Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephtalate originating, inter alia, in Thailand
Date: 2004-03-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Thailand, anti-dumping duty, import, originating product, plastics

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 25.3.2004 
COM(2004) 199 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

amending Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on 
imports of certain polyethylene terephtalate originating, inter alia, in Thailand  

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

In July 2003, the Commission, by Regulation (EC) N° 1292/2003 announced the initiation of 
a  “new  exporter”  review  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  N°  2604/2000  imposing  a  definitive 
anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  certain  polyethylene  terephtalate  originating,  inter  alia,  in 
Thailand.  This  Regulation  also  repealed  the  duty  with  regard  to  imports  from  Indo  Pet 
(Thailand)  Ltd.,  the  Thai  exporting  producer  that  requested  the  initiation  of  the  review, 
making these imports subject to registration. This new exporter also simultaneously requested 
a review of the anti-subsidy duties applicable to the same imports. That proceeding is subject 
to a separate draft Council Regulation. 

The  investigation  revealed  that  the  export  transactions  to  the  Community  market  by  this 
exporting  producer  were  not  sufficiently  representative  in  order  to  establish  an  individual 
margin of dumping for that company. The level of the duty should therefore be maintained at 
the  level  that  was  established  in  the  original  investigation.  This  duty  should  be  cumulated 
with the individual countervailing duty established for this exporting producer in the parallel 
new exporter accelerated review of the corresponding countervailing duties currently in force.  

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation, in view 
of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union no later than 19 April 2004. 

2 

 
 
  
 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

amending Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on 
imports of certain polyethylene terephtalate originating, inter alia, in Thailand  

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 (the ‘basic 
Regulation’), and in particular Article 11(4) thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

A. Measures in force 

(1) 

(2) 

The measures currently in force are definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council 
Regulation (EC) No 2604/20002, under which imports into the Community of certain 
polyethylene terephtalate (“the product concerned”) originating in Thailand are subject 
to a duty, in the form of a specific amount per tonne, of EUR 83.2 per tonne. By the 
same  Council  Regulation,  anti-dumping  duties  were  also  imposed  against  imports  of 
the  product  concerned  from  India,  Indonesia,  Malaysia,  the  Republic  of  Korea  and 
Taiwan. 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  imports  originating  in  Thailand  are  also  subject  to  a 
definitive  countervailing  duty  of  EUR  49.1  per  tonne,  as  imposed  by  Council 
Regulation (EC) No 2603/20003. Countervailing duties were also imposed concerning 
imports from India and Malaysia. 

1. Request for a review 

B. Current investigation 

(3) 

The Commission subsequently received a request to initiate a ‘new exporter’ review of 
Regulation  (EC)  No  2604/2000,  pursuant  to  Article  11(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation, 
from the Thai producer Indo Pet (Thailand) Ltd. (‘Indo Pet’). This company claimed 
that it was not related to any of the exporting producers in Thailand subject to the anti-

1 

2 
3 

OJ L 56, 06.03.1996, p. 1., as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1972/2002 (OJ L 305, 7.11.2002, p. 
1). 
OJ L 301, 30.11.2000, p. 21. 
OJ L 301, 30.11.2000, p. 1. 

3 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
dumping  measures  in  force  with  regard  to  the  product  concerned.  Furthermore,  it 
claimed  that  it  had  not  exported  the  product  concerned  during  the  original  period  of 
investigation (i.e. from 1 October 1998 to 30 September 1999), but had exported the 
product concerned to the Community since then. 

(4) 

It should be noted that the Commission simultaneously received, from the same Thai 
producer, a request to initiate an accelerated review of Regulation (EC) No 2603/2000. 
This parallel proceeding is subject to a separate Council Regulation. 

2. Initiation of a ‘new exporter’ review 

(5) 

(6) 

The  Commission  examined  the  evidence  submitted  by  the  Thai  exporting  producer 
concerned  and  considered  it  sufficient  to  justify  the  initiation  of  a  review  in 
accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Article  11(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  After 
consultation of the Advisory Committee and after the Community industry concerned 
had been given the opportunity to comment, the Commission initiated, by Regulation 
(EC) 1292/20034, a review of Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 with regard to Indo Pet 
and commenced its investigation. 

By the Regulation initiating the review, the anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation 
(EC) No 2604/2000 with regard to imports of the product concerned produced by the 
company  concerned  were  repealed.  Simultaneously,  pursuant  to  Article  14(5)  of  the 
basic  Regulation,  customs  authorities  were  directed  to  take  appropriate  steps  to 
register such imports.  

3. Product concerned 

(7) 

The product covered by the current review is the same as in the original investigation, 
i.e.  polyethylene  terephthalate  (‘PET’)  with  a  coefficient  of  viscosity  of  78  ml/g  or 
higher, according to DIN (Deutsche Industrienorm) 53728. It is currently classifiable 
within CN code 3907 60 20. 

4. Parties concerned 

(8) 

(9) 

The Commission officially advised the company concerned and the representatives of 
the exporting country of the initiation of the review. Furthermore, it gave other parties 
concerned  the  opportunity  to  make  their  views  known  in  writing  and  to  request  a 
hearing. No such request was however received. 

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

5. Investigation period 

(10)  The  investigation  of  dumping  covered  the  period  from  1  January  2002  to  31  March 

2003 (the ‘investigation period’, or IP). 

4 

OJ L 181, 19.07.2003, p. 20. 

4 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
6. Methodology 

(11)  The  same  methodology  as  that  used  in  the  original  investigation  was  applied  in  the 

current investigation. 

C. Scope of the review 

(12)  As no request for a review of the findings on injury was made in the request for the 

investigation, the review was limited to dumping.  

D. Results of the investigation 

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

(14)  Furthermore,  according  to  documentary  evidence  submitted,  Indo  Pet  was  able  to 
satisfactorily demonstrate that it did not have any direct or indirect links with any of 
the  Thai  exporting  producers  subject  to  the  anti-dumping  measures  in  force  with 
regard to the product concerned. 

(15)  By  way  of  background,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  exporter  concerned  is,  however, 
related to another exporting producer located in Indonesia and which is, as mentioned 
above, also subject to anti-dumping duties on imports of the same product in the EU. 
The investigation revealed that after the current IP, this Indonesian exporting producer 
set up a factory in Thailand that became Indo Pet’s exclusive source of supply for the 
essential  raw  material  used  to  produce  the  product  concerned.  This  raw  material 
represents around 90% of the total cost of manufacturing of the product concerned.  

(16)  The Commission examined whether the quantities exported by the exporting producer 
concerned  in  Thailand  and  their  corresponding  prices  were  significant  enough  to 
constitute a representative basis for the assessment whether or not there is dumping. 

(17) 

In  the  course  of  the  investigation,  it  was  found  that  during  the  investigation  period, 
only two sales transactions to the EU were recorded, for a respective volume of 40 and 
20  tonnes.  These  two  transactions  represented,  during  the  same  period,  0.1%  of  the 
total company sales volume and 0.4% of its total export volume. 

(18)  These  sales  transactions  took  place  in  February  and  March  2002,  i.e.  shortly  before 
Indo  Pet  firstly  contacted  the  Commission  with  a  view  to  request  this  newcomer 
review.  By  way  of  background,  it  should  be  noted  that  Indo  Pet  did  not  record  any 
further export sales to the Community between then and the on-spot investigation. 

(19)  As to prices, the investigation revealed that, for the grade of PET the most commonly 
sold  both  on  domestic  and  export  markets,  the  EU  export  price  for  the  two  above 
mentioned transactions was around 45% higher than Indo Pet’s average export price to 
non EU countries.  

(20) 

If only the export sales to the EU neighbouring countries, that will shortly join the EU 
and which are partly supplied by traders located in the EU are considered, it was even 
found that the price of the two EU transactions concerned was around 60% higher than 
these  exports.  The  sales  transactions  concerned  in  the  case  of  the  EU  neighbouring 

5 

 
 
  
 
countries  were  much  more  substantial  in  volume  during  the  IP  than  the  export 
transactions to the EU, and therefore likely to better reflect the level of the export price 
normally practised by Indo Pet. 

(21)  Finally, the investigation showed that Indo Pet’s overall export price was on average 

not only below its domestic price, but also below its cost of production.  

(22)  For  the  above  reasons,  it  is  considered  that  the  two  export  sales  transactions  to  the 
Community  during  the  IP  were  not  significant  enough  to  constitute  a  representative 
basis for the assessment of existence of dumping. Hence, it is considered that the level 
of  the  duty  should  therefore  be  maintained  at  the  level  established  in  the  original 
investigation.  

E. Amendment of the measures being reviewed 

(23) 

In  the  light  of  the  foregoing,  it  is  considered  that  the  individual  definitive  anti-
dumping duty for the exporter concerned should be kept at the level of the definitive 
countrywide  anti-dumping  duty  rate  established  in  the  original  investigation,  i.e. 
14.2%.  

(24)  The  original  investigation,  however,  concluded  that  it  was  appropriate  to  impose 
duties  in  the  form  of  a  specific  amount  per  tonne,  since  PET  prices  can  fluctuate  in 
line  with  fluctuations  in  crude  oil  prices,  thus  significantly  affecting  the  level  of  the 
duty. The same methodology should be applied in the current investigation. Therefore, 
the  rate  of  the  definitive  individual  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  the  net,  free-at 
Community-frontier price, before duty, for the products manufactured by the exporting 
producer concerned should be EUR 83.2 per tonne. 

(25) 

(26) 

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

In  the  parallel  investigation  referred  to  in  recital  (4)  of  the  present  Regulation,  the 
subsidies found for the exporting producer concerned are not export subsidies and are 
therefore  considered  not  to  have  affected  the  export  price  and  the  corresponding 
dumping  margin.  Consequently,  the  countervailing  duties  can  be  imposed  together 
with  the  anti-dumping  duties,  to  the  extent  that,  pursuant  to  Article 9(4)  of  the  basic 
Regulation, both duties taken together do not exceed the injury elimination margin of 
22.6%  established  for  Thailand  in  the  framework  of  the  original  investigation.  This 
situation does not arise in the present case and therefore both countervailing and anti-
dumping duties should be imposed. 

F. Retroactive levying of the anti-dumping duty 

(27)  As the review has resulted in a determination of dumping in respect of the company 
concerned,  the  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  this  company  shall  also  be  levied 
retroactively  from  the  date  of  initiation  of  this  review,  on  imports  which  have  been 
made subject to registration pursuant to Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 
1292/2003. 

6 

 
 
  
 
G. Disclosure and duration of the measures 

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

(29)  This  review  does  not  affect  the  date  on  which  Regulation  (EC)  No  2604/2000  will 

expire pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 

The  table  in  Article  1(3)  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2604/2000  is  hereby 
amended by adding the following: 

Country 

Company 

Definitive duty  
(EUR per tonne) 

TARIC 
additional code 

Thailand 

Indo Pet (Thailand) Ltd 

83.2 

A468 

2. 

3. 

The duty hereby imposed shall also be levied retroactively on imports of the product 
concerned  which  have  been  registered  pursuant  to  Article  3  of  Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 1292/2003. 

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

Article 2 

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

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

7