Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in Belarus
Date: 2002-09-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Belarus, anti-dumping duty, electric cable, import, man-made fibre, originating product

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 24.09.2002
COM(2002) 522 final

Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres
originating in Belarus

(presented by the Commission)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

In 1996 a definitive anti-dumping duty of 43,5% was imposed on imports of PSF originating
in Belarus. In 1997 the measures were extended to cover imports of PFT, which circumvented
the original  measure.  The Commission  received  two  requests  to review  (interim  review  and
expiry review) these measures. Given the partial overlap in time between the two proceedings
they were merged into one investigation.

The investigation showed that the Belarussian exporting producer continued to sell its PSF at
dumped  prices  albeit  at  a  lower  level  (21%)  than  during  the  original  investigation.
Furthermore, the Community industry is still in a vulnerable state. It lost market share and the
level  of  sales  prices  and  profits  is  not  satisfactory.  Given,  in  particular,  the  large  spare
production  capacity  available  in  Belarus,  there  is  a  likelihood  of  recurrence  of  injurious
dumping in the absence of anti-dumping measures. No reasons of Community interests were
found  against  the  prolongation  of  the  measures.    It  is  therefore  proposed  to  prolong  the
definitive anti-dumping  duties  on  PSF  and PFT  originating  in  Belarus  but to  halve the  duty
(from 43,5% to 21%).

Member  states  were  consulted  on  25  July  2002:  ten  Member  States  were  in  favour  of  the
proposal and five opposed (DK, FIN, NL, S, and UK).

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation.

2

Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres
originating in Belarus

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  Community1,
(hereinafter referred to as “the basic Regulation”) and in particular  Articles 11(2)  and 11(3)
and 13 thereof,

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

Whereas:

A.

1.

(1) 

PROCEDURE

Previous investigations

In July 1996, by Council Regulation No 1490/962, a definitive anti-dumping duty was
imposed on imports of polyester staple fibre (PSF) originating in Belarus. In 1997, by
Council  Regulation  No  2513/973  the  measures  were  extended  to  cover  imports  of
polyester  filament  tow  (PFT),  originating  in  Belarus,  which  were  made  in
circumvention of the original measures.

2.

Investigations concerning other countries

(2) 

There  are  definitive  anti-dumping  measures  currently  in  force  on  imports  of  PSF
originating  in  Taiwan  (Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1728/994),  Australia,  Indonesia
and Thailand (Council Regulation (EC)  No 1522/20005) as well  as  South  Korea  and
India (Council Regulation (EC) No 2852/20006).

1

2

3

4

5

6

OJ No L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2238/2000
(OJ No L 257, 11.10.2000, p. 2)
OJ No L 189, 30.7.1996, p. 13
OJ No L 346, 17.12.1997, p. 1
OJ No L 204, 4.8.1999, p.3
OJ No L 175, 14.7.2000, p.10
OJ No L 332, 28.12.2000, p.17

3

                                                
(3) 

By  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  902/20017  definitive  countervailing  duties  were
imposed on imports of PSF originating in Australia and Indonesia.

3.

Present investigation

3.1

Requests for an interim and an expiry review

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

In October 1999 the Commission received a request to open an interim review of the
definitive  anti-dumping  duties  in  force  (Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1490/96)  with
regard to imports into the Community of PSF originating in Belarus. This request was
followed by a request to open an expiry review on 27 April 2001.

The  request  for  an  interim  review  was  lodged  by  the  sole  exporter  in  Belarus,
Khimvolokno  Industrial  Group  VSV  Trading  Co.  (‘Khimvolokno’).  The  request  for
the interim review was based on the prima-facie evidence, provided by the applicant,
that circumstances, inter alia the domestic prices in the analogue country, on the basis
of which the measures were  established,  have  changed  and that  these  changes are of
lasting nature.

The  request  for  expiry  review  was  lodged  by  the  International  Rayon  and  Synthetic
Fibres Committee ("CIRFS") acting on behalf of Community producers representing a
major  proportion  of  the  total  Community  production  of  PSF.  The  request  for  the
expiry review was based on the grounds that the expiry of measures would be likely to
result in a recurrence of dumping and injury to the Community industry.

3.2.

Notices of initiation

(7) 

(8) 

The Commission, having determined that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation
of an interim review, and after consultation of the Advisory Committee, announced by
a  notice  (“Notice  of  Initiation”)  published  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European
Communities8 the initiation of an  investigation pursuant  to Article  11(3) of  the  basic
Regulation with regard to imports into the Community of PSF originating in Belarus,
limited in scope to the examination of dumping.

The  Commission,  after  consultation  of  the  Advisory  Committee,  announced  by  a
Notice  of  Initiation  published  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities9
the  initiation  of  an  investigation  with  regard  to  imports  into  the  Community  of  PSF
originating in Belarus in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

3.3

Period of investigation

(9) 

The investigation period for dumping for the interim review is 1 October 1999 to 30
September  2000  (“interim  IP”).  The  investigation  period  for  dumping  for  the  expiry
review  is  1  July  2000  to  30  June  2001  (“expiry  IP”).  The  period  considered  for  the
assessment  of  the  situation  of  the  Community  industry,  as  applied  in  the  expiry
review,  covered  the  period  from  1  January  1997  to  the  end  of  the  expiry  IP  ("the
period considered").

7

8

9

OJ No L 127, 9.5.2001, p. 20
OJ C 352, 8.12.2000, p.6
OJ C 211, 28.7.2001, p.51

4

                                                
Given  the  partial  overlap  of  the  interim  IP  and  the  expiry  IP,  it  was  considered
appropriate  for  reasons  of  administrative  efficiency  to  merge  the  two  investigations
into one investigation.

4.

Parties concerned by the investigation

(10)  The  Commission  officially  advised  the  applicant  exporting  producer  in  Belarus,
CIRFS  and  the  applicant  Community  producers,  exporting  producers  and  importers
known  to  be  concerned,  the  authorities  of  the  exporting  country  and  their
representatives,  Community  users  and  associations  known  to  be  concerned  of  the
initiation of the reviews. The parties directly concerned were given the opportunity to
make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in
the applicable notice of initiation.

(11)  The Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned and received
replies  from  four  applicant  Community  producers,  the  sole  exporting  producer  in
Belarus, one producer in the analogue country, Poland, and two importers.

(12)  The exporting producer  in  Belarus, the  applicant  Community  producers,  Community
users and importers made their views known in writing. All parties, who so requested
within the applicable time limit and which indicated that there were particular reasons
why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.

(13)  The Commission sought and verified all the information  it  deemed necessary  for  the
purpose  of  a  determination  of  the  continuation  or  recurrence  of  dumping  and  injury
and  of  the  Community  interest  and  carried  out  verifications  at  the  premises  of  the
following companies:

(a) Community producers

- Wellman International Ltd, Co Meath, Ireland,
- Trevira GmbH & Co, Frankfurt am Main, Germany,
- Trevira Fibras, S.A., Portalegre, Portugal,
- Montefibre SpA, Milano, Italy

(b) Unrelated importer in the Community

- Barnett Europe, Aachen, Germany

(c) Producer in the analogue country

- Elana S.A., Torun, Poland

B

1.

PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

Product concerned

(14)  The  product  under  consideration  is  synthetic  staple  fibres  of  polyester,  not  carded,
combed or otherwise processed for spinning, which is currently classifiable under CN
code  5503  20  00.  It  is  commonly  referred  to  as  polyester  staple  fibres  or  PSF.  It  is
recalled  that  because  of  circumvention  the  measures  were  extended  to  polyester
filament  tow,  abbreviated  as  PFT,  falling  under  CN  code  5501  20  00,  used  for
conversion in the Community into PSF.

5

(15)  The product is a basic material used at various stages of the manufacturing process of
textile products. The Community consumption of PSF is either used for spinning, i.e.
manufacturing filaments for the production of textiles, mixed or not with other fibres
such  as  cotton and wool  or  for non-woven applications  such  as  filling  (fibrefill),  i.e.
stuffing or padding of certain textile goods such as cushions, car seats and jackets.

(16)  The product is sold in different product types which can be identified through different
specifications  such  as  thickness,  length,  tenacity,  shrinkage,  lustre  and  silicon
treatment or through their classification into product families such as regular, hollow,
spiral and bi-component fibres and specialities such as coloured, branded and trilobal
fibres.

(17)  The  different  types  are  considered  as  one  product  family  for  the  purpose  of  the
investigation  because  the  basic  physical  characteristics  of  the  different  types  do  not
entail  any  significant  differences,  even  though  the  uses  and  the  quality  of  PSF  sold
might differ. There exist no clear dividing lines between the various types as there is
overlapping and consequently competition between adjacent types.

(18)  As  was  the  case  in  previous  anti-dumping  investigations  concerning  PSF,  some
parties,  in  particular  the  user  industry,  argued  that  a  differentiation  should  be  made
according to the use of PSF for spinning or non-spinning purposes because the price
setting  for the  two  applications is completely different. They suggested that  the  CN-
code for PSF should be divided into 3 or 4 different  sub-codes by denier  (thickness)
distinction and that the comparison of the  PSF produced  in  the Community  with  the
PSF imported into  the  Community should be  carried out separately  within  each  sub-
code.

(19) 

In  recital  (9)  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2852/200010  it  was  indicated  that  a
significant overlap between different types of PSFconcerning their substitutability and
competition  between  these  types  was  found  to  exist.  The  present  investigation
confirmed  this  finding.  It  also  confirmed  the  fact  that  there  is  no  clear  dividing  line
between  the  various  PSF  types  which  would  establish  a  unique  link  between  the
physical product characteristics and the use of the product. Consequently, based on the
facts available to date a product differentiation is not possible. In addition, it should be
recalled  that  a  laboratory  analysis  cannot  possibly  determine  definitely  the  ultimate
use of the PSF.

(20) 

In the present case, it should also be pointed out that no party put forward convincing
arguments  or  criteria  which  would  allow  reclassification  of  PSF  into  sub-codes.
Indeed,  as  stated  above  the  physical  characteristics  do  not  necessarily  determine  the
ultimate use of the product, and the thickness (denier) is only one of the characteristics
of the product.

(21)  Based on the above facts and considerations, it is confirmed that the various types of
PSF involved constitute one single product for the purpose of this proceeding.

10

OJ No L 332, 28.12.2000, p.17

6

                                                
2.

Like product

(22) 

It  was  concluded  in  the  original  investigation,  recital  6  of  Council  Regulation  No
1490/9611,  that  both  the  PSF  produced  and  sold  by  the  Community  industry  on  the
Community  market  and  the  PSF  produced  and  sold  on  the  market  of  the  analogue
country were, within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation, alike to the
PSF  imported  into  the  Community  from  Belarus.  Indeed,  there  are  no  differences  in
the  basic  physical  characteristics  and  uses  of  the  PSF  imported  into  the  Community
from Belarus and the PSF produced by the applicant Community producers and sold
on  the  Community  market.  PSF  originating  in  Belarus  also  has  basic  characteristics
and  uses  similar  to  the  PSF  produced  and  sold  in  the  analogue  country.  No  new
arguments  were  put  forward  to  deviate  from  these  findings  which  are  therefore
confirmed.

C.

CONTINUATION  AND  LIKELIHOOD  OF  A  CONTINUATION  OR
RECURRENCE OF DUMPING

1. 

Interim review

1.1.

Analogue country

(23)  Since Belarus is a non-market economy within the meaning of Article 2(7) of the basic
Regulation,  normal  value  had  to  be  based  on  information  obtained  in  an  appropriate
market  economy  third-country  in  which  the  product  was  produced  and  marketed.  In
the Notice of Initiation of the interim review, the Commission suggested Taiwan as an
appropriate  analogue  country,  due  to  the  fact  that  the  request  for  the  interim  review
was  based,  inter  alia,  on  the  fact  that  the  domestic  prices  in  the  analogue  country
Taiwan which were used to determine the normal value in the previous investigations
had decreased significantly.

(24)  Questionnaires  were  sent  to  known  producers  of  the  product  in  Taiwan  but,  despite
considerable  efforts  by  the  Commission,  no  co-operation  was  obtained.  The
Commission  sought  the  co-operation  of  other  known  producers  of  the  product
concerned  in  six other market economy  countries.  Only  one  producer  in  Poland  was
prepared  to  co-operate  fully  and  provided  the  necessary  information  which  was
subsequently verified.

(25)  The information provided by the Polish co-operating company has shown that Poland

is an appropriate analogue country, for the following reasons:

– 

– 

the manufacturing process and access to raw materials were, to a large extent,
similar in Poland and in Belarus,

the  Polish  producer  was  producing  and  selling  the  product  in  substantial
quantities,

11

OJ No L 189, 30.7.1996, p. 13

7

                                                
– 

despite the fact that there was only one producer of the product in Poland and
despite  the  existence  of  import  duties  on  the  product  in  respect  of  its  import
from  a  number  of  countries,  the  Polish  domestic  market  for  the  product  was
subject to normal conditions of competition, and large quantities of the product
to  which  no  import  duties  were  applied,  were  imported  from  different
originating countries.

1.2.  Normal value

(26)  As stated above, normal value was calculated on the basis of  the data  verified  at  the

premises of the Polish producer which co-operated fully in the investigation.

(27) 

It was first examined whether the Polish producer's total sales of PSF and  PFT  were
sufficiently large to constitute a reliable basis in order to determine normal value. As it
sold large quantities on its domestic market, it was concluded that this was the case.

(28)  Subsequently it was examined whether the PSF and PFT produced and sold in Poland
could  be  considered  identical  or  directly  comparable  to  the  PSF  and  PFT  sold  for
export to the Community by the Belarussian exporter. As, within each type, they have
the same chemical properties and physical  characteristics, the Polish and Belarussian
products were considered to be comparable products.

(29)  For each type of the product sold by the Polish producer on the Polish market, it was
established whether its sales on the Polish market were sufficiently large to constitute
a reliable basis to determine normal value. This was found to be the case.

(30) 

(31) 

It  was  finally  examined  whether  the  Polish  producer's  sales  of  the  product  on  the
Polish  market  could  be  considered  as  having  been  made  in  the  ordinary  course  of
trade, by looking at the proportion of profitable sales of the type in question.

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
respective  IP  (either  interim  IP  or  expiry  IP),  irrespective  of  whether  all  these  sales
were profitable or not. In cases where profitable sales represented less than 80%  but
more  than  10%  of  the  total  sales  volume  per  type,  normal  value  was  based  on  the
actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of profitable sales only.

(32) 

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

(33)  For  those  types  where  normal  value  could  not  be  based  on  domestic  prices,  normal
value  was  constructed  in  accordance  with  Article  2(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  This
was done by adding to the manufacturing cost for each type of the Polish producer, a
reasonable  amount  for  selling,  general  and  administrative  expenses  (SG&A)  and  for
profit.  In  line  with  Article  2(6)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  amounts  for  SG&A
expenses and for profit were based on sales made in the ordinary course of trade, of
the like product, by the Polish producer.

8

1.3.

Export price

(34)  Khimvolokno,  the  sole  Belarussian  exporting  producer  claimed  to  have  exported  a
substantial volume of the product to the Community during the interim IP. However,
these  “exports”  were  in  reality  sold  on  barter  trade  conditions  to  one  unrelated
company  in  the  Community  via  a  trading  company,  taking  a  small  margin,  in
Switzerland.  The  rest  was  sold  to  three  other  unrelated  traders  in  the  Community.
Prices made under barter trade arrangements are normally considered to be unreliable.
In such cases, the  export price has  to be constructed, in line with Article 2(9)  of  the
basic Regulation, on the basis of the first sale made at reliable prices. In this case, the
export  price  could  effectively  be  reconstructed  by  examining  the  transactions  from
Khimvolokno to the Swiss trading company and further to the unrelated EC company.
Indeed it was possible to establish the export price to the Community by deducting the
Swiss  intermediary’s  margin  from  the  price  they  charged  to  the  unrelated  EC
company.  This  price  then  corresponded  to  the  price  charged  by  Khimvolokno  to  the
Swiss  company,  and  could  be  considered  as  the  export  price  as  described  in  Article
2(8) of the basic Regulation.

(35)  Both  the  Swiss  intermediate  company  and  the  unrelated  company  in  the  EC  co-
operated in the proceeding and replied to a questionnaire sent by the Commission. The
verification  at  the  premises  of  the  unrelated  company  in  the  Community  has  shown
that the whole quantity purchased by that company during the interim IP was destined
for markets outside the EC, mainly the US, and effectively not imported into the EC.
According to Eurostat data, no PSF or PFT originating in Belarus  was imported into
the  EC  during  the  interim  IP.  Hence,  it  is  deducted  that  the  remaining  quantities
reported  by  Khimvolokno  as  being  sold  to  the  EC  have  also  not  effectively  been
imported  into  the  EC.  It  should  however  be  noted  that  Khimvolokno  had  apparently
reported these sales as exports to the Community in good faith, and was not aware of
the fact that these products were not effectively imported into the Community.

(36)  Following the above, since there were effectively no exports to the EC, an export price
could not be established for sales from Khimvolokno to the Community for the interim
IP.

(37) 

It  nevertheless  appears  that  if  the  Belarussian  exporting  producer  was  actually
exporting  the  product  concerned  to  the  EC,  this  would  have  been  at  prices  which
would  lead  to  a  lesser  dumping  margin  than  the  duty  of  43.5%  actually  in  force.
Indeed the prices of the quantities reported by Khimvolokno as allegedly exported to
the Community during the interim  IP indicate a considerably lower dumping margin
than  the  actual  duty  in  force.  Furthermore,  applications  for  refund  of  anti-dumping
duties paid by a  German importer on imports  before the interim  IP,  namely  between
April  1997  and  October  1997,  have  also  shown  that  the  dumping  actually  practised
during that period was less than half of the actual duties applied.

(38) 

It  was  therefore  decided  to  use  the  prices  of  the  product  allegedly  exported  to  the
Community  during  the  interim  IP  as  a  basis  for  determining  the  export  price  to  the
Community,  since  these  prices  represent  in  this  specific  case  the  most  reliable
information,  and  show  that  the  circumstances  concerning  dumping  have  changed
significantly, as required by Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.

9

(39)  Given that Belarus is considered to be a non-market economy country, a single export
price  for  the  country  as  a  whole  has  normally  to  be  established.  In  this  respect,  as
Khimvolokno  is  the  only  known  exporting  producer  of  the  Belarussian  product,  the
exports of this company have been considered representative of all exports of Belarus
to  the  Community  and  thus  the  information  submitted  by  this  company  was  used  in
order to determine the export price of the product from Belarus.

1.4.

Comparison

(40)  For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export
price,  due  allowance  in  the  form  of  adjustments  was  made  for  differences  affecting
price  comparability  in  accordance  with  Article  2(10)  of  the  basic  Regulation.
Appropriate  adjustments  were  made  in  all  cases  where  they  were  found  to  be
reasonable, accurate and supported by evidence as was the case for transport and credit
cost.

1.5.

Dumping margin

(41)  The  dumping  margin  was  established  on  the  basis  of  a  comparison  of  the  weighted
average  normal  value  per  product  type  with  a  weighted  average  export  price  by
product  type.  In  this  case,  this  method  reflects  the  full  degree  of  dumping  being
practised.  The  dumping  margin,  established  during  the  interim  IP  expressed  as  a
percentage of the CIF net free-at-Community-frontier price before duty, is 21.0%.

1.6.

Amendment of the measures under review

(42)  According  to  Article  9(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  duties  should  not  exceed  the
margin of dumping established 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 margins found during the original
investigation.

(43)  Since  the  injury  level  found  in  the  original  investigation  is  higher  than  the  dumping
margin found in the present review, the level of the duties should be set at that of the
dumping margin found, namely at 21.0%.

2.

Expiry review

2.1.

Analogue country

(44)  For the reasons set out in recitals (23) to (25), Poland was also used as an appropriate

market economy third country to determine the normal value for the expiry review.

2.2.

Normal value

(45)  For  the  expiry  review,  normal  value  was  established  on  the  same  basis  as  for  the

interim review, as explained in recitals (26) to (33) above.

10

2.3.

Export price

(46)  Khimvolokno,  the  sole  Belarussian  exporting  producer,  claimed  to  have  exported  a

substantial volume of the product to the Community during the expiry IP.

(47)  The  verification  at  the  premises  of  the  unrelated  company  in  the  EC  who  allegedly
imported the bulk of the Belarussian product has confirmed that none of the quantity
purchased  by  that  company  were  effectively  imported  into  the  EC  during  the  expiry
IP. However, according to Eurostat data less than 10 tonnes of PFT, i.e. less than 1%
of the quantity reported by the exporting producer, were imported into the EC during
the expiry IP.

(48)  The less than 10 tonnes could be identified as one transaction of the applicant to one of
the  unrelated  importers  in  the  Community.  The  export  price  of  this  transaction  has
been used as the export price to the Community, in line with Article 2(8) of the basic
Regulation.

(49)  Given that Belarus is considered to be a non-market economy country, a single export
price  for  the  country  as  a  whole  is  normally  established.  In  this  respect,  as
Khimvolokno  is  the  only  known  exporting  producer  of  the  Belarussian  product,  the
exports of this company have been considered representative for all exports of Belarus
to the Community and thus the information submitted in order to determine the export
price of the product from Belarus was used.

2.4.

Comparison

(50)  For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export

price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting
price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.
Appropriate adjustments were made in all cases where they were found to be
reasonable, accurate and supported by evidence. That was the case for transport and
credit costs.

2.5.

Dumping margin

(51)  The  dumping  margin  was  established  on  the  basis  of  a  comparison  of  the  weighted
average  normal  value  per  product  type  with  a  weighted  average  export  price  by
product  type.  This  method  reflects  the  full  degree  of  dumping  being  practised.  The
dumping margin established during the expiry IP, expressed as a percentage of the CIF
net free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, is 6.2%.

11

2.6.

Likelihood of recurrence of dumping

(52)  The likelihood of recurrence of dumping in significant quantities, should the measures
in  question  be  removed,  was  examined.  In  this  respect,  the  request  for  the  expiry
review was mainly based on the grounds that the Belarussian exports to third countries
were  made  at  dumped  prices  and  that  the  exporting  producer  has  significant  spare
capacity.

(53)  The investigation confirmed the above allegations. In particular it was found that

– 

– 

export prices to third countries were below the normal values in the  analogue
country leading to substantial dumping,

the sole exporting producer has significant spare capacity.

(54)  The sales of the applicant exporting producer to third countries consist of:

– 

– 

the  sales  to  the  Community,  which  were  found  not  to  have  been  actually
imported into the Community. The dumping margin found for these exports, by
applying  the  methodology  as  described  under  recitals  (40)  to  (46),  is
substantial, namely around 20%, expressed as a percentage of the CIF net free-
at-Community-frontier price before duty.

export sales reported as being made to third countries, with a specification of
the  five  main  export  markets  outside  the  EC.  These  sales  are  made  at  levels
which  are  not  significantly  different  from  the  alleged  export  prices  to  the
Community,  and  are  also  made  at  dumped  prices,  except  for  the  sales  to
Turkey  where  anti-dumping  measures  are  in  force  for  PSF  originating  in
Belarus.

(55)  As far  as  production  capacity  and  capacity  utilisation  is  concerned,  the  investigation
showed that the co-operating exporting producer used less than 60% of its production
capacity during the expiry IP.

(56) 

It  can  thus  be  concluded  that,  should  the  measures  expire,  there  is  a  likelihood  of
recurrence of dumping in substantial quantities for exports made to the Community.

D.

DEFINITION OF THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY

(57)  The request for the expiry review was made on behalf of seven of the 13 Community
producers known to produce PSF in the Community. Two of the applicant producers
did  not  provide  a  reply  to  the  Commission  questionnaire,  and  were,  therefore,  not
regarded as being part of the Community industry. A third applicant producer did not
provide the information requested within the given extended deadline and is therefore
also not considered as forming part of the Community industry.

(58)  The  remaining  four  applicant  Community  producers  replied  to  the  Commission
questionnaire and co-operated in the investigation. They represent more than 52% of
the  Community  production  of  PSF  and  therefore  constitute  the  Community  industry
within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation.

12

E.

1.

THE COMMUNITY PSF MARKET

Community Consumption

(59)  Community  consumption  of  PSF  was  established  on  the  actual  sales  volume  of  the
Community industry and  the of applicant producers not included  in  the  definition  of
Community industry, an estimate of the sales of the remaining Community producers
and  Eurostat-information  on  import  volumes  from  all  third  countries.  It  should  be
noted that during the present investigation, consumption figures for 1997 and 1998 as
published  in  (Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2852/200012)  were  slightly  amended
because some figures were updated. These minor corrections do not affect the findings
of that Regulation.

(60)  On the above basis, Community consumption developed as follows during the period

considered:

Consumption
PSF

1997

1998

1999

2000

Expiry IP

Tonnes

523 832

598 882

649 129

646 656

607 286

Index

100

114

124

123

116

(61)  Overall consumption volume increased by 16% over the period considered. The main
increase occurred between 1997 and 1998 when consumption grew from around  524
000 tonnes to 599 000 tonnes. The consumption reached its peak in 1999 with around
649 000 tonnes after which it declined to 607 000 tonnes during the expiry IP.

2.

Imports of PSF from Belarus

Preliminary remark

(62)  As  pointed  out  in  recital  (47),  the  export  volumes  of  Belarus  into  the  community

during the expiry IP were found to be negligible.

Volume and market share

(63)  Further to the imposition of the anti-dumping measures in 1996, the volume of imports
during  the  period  considered  was  limited.  Circumvention  allowed  the  exporting
producer in Belarus to export over 9 000 tonnes of PFT to the Community in 1997, but
after  the  anti-circumvention  investigation  mentioned  in  recital  (1)  above  and  the
extension of the duties quantities dropped and only insignificant volumes of PSF were
imported into the Community from Belarus during the expiry IP.

12

OJ No L 332, 28.12.2000, p.17

13

                                                
Price behaviour of the exporting producer

(64)  Due  to  the  insignificant  export  volumes  from  Belarus  during  the  expiry  IP  no
undercutting  margins  were  calculated  in  the  present  case.  Nevertheless,  it  was  noted
that  the  average  price  for  PSF  originating  in  Belarus  was  by  far  below  the  average
price  charged  by  the  Community  industry.  Similarly  the  export  prices  of  PSF  from
Belarus to other third countries were also below Community industry's prices.

(65) 

It is thus clear that if the exporting producer in Belarus would have exported its PSF to
the  Community  market  during  the  expiry  IP  this  would  have  been  done  with  high
undercutting levels.

3.

Imports from other third countries

(66)  During the expiry IP the main sources of imports of PSF into the Community were, in
the  order  of  importance,  the  Republic  of  Korea,  Taiwan  and  the  USA  covering
approximately 70% of total imports or 25,4% of total Community consumption. Total
imports  from  other  third  countries  covered  during  the  expiry  IP  around  36,3%  of
Community consumption and developed as follows:

imports

Total 
in tonnes

1997

1998

1999

2000

Expiry IP

PSF

152 878

234 266

263 780

260 785

220 511

Index

100

153

173

171

144

(67) 

Imports of PSF from all other third countries increased from around 153 000 tonnes in
1997  to  220  000  tonnes  during  the  IP,  or  by  44  %.  The  above  table  shows  that  the
imports  dramatically  increased by 72% between 1997  and  1999  and  then  followed  a
downwards trend until the expiry IP decreasing by 16%. This decrease coincides with
the  imposition  of  anti-dumping  measures  against  certain  third  countries  in  2000
mentioned in recitals (2) and (3) above.

(68)  Prices  of  PSF  imported  from  other  third  countries  went  up  between  1997  and  the
expiry  IP  despite  a  decline  in  1998  and  1999.  The  average  price  for  the  PSF
originating in other third countries was 12% higher during the expiry IP than in 1997.
Taking  due  account  of  customs  and  anti-dumping  duties,  average  import  price
however remained slightly below Community industry's price.

Import prices

1997

1998

1999

2000

Expiry IP

Euro / tonne

1 112

985

917

1 178

1 246

Index

100

89

82

106

112

14

4.

Situation of the Community industry

Preliminary remark

(69) 

It is recalled that the examination of the development of the economic situation of the
Community  industry  covered  the  period  from  1997  until  the  end  of  the  expiry  IP,
namely June 2001. As mentioned in recitals (2)and (3) above definitive anti-dumping
measures were imposed against Australia, India, Indonesia, South Korea, Taiwan and
Thailand  in  2000  and  were  therefore  in  force  during  the  expiry  IP.  This  situation  is
highly relevant for understanding the developments described hereafter.

Production, capacity and capacity utilisation

(70)  Community industry production developed as follows:

1997

1998

1999

2000

Expiry 

IP

in

212 543

210 153

211 255

211 208

214 103

100

99

99

99

101

in

264 439

246 939

253 939

254 939

256 034

100

80%

93

85%

96

83%

96

83%

97

84%

Production 
tonnes

Index

Capacity 
tonnes

Index

Capacity
utilisation

(71)  Overall,  Community  industry  production  slightly  increased  by  1%  over  the  period
considered.  In 1997 the Community industry  produced  213 000  tonnes  of  PSF,  after
which the production declined slightly over the following years. During the expiry IP
the production volume slightly rose to 214 000 tonnes. This is to be compared with the
16% increase in Community consumption over the same period.

15

(72) 

In parallel, the investigation showed that production capacity decreased between 1997
and 1998. The overall decrease in capacity mainly occurred in 1998 when it dropped
from 264  000 tonnes  in  1997  to  247  000  tonnes.  This  explains  why  a  higher  rate  of
capacity utilisation was achieved after 1997. In 1999 the Community industry regained
some  of  its  capacity  (254  000  tonnes)  reaching  a  total  of  256  000  tonnes  during  the
expiry IP. The investigation showed that when it was possible the tendency of most of
the producers included in the definition of the Community industry was rather to close
down  certain  PSF  production  lines  or  plants  or  to  convert  them  into  other  lines  to
produce  other  products  not  covered  by  the  present  investigation  which  are  more
profitable.  One  Community  producer  however  decided  to  build  new  production
capacity.  This  decision  was  made  in  order  to  better  satisfy  Community  customers'
requirements in terms of quantity  and types of PSF and explains the rise in  capacity
between 1998 and the expiry IP.

Stocks

(73)  The investigation showed that at the end of the expiry IP (namely in June 2001) stocks
of  PSF  reached  25  000  tonnes  and  were  24%  higher  than  those  in  December  1997
(20 000  tonnes).  However,  the  investigation  indicated  that  stock  levels  at  the  end  of
June are traditionally higher than at fiscal year-end, namely in December. This is due
to  the  fact  that  before  the  July/August  period,  where  a  shut-down  for  servicing  and
maintaining the machines occurs, the Community industry has to produce for stock in
order to serve its customers. The comparable figure at the end of 2000 showed a 4%
increase in stocks compared to 1997.

Sales volume, market share and growth

1997

1998

1999

2000

Expiry IP

Sales in tonnes

190.308

186.601

192.546

192.865

197.077

Index

Market share

100

37,8%

98

32,2%

101

30,6%

101

30,6%

104

33,4%

(74)  The Community industry managed to increase its sales volume in its domestic market
by  4%  while  losing  similar  sales  volumes  on  its  export  markets  during  the  period
considered. This is line in with the finding of steady production volumes and stocks in
the same period.

(75)  Sales  of  the  Community  industry  were  by  and  large  stable  up  to  2000  and  then
increased  by  3%  between  2000  and  the  expiry  IP.  This  increase  coincided  with  the
imposition of anti-dumping duties on imports from certain third countries in 2000. It is
worth noting that the trend in sales volume deviated from that followed by Community
consumption  as  indicated  in  recitals  (59)  and  (61)  above.  This  contrasts  with  the
dynamics  of  consumption  mostly  which  increased  between  1997  and  1999  (+  24%)
and decreased (- 7,0%) between 2000 and the expiry IP.

16

(76)  The Community industry's market share,  however, decreased  from  37,8%  in 1997 to
33,4% during the expiry IP. It decreased steadily between 1997 and 1999, leading to a
loss  of  over  7  percentage  points.  With  the  imposition  of  anti-dumping  measures  in
2000, a recovery of 2,8 percentage points of market share occurred during the expiry
IP. Nevertheless, the overall loss in market share suffered by the Community industry
was  as  high  as  4,4  percentage  points  during  the  period  considered.  This  decrease  in
market  share  is  in  line  with  the  findings  made  in  recitals  (59),  (61)  and  (74),  (75)
above.

(77)  The investigation showed that the Community industry did not benefit from the market
growth during the period considered. Despite a 16% increase in consumption between
1997  and  1999,  the Community  industry lost over  7  percentage  points  market  share.
Whilst consumption dropped by 6% between 2000 and the expiry IP, namely after the
imposition of the anti-dumping measures mentioned in recitals (2) and (3) above, the
community industry increased its sales volume by 3% increase leading to a gain of 2,8
percentage points market share. Notwithstanding this recovery the growth experienced
by  the  Community  industry  during  the  period  considered  was  extremely  negative
compared to the growth in consumption.

Prices development and cost of manufacturing

1997

1998

1999

2000

Expiry IP

€  Price/tonne

1 306

1 279

1 147

1 392

1 439

Index

100

98

88

107

110

€  /  tonne  -  Cost  of
manufacturing

1 014

1 017

962

1 176

1 214

Index

100

100

95

116

120

(78)  The  above  table  shows  that  during  the  period  considered  the  Community  industry
average sales prices per tonne to unrelated customers on the Community market rose
on  average  by  10%.  In  the  period  from  1997  to  1999,  average  prices  decreased  by
12%. Subsequently, in 2000 and during  the expiry  IP, prices recovered  significantly.
The investigation however indicated that the increase in the sales price was linked to
the increase in the costs which is explained below. The Community industry claimed
that  the  unsatisfactory  development  of  prices  compared  to  costs  was  due  to  a  strong
price competition on the Community market in particular before the imposition of the
anti-dumping measures in the year 2000.

17

(79)  The  investigation  showed  that  the  Community  market  for  PSF  is  price  sensitive  and
that as indicated in recital (68) prices of imported PSF remained at a lower level than
that of the Community industry despite an equivalent proportional price increase.

(80)  During the period considered the average cost of sales per tonne of PSF produced by
the  Community  industry  increased  by  23%.  Between  1997  and  1999  the  cost  of
production remained by and large stable. However, it increased significantly, by 23%,
between 1999 and the expiry IP. The investigation showed that the significant increase
in cost of production is linked to the fluctuation of the price of certain raw materials,
such as paraxylene and ethylene glycol, which were directly influenced by the price of
oil.

Profitability and Cash flow

Profitability

1998

1999

2000

Expiry IP

%  of  Profit  on
net turnover

9,1%

4,8%

4,6%

5,0%

(81) 

It  should  be  noted  that  one  producer  included  in  the  definition  of  the  Community
industry  was  newly  founded  in  1998  and  that  no  profitability  data  was  available  for
1997. For this reason the analysis of profitability and cash flow covers the period from
1998 up to the expiry IP. However, it should be noted that the trends observed on the
basis  of  the  data  available  for  the  period  considered  are  in  line  with  those  resulting
from the above table.

(82)  The  Community  industry's  profitability  was  very  good  in  1998.  This  level  of  profit
was  notably  achieved  because  of  the  exceptionally  low  crude  oil  price  that  year.
Subsequently profitability deteriorated because the increase in the price of oil and thus
of cost of production could not  be  compensated by proportional  sale price  increases.
Notwithstanding this, the profitability achieved in 2000 and during the expiry IP was
remarkable given the significant increase in cost of manufacturing (up to 20%). This
indicates that the Community industry was able to control its costs in order to stabilise
the profits at around 5%.

(83)  Cash flow followed a similar trend as profitability from 1998 up to the expiry IP. The
cash generated by the PSF operations fell by 44% over the period considered or from €
44.5 million in 1998 to € 24.8 million during the expiry IP. This is mainly linked to the
decrease in profitability observed in the same period.

18

Ability to raise capital

(84)  Given the difficult situation of the Community market for PSF described in the present
analysis and in particular under recital (89) below, most of the companies included in
the  definition  of  the  Community  industry  encountered  difficulties  in  raising  the
necessary capital to finance their investments and restructuring. The decrease in profits
which occurred in 1999 and 2000 prevented most of these companies to pursue their
investment  programme  which  for  most  started  in  1998.  As  mentioned  below  under
recital 88, only one Community producer could raise the  capital  and took the  risk to
complete its planned investments during the period considered.

Employment and productivity

Employment

1997

1998

1999

2000

Expiry
IP

Number of employees

1 205

1 119

1 197

1 184

1 173

Index

100

93

99

98

97

(85)  Overall,  the  number  of  employees  working  for  the  production  of  PSF  fell  by  3%
reflecting  the  downsizing  and  restructuring  operated  by  the  Community  industry.
Employment  was  significantly  reduced  by  7%  in  1998  but  the  Community  industry
started to recruit again in 1999.

(86) 

In view of the development of production volume of PSF as indicated in recital (70)
above,  productivity  of  the  Community  industry  improved  during  the  period
considered.

Investments and return on investment

(87)  As the table below shows investment in the product concerned significantly increased

during the period considered:

Investment

1997

1998

1999

2000

Expiry IP

(000 Euro)

4 738

14 796

14 229

8 009

17 954

Index

100

312

300

169

379

19

(88)  The level of investment which was extremely low in 1997 rose significantly in 1998,
which was a good year for the industry and prompted some producers to invest in the
product concerned. However, as mentioned in recitals (82) above and (89) below the
Community industry's profitability and the market situation for the product concerned
both  deteriorated  in  the  following  years.  This  explains  why  investments  did  not
increase  in  1999  and  were  again  dramatically  reduced  in  2000.  Investment
significantly  recovered  during  the  expiry  IP  notably  because  one  of  the  Community
producer  included  in  the  definition  of  the  Community  industry  took  the  risk  to
complete its investment programme. It should be underlined however that the level of
investment  during  the  expiry  IP  represented  6%  of  total  turnover  of  the  Community
industry.

(89) 

In this respect it should be noted that for a number of years there has been the presence
and the threat of the presence of dumped imports from certain third  countries on the
Community  market.  The  fluctuation  in  the  price  of  oil  during  the  period  considered
added  to the  difficulties encountered  by  operators  producing,  buying  and  using  PSF,
and in particular the Community industry which did not know whether in the presence
of  low-priced  dumped  imports  they  could  reflect  the  raw  material  price  increase  in
their sales prices to a reasonable extent. The behaviour of the Community industry in
terms  of  investments  may  also  have  been  influenced  by  the  uncertainty  which
characterises the market for a number of years.

(90)  The return on investment followed a similar trend as that observed for profitability.

Magnitude of dumping margin, recovery from past dumping, circumvention

(91)  The  situation  of  the  Community  industry  has  improved  to  a  certain  extent  after  the
imposition  of  anti-dumping  measures  during  the  period  considered,  but  the  industry
has  not  completely  recovered  from  past  dumping  from  certain  third  countries,
including  Belarus,  and  from  the  circumvention  found  with  respect  to  PFT  from
Belarus in 1997. This is mainly evidenced by the unsatisfactory economic situation of
the Community industry in particular in 1998 and 1999. Despite a significant increase
in  consumption  these  years,  production,  production  capacity,  investments,  market
share, sales prices and profits followed a decreasing trend.

(92)  As concerns the impact on the situation of the Community industry of the magnitude
of the actual margin of dumping during the IP, this is not considered a relevant factor
in the present  review  examinations as the imposition  of anti-dumping  duties in 1997
and  the  subsequent  anti-circumvention  measures  have  practically  stopped  imports
from Belarus.

5.

Conclusion on the situation of the Community industry

(93)  As already mentioned in recital (69) above, the economic situation of the Community
industry should be seen in the light of ongoing anti-dumping investigations during the
period considered and the imposition of anti-dumping measures in 2000.

(94)  During the period considered the Community industry's production slightly increased
by  1%.  Capacity  utilisation  and  productivity  improved  because  of  reduced  levels  of
production capacity and employment.

20

(95)  The  investigation  also  showed  that  during  the  period  considered  the  Community
market developed positively in terms of volume, in particular until 2000. Consumption
dropped during the expiry IP compared to 2000 but overall it rose by 16% during the
period considered. The Community industry however could not fully participate in this
market  growth.  On  the  contrary  it  lost  3  percentage  points  of  market  share  despite
increased sales volumes.

(96)  The exports from Belarus practically disappeared during the period considered but as
evidenced  in  the  attempt  to  circumvent  the  measures  the  Community  market  is  very
attractive  for  these  imports.  It  is  clear  from  recital  (54)  above  that  the  export  prices
from Belarus to third countries are much lower than the Community industry's average
price.  It  should  also  be  recalled  that  up  to  2000  the  Community  PSF  market  was
characterised  by  the  presence  of  low-priced  dumped  imports  which  dragged  sales
prices down by 12%, in spite of increasing costs.

(97)  During  2000  and  the  expiry  IP,  the  Community  industry’s  sales  price  and  cost  of
production for PSF both increased. The fact that prices increased at a much lower pace
than costs led to a situation of decreasing profits. As a consequence the ability to raise
capital  by  the  Community  industry  was  seriously  affected.  This  added  to  the
difficulties  of the  Community  industry  which  operated  in  difficult  market  conditions
during  the  period  considered.  Profitability  and  cash  flow  accumulated  during  the  IP
were not sufficient to sustain their mid term investments.

(98)  Based  on  the  foregoing,  in  particular  the  decrease  in  market  share  and  the
unsatisfactory  level  of  sales  prices  and  profits,  it  is  considered  that  the  Community
industry is still in a vulnerable state.

F.

LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRENCE OF INJURY

(99) 

It is recalled that it is concluded in recital (56) above that a likelihood of recurrence of
dumping in significant volumes of PSF originating in Belarus exists.

(100)  It was also concluded in recital (98) above that the Community industry was still in a

vulnerable situation during the expiry IP.

(101)  Furthermore, it is recalled that during the expiry IP there were practically no imports
from  Belarus  on  the  Community.  This  contrasts  with  the  situation  during  the
investigation  period  of  the  original  case,  when  over  32  000  tonnes  of  low-priced
dumped imported PSF  originating  in  Belarus  entered  the  Community  market.  At  the
same time the Community industry lost 4% of sales volume and 5,6 percentage points
of  market  share  and  its  cost  of  production  significantly  increased.  As  a  result
profitability was very negative and 25% of the personnel employed in the PSF sector
were laid off.

(102)  The Community market for PSF is  very  attractive  to  exporting  producers  and  it  was
found  that  many  of  them  practised  dumping  to  gain  market  share.  The  present
investigation  has  shown  that  after  the  imposition  of  anti-dumping  measures  in  2000
the situation in the Community market has improved. It is considered that should the
measures  in  force  against  imports  of  PSF  from  Belarus  be  allowed  to  expire,  these
imports  are  likely  to  break  the  positive  developments  observed  on  the  Community
market and take over more of the already endangered market share of the Community
industry.

21

(103)  Indeed, as suggested in recitals (64) and (65) it appears that although the Belarussian
exporting  producer  will  in  all  likelihood  raise  the  export  prices  and  thus  reduce  the
level of dumping, the prices charged will still be dumped and will undercut the prices
of  the  Community  industry.  It  is  clear  that  in  order  to  regain  market  share  the
exporting producer will have to undercut the Community industry's prices.

(104)  Under  such  circumstances,  and  given  that  as  indicated  in  recital  (78)  above  the
Community  market  is  price  sensitive  the  Community  industry  would  not  be  able  to
compete  with  low-priced  dumped  PSF  imported  from  Belarus.  The  amount  of
available  capacities  in  Belarus  and  the  price  undercutting  which  is  likely  to  be
practised by the exporting producer are very likely to materially injure the Community
industry. Indeed, it is considered that when faced with the low-priced dumped imports
from Belarus the Community industry will have no other choice than either lowering
its prices and thus keep  market share  or  maintaining  prices  and  losing  market  share.
Both  courses  of  action  will  have  a  serious  impact  on  the  financial  situation  of  the
Community industry and in particular its profitability, return on investment cash flow
and ability to raise capital.

(105)  This would be particularly  damaging for the Community industry which managed to
survive  and  restructure  despite  the  presence  of  some  dumped  imports,  albeit  fewer
than would be the case should the present measure expire, and the high fluctuation in
the  price  of  oil.  The  Community  industry  is  completing  its  restructuring  has
modernised its production lines and closed down the unprofitable ones. It is thus clear
that  the  Community  industry  has  little  further  room  of  manoeuvre  to  deal  with  a
renewed sudden  surge  of  low-priced dumped  imports  and  that  material  injury  would
recur.

(106)  In the light of the above findings it is concluded that the expiry of the measures against
imports from Belarus would be likely to lead to a recurrence of material injury for the
Community industry from imports originating in Belarus.

G.

1.

COMMUNITY INTEREST

General considerations

(107)  It was also examined whether the maintenance of the anti-dumping measures on PSF
imported from Belarus would be against the Community interest. As it has been found
that  there  is  a  likelihood  of  recurrence  of  injurious  dumping,  the  investigation  also
considered  whether  or  not  there  are  any  overriding  interests  against  maintaining  the
measures and also took account of the past effects of anti-dumping measures on all the
various interests involved, in particular those of users and importers / traders.

(108)  In  order  to  consider  the  Community  interest  in  this  particular  case,  information  was
requested  from  all  interested  parties,  which  were  either  known  to  be  concerned  or
which  made  themselves  known.  The  Commission  sent  questionnaires  to  the
Community industry, nine other producers in the Community, ten importers / traders
(one of which is situated outside of the Community but supplies to a trader located in
the  Community)  unrelated  to  the  Belarussian  exporting  producer,  three  users  of  the
product concerned and three users' associations.

22

(109)  In  addition  to  the  replies  received  by  the  Community  industry,  the  importer  located
outside the Community mentioned above, one trader, and one producer not included in
the  definition  of  the  Community  industry  provided  a  reply  to  the  Commission
questionnaire.  None  of  the  users  or  users'  associations  provided  a  reply  to  the
questionnaire although two associations made a general submission.

(110)  It should be recalled that, in the previous investigations, the adoption of measures was

considered not to be against the interest of the Community

2.

Interest of the Community industry

(111)  During a number of years, the Community industry has been suffering from low priced
dumped imported PSF, causing a situation in which the sales of regular fibres were not
profitable.  Although  the  Community  industry  has  further  developed  the  segment  of
higher  added  value  PSF  fibres,  such  as  bicomponent  or  trilobal  fibres,  dyed  fibres,
fibres with specific characteristics such as fire retardant fibres, and by branding fibres,
the share of those fibres in overall sales volume is rather limited. The core business for
PSF  thus  remains  in  the  regular  fibres  for  both  woven  and  non-woven  applications.
These segments are facing the direct competition from dumped imports.

(112)  It is therefore clear that the Community industry also has to produce the whole range
of  PSF  fibres  in  order  to  remain  on  business.  The  customers  themselves  require  a
complete range of fibres to be available in order to secure delivery. For this reason, the
Community industry is not ready or in a position to abandon regular PSF production.

(113)  As indicated in recital (85) above the Community  industry,  by downsizing, has been
able  to  improve  its  capacity  utilisation  and  productivity.  At  the  same  time,  by
restructuring  and specialising, profitability  has  remained positive  in the  recent  years,
although  at  unsatisfactory  levels.  It  should  also  be  mentioned  that  the  Community
industry supplies around 33% of the Community market.

(114)  In view of the situation set out above, it is considered that, in the absence of measures
against PSF originating in Belarus, material injury to the Community industry is likely
to recur. It is thus likely to experience a significant worsening of its financial situation
with  a  realistic  possibility  of  a  further  reduction  of  employment  and  closure  of
production facilities.

3.

Interests of importers/traders

(115)  As  mentioned  in  recital  (64)  above  the  imports  of  PSF  originating  in  Belarus  were
almost  non-existent  during  the  expiry  IP.  The  investigation  has  shown  that  only  one
Community  based  trader  has  bought  via  a  third  country  importer  large  quantities  of
PSF  originating  in  Belarus,  but  these  were  re-exported  immediately  outside  of  the
Community.  The  investigation  showed  that  the  Community  based  trader  found
alternative  markets  for  its  PSF  of  Belarussian  origin  and  had  also  found  alternative
sources of imports.

(116)  Considering  the  above  together  with  the  lack  of  co-operation  from  the  eight  other
importers/traders who received the questionnaire indicates that the measures  in force
on imports originating in Belarus did probably not have any significant impact on the
situation of importers/traders in the Community.

23

4.

Interests of users

(117)  No user or user association provided a reply to the questionnaire intended to assess the
Community  interest.  Two  associations  however  sent  submissions,  one  covering  the
views of users operating in the spinning industry, and the other on behalf of users in
the non-woven industry, mainly for the fillings applications.

(118)  Both associations pronounced themselves against the maintenance of the anti-dumping
duty against Belarus as they claimed that the punitive nature of these measures has, in
practice, closed one source of supply to Community users. In addition, it was claimed
that  because  not  all  the  PSF  types  are  available  or  are  not  available  in  sufficient
quantities from the Community industry, Community users suffered injury because of
an increased competition for their final product from third countries. At the same time,
users  became  less  competitive  due  to  high  raw  material  costs.  This  argument  was
particular emphasised by the yarn producing spinning industry.

(119)  As  regard  the  availability  of  all  PSF  fibres,  the  investigation  has  confirmed  that
changing the production installations to produce one type of  PSF to  another  requires
only some limited adjustments, such as a different type of spinneret. This observation
was also put forward by users’ associations themselves during previous investigations.
The  investigation  showed  that  the  producers  included  in  the  definition  of  the
Community industry have the technical means to produce all types of PSF. Rather, the
Community industry claimed that it was unable to deliver PSF at the low prices quoted
by potential buyers.

(120)  The  investigation  has  shown  further  that  the  discontinuation  of  the  anti-dumping
duties in force against Belarus would be likely to lead to a major market disturbance
and might indeed lead to a closure of production facilities within the Community. This
would  not  be  in  the  long  term  interest  of  the  user  industry  which  is,  nevertheless,
purchasing  over  33%  of  its  PSF  from  the  Community  industry,  with  some  of  its
requirements being special types not available from third countries.

(121)  Due to lack of co-operation from users, it has not been possible to precisely calculate
the possible impact of the proposed measures for the current investigation, or indeed
the impact of the current measures. However, as mentioned in recital (63) above only
insignificant volume of PSF imports from Belarus were sold on the Community during
the expiry IP.

(122)  It is also considered that the duty originally imposed on PSF from Belarus was set at
the  level  necessary  to  remove  the  injurious  dumping  it  had  caused.  The  Community
market was not closed to these exports but it is very likely that the exporting producer
in  Belarus  found  more  attractive  markets  notably  the  US  and  Russia.  In  view  of  the
reduced  level  of  the  anti-dumping  duty  proposed,  it  is  very  likely  that  imports  from
Belarus would become more attractive to some Community users as compared to other
sources of supply. This would therefore lead to a reduction of their costs.

(123)  Based on the above, it is considered that while preventing serious disturbance caused
by the recurrence of high volumes dumped imports originating in Belarus the proposed
measures are likely to increase competition on the Community market.

24

5.

Conclusion

(124)  Based  on  the  foregoing  it  is  concluded  that  there  are  no  compelling  reasons  of

Community interest against the continuation of measures.

H.

DUTIES

(125)  Based on the findings for the expiry review and as provided for by Article 11(2) of the
basic Regulation, the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of polyester stable
fibres, originating in Belarus should be maintained.

(126)  As  the  anti-dumping  duty  in  force  in  respect  of  PSF  has  been  extended  by  Council
Regulation  (EC)  No  2513/97  to  cover  in  addition  imports  of  PFT,  originating  in
Belarus, these measures shall also be maintained.

(127)  All  parties  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the  basis  of
which  it  is  intended  to  change  the  level  of  the  existing  measures.  They  were  also
granted a period to make representations subsequent to this disclosure. No comments
which were of a nature to change the above conclusions were received.

(128)  It follows from the above that, based on the findings of the interim review (see recitals
(42) to (43) above)  and as provided  for by Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation,  the
anti-dumping  duties  imposed  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1490/96  as  extended  by
Regulation (EC) No 2513/1997, should be lowered to 21.0% expressed as a percentage
of  the  net  free-at-Community  frontier  price  before  duty  established  in  the  interim
review during the interim IP. This level of duty should apply to both imports of PSF
and of PFT originating in Belarus.

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1. 

2. 

3. 

A  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  is  hereby  imposed  on  imports  of  synthetic  staple
fibres of polyesters, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, falling
within CN code 5503 20 00 originating in Belarus.

The definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby extended to imports of polyester filament
tow  falling  within  CN  code  5501  20  00  originating  in  Belarus,  at  the  rate  set  in
paragraph 3 of this Article.

The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net free-at-Community-
frontier price of the products described in Article 1 (1) and 1 (2), before duty, shall
be 21.0%.

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

Article 2

25

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

Article 3

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

Done at Brussels, [...]

For the Council
The President

26