8157

8424

8424

8424’

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that
of
the European
Communities.

its publication in the Official

Journal of

F. DISCLOSURE AND DURATION OF THE MEASURES

Olive Commercial Co Ltd

‘(a) 33,5 % for sacks and bags originating in India (Taric code
imports manu-

additional 8900) with the exception of

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