Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of polyethylene terephthalate originating in Australia, the People's Republic of China and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of polyethylene terephthalate originating in Pakistan and releasing the amounts secured by way of the provisional duties imposed
Date: 2004-07-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Australia, China, Pakistan, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, chemical product, import, originating product

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 23.07.2004 
COM(2004) 518 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of polyethylene terephthalate originating in Australia, the People's 
Republic of China and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of 
polyethylene terephthalate originating in Pakistan and releasing the amounts secured by 
way of the provisional duties imposed 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

On  22  May  2003,  the  Commission  announced  the  initiation  of  an  anti-dumping  proceeding 
with regard to imports into the Community of Polyethylene Terephthalate (‘PET’) originating 
in  Australia,  the  People’s  Republic  of  China  and  Pakistan  (‘the  countries  concerned’).  On 
19 February  2004,  the  Commission  imposed,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  306/2004  (‘the 
provisional Regulation’), a provisional anti-dumping duty on the imports into the Community 
of PET originating in the countries concerned. 

The  enclosed  Commission  proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  contains  the  definitive 
conclusions regarding dumping, injury, causality and Community interest.  

It  is  proposed  that  definitive  anti-dumping  duties  should  be  imposed  on  imports  of  PET 
originating in Australia and the PRC . Given that the dumping margins found for the Pakistani 
exporters have been found to be below de minimis, it is proposed that no duties are imposed 
on imports of PET originating in Pakistan. 

It  is  proposed  that  the  Commission  adopts  the  enclosed  proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation, 
with a view to have definitive anti-dumping measures adopted by the Council and published 
in the Official Journal on 19 August 2004 at the latest. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of polyethylene terephthalate originating in Australia, the People's 
Republic of China and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of 
polyethylene terephthalate originating in Pakistan and releasing the amounts secured by 
way of the provisional duties imposed 

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  Communities1  (the 
‘basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9 thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

1. 

Provisional Measures 

A. 

PROCEDURE 

(1) 

(2) 

On  19  February  2004,  the  Commission  imposed,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  306/20042 
(‘the provisional Regulation’), a provisional anti-dumping duty on the imports into the 
Community  of  poly(ethylene  terephthalate)  (‘PET’)  originating  in  Australia,  the 
People’s Republic of China and Pakistan (‘the countries concerned’). 

It  is  recalled  that  the  investigation  period  of  dumping  and  injury  (‘IP’)  covered  the 
period  from  1  April  2002  to  31  March  2003. The  examination  of  trends  relevant  for 
the  injury  analysis  covered  the  period  from  1  January  1999  to  the  end  of  the  IP 
(‘period considered’). 

1 

2 

OJ  L  56,  6.3.1996,  p.  1.  Regulation  as  last  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  461/2004  (OJ  L  77, 
13.3.2004, p.12). 
OJ L 52, 21.2.2004, p .5. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

Parallel investigation procedure 

(3) 

It  is  recalled  that  an  interim  review  concerning  imports  of  PET  originating  in  the 
Republic  of  Korea  and  Taiwan  was  initiated  by  a  notice  published  in  the  Official 
Journal of the European Union on 22 May 20033. 

3. 

Subsequent procedure 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

Following the imposition of a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of PET from 
the  countries  concerned,  all  parties  received  a  disclosure  of  the  facts  and 
considerations  on  which  the  provisional  Regulation  was  based.  All  parties  were 
granted  a  period  within  which  they  could  make  representations  in  relation  to  these 
disclosures.  

Some  interested  parties  submitted  comments  in  writing.  Those  parties  who  so 
requested were also granted an opportunity to be heard orally. The Commission sought 
and  verified  all  information  it  deemed  necessary.  The  oral  and  written  comments 
submitted  by  the  parties  were  examined,  and,  where  considered  appropriate,  the 
provisional findings were modified accordingly. 

The Commission services further disclosed all the essential facts and considerations on 
the  basis  of  which  it  intended  to  recommend  the  imposition  of  a  definitive  anti-
dumping  duty  and  the  definitive  collection  of  amounts  secured  by  way  of  the 
provisional duty. The interested parties were also granted a period within which they 
could  make  representations  subsequent  to  this  disclosure.  The  oral  and  written 
comments  submitted  by  the  parties  were  considered  and,  where  appropriate,  the 
proposal for a definitive anti-dumping duty has been modified accordingly. 

B. 

PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

(7) 

It is recalled that, in recital (14) of the provisional Regulation, the product concerned 
was  defined  as  poly(ethylene  terephthalate)  with  a  viscosity  number  of  78  ml/g  or 
higher, according to ISO Standard 1628-5, currently classifiable within CN Code 3907 
60 20, and originating in the countries concerned.  

(8)  Moreover,  in  recital  (18)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  it  was  stated  that  the 
Commission had found that PET produced by the Community industry and sold on the 
Community market as well as PET produced in the countries concerned and exported 
to  the  Community  were  like  products,  since  no  differences  in  the  basic  physical  and 
chemical  characteristics  and  uses  of  the  existing  different  types  of  PET  had  been 
found. 

(9) 

In the absence of any comments regarding the definition of the product concerned and 
the like product, the contents and provisional conclusions of recitals (14) to (18) of the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3 

OJ C 120, 22.5.2003, p. 13. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1. 

General methodology 

C. 

DUMPING 

(10)  The general methodology used to establish whether the imports into the Community of 
the product concerned have been dumped was described in recitals (19) to (34) of the 
provisional Regulation. 

1.1.  Normal value 

(11) 

In the absence of any comments, the provisional findings concerning normal value as 
set out in recitals (20) to (27) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed. 

1.2.  Export price 

(12)  Several companies argued that the exchange rates used by the Commission in making 
its  provisional  findings  were  incorrect,  were  not  from  a  reliable  public  source  and 
claimed that such exchange rates should rather come from an official verifiable source. 

(13)  These  claims  have  been  thoroughly  investigated  and  after  verification,  it  was  found 
that  there  were  some  errors  in  the  exchange  rates  applied  by  the  Commission  in 
making its provisional findings. Therefore, calculations have been revised on the basis 
of  the  monthly  average  exchange  rates  published  by  (i)  the  Commission4  for  all 
conversions  involving  the  Euro  (EUR);  (ii)  the  Federal  Reserve  of  the  United  States 
for  all  conversions  between  the  US  dollar,  the  Chinese  Yuan  (CNY)  and  the  Hong 
Kong  dollar  (HKD);  and  (iii)  the  Bank  of  China  for  conversions  between  HKD  and 
CNY. All these exchange rates have been applied, as was the case for the provisional 
calculations,  on  the  basis  of  the  monthly  average  exchange  rate  applicable  to  the 
month in which the sales invoice was issued. 

1.3.  Comparison 

(14) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  concerning  the  basis  on  which  normal  value  and 
export prices were compared, recital (30) of the provisional Regulation is confirmed. 

1.4.  Dumping margin 

(15) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments,  recitals  (31)  to  (34)  of  the  provisional  Regulation 
concerning  the  methodology  applied  for  the  calculation  of  the  dumping  margin  are 
confirmed. 

2. 

Australia 

(16)  Only one of the two co-operating exporting producers made submissions following the 

imposition of the provisional measures. 

4 

http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/inforeuro/index.cfm?Language=en 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.1.  Normal value 

(17) 

In the absence of any comments, the provisional findings concerning normal value, as 
set out in recital (36) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed. 

2.2.  Export price 

(18) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  other  than  those  already  mentioned  in  the  above 
recitals  (12)  and  (13),  the  methodology  explained  in  recital  (37)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation is confirmed. 

2.3.  Comparison 

(19)  One  exporting  producer  claimed  that  different  allowances  regarding  after-sales 
technical  assistance  and  marketing  expenses  had  not  been  taken  account  of  by  the 
Commission  in  making  its  provisional  findings.  The  claim  in  regard  to  technical 
assistance  was  accepted  after  verification  in  accordance  with  Article  2(10)(h)  of  the 
basic  Regulation.  The  claim  regarding  marketing  expenses  was  accepted  after 
verification in accordance with Article 2(10)(k) of the basic Regulation. 

2.4.  Dumping margin 

(20) 

In the absence of any comments, the findings in recitals (39) to (41) of the provisional 
Regulation  concerning  the  methodology  applied  for  the  calculation  of  the  dumping 
margin, are hereby confirmed.  

(21)  The definitive dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at 

the Community border, are: 

– 

– 

– 

Leading Synthetics Pty Ltd:  7.8% 

Novapex Australia Pty Ltd:  15.9% 

Residual dumping margin: 

15.9% 

3. 

Pakistan 

(22)  The two co-operating exporting producers made submissions following the imposition 
of  provisional  measures  in  which  they  claimed  that  they  should  not  have  been 
regarded as two separate albeit related parties but rather, in view of their relationship 
as a unique exporting producer and that consequently,  only one  dumping calculation 
should be made. 

(23)  This  request  was  thoroughly  analysed  on  the  basis  of  the  arguments  developed  by 

these exporting producers subsequent to the provisional findings. 

(24) 

It  was  found  that  the  particular  characteristics  of  the  relationship  between  the 
companies  concerned  and  the  very  close  interlinks  in  their  operation  was  such  as  to 
distinguish  their  position  from  the  typical  situation  of  two  related  companies.  In 
particular, account was taken of the very significant financial and other links between 
the  two  exporting  producers,  the  fact  that  they  sell  the  product  concerned  under  the 
same  brand  name,  the  fact  that  they  share  the  same  administrative  premises  and 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
organisation as well as marketing division. Moreover, they share largely the same staff 
members and Directors and have a common production plan. The combination of all 
these  elements  is  deemed  sufficient  to  consider  that  under  these  particular 
circumstances  the  situation  of  the  two  exporting  producers  warrants  that  they  be 
treated as a unique exporting producer in the Pakistani PET business rather than as two 
separate companies. Therefore, in view of all these elements, it was considered that the 
claim should be accepted. 

3.1.  Normal value 

(25) 

In view of the above, the general methodology explained in recitals (20) to (34) of the 
provisional  Regulation  was  applied  for  the  unique  exporting  producer  and  the 
methodology explained in recitals (43) and (44) of the provisional Regulation has been 
revised. 

(26)  The Commission first established, for the unique exporting producer, whether its total 
domestic  sales  of  the  product  concerned  were  representative  in  comparison  with  its 
total  export  sales  to  the  Community.  In  accordance  with  Article  2(2)  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  domestic  sales  were  considered  representative  when  the  total  domestic 
sales  volume  of  each  exporting  producer  was  at  least  5  %  of  its  total  export  sales 
volume to the Community. 

(27)  The Commission subsequently identified those types of PET, sold domestically by the 
unique exporting producer that had overall representative domestic sales and that were 
identical or directly comparable to the types sold for export to the Community. 

(28)  For each type sold by the unique exporting producer on its domestic market and found 
to be directly comparable to the type of PET sold for export to the Community, it was 
established whether domestic sales were sufficiently representative for the purposes of 
Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular type of PET were 
considered  sufficiently  representative  when  the  total  domestic  sales  volume  of  that 
type during the IP represented 5% or more of the total sales volume of the comparable 
PET type exported to the Community. 

(29)  An examination was also made as to whether the domestic sales of each type of PET 
could be regarded as having been made in the ordinary course of trade, by establishing 
the  proportion  of  profitable  sales  to  independent  customers  of  the  PET  type  in 
question, in accordance with recitals (23) and (24) of the provisional Regulation. 

(30)  Wherever domestic prices of a particular type sold by the unique exporting producer 

could not be used, constructed normal value had to be used. 

(31)  Consequently,  in  accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, normal value 
was  constructed  by  adding  to  the  weighted  average  manufacturing  costs  of  the 
exported types, adjusted where necessary, a reasonable amount for selling, general and 
administrative expenses (‘SG&A’) and a reasonable margin of profit. To this end, the 
Commission  examined  whether  the  SG&A  incurred  and  the  profit  realised  by  the 
unique exporting producer on the domestic market constituted reliable data. 

(32)  Actual  domestic  SG&A  expenses  were  considered  reliable  when  the  total  domestic 
sales  volume  of  the  unique  exporting  producer  could  be  regarded  as  representative 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
when compared to the volume of export sales to the Community. The domestic profit 
margin was determined on the basis of domestic sales of those types which were sold 
in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade.  For  this  purpose,  the  methodology  set  out  in  recital 
(23) of the provisional Regulation was applied. 

(33)  For  two  types  of  PET  exported  by  the  unique  exporting  producer,  the  Commission 
could establish normal value on the basis of the prices paid or payable in the ordinary 
course of trade by independent customers on the domestic market, in accordance with 
Article  2(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  For  the  three  PET  types  whose  domestic  sales 
were found to be not representative, constructed normal value was used, in accordance 
with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation. 

3.2.  Export price 

(34)  All  sales  of  the  product  concerned  made  by  the  unique  exporting  producer  on  the 
Community  market  were  made  to  independent  customers  in  the  Community. 
Consequently, the export price was established according to Article 2(8) of the basic 
Regulation on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable. 

3.3.  Comparison 

(35) 

In  order  to  ensure  a  fair  comparison,  account  was  taken,  in  accordance  with  Article 
2(10)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  of  differences  in  factors  which  were  claimed  and 
demonstrated  to  affect  prices  and  price  comparability.  On  this  basis,  allowances  for 
differences  in  transport,  insurance,  handling  charges,  commissions,  credit  and  other 
factors have been granted. 

3.4.  Dumping margin 

(36)  As  provided  by  Article  2(11)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  weighted  average  normal 
value of each type of the product concerned exported to the Community by the unique 
exporting  producer  was  compared  to  the  weighted  average  export  price  of  each 
corresponding type of the product concerned. 

(37)  The  dumping  margin,  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  CIF  import  price  at  the 
Community  border,  was  reviewed  in  the  light  of  the  issues  outlined  above,  and  was 
found to be 1.6%, i.e. below the de minimis threshold as defined in Article 9(3) of the 
basic Regulation. 

4. 

People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’) 

4.1.  Market Economy Treatment (‘MET’) 

(38)  The four companies which were granted neither MET nor Individual Treatment (‘IT’) 
made submissions where they reiterated the claims mentioned in recitals (57) to (73) 
of  the  provisional  Regulation.  However,  none  of  them  provided  evidences  which 
would  lead  to  contradict  the  conclusions  drawn  in  the  provisional  Regulation. 
Therefore,  the  decision  not  to  grant  MET  to  these  four  co-operating  exporting 
producers and the findings set out in the  above-mentioned recitals of the  provisional 
Regulation are confirmed. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
(39)  Following comments received, it was not posible to calculate an individual margin for 
one  of  the  companies  which  was  granted  only  IT,  as  its  exports  of  the  product 
concerned  to  the  EU  during  the  IP  could  not  be  considered  to  have  been  in 
commercially  significant  quantities.  The  other  company  which  was  granted  only  IT 
and whose claim for MET was rejected on the basis of non-compliance with criterion 
2 specified in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, also made submissions in which 
it repeated its claim for MET. However, no further evidence was submitted that was of 
a  nature  to  contradict  the  conclusions  drawn  in  the  provisional  Regulation. 
Consequently,  the  conclusion  drawn  in  recital  (68)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  is 
confirmed for this company. 

4.2. 

Individual treatment  

(40)  One  of  the  four  companies  which  were  neither  granted  MET  nor  IT  claimed  that 
nevertheless,  all  conditions  for  the  granting  of  IT  were  met.  However,  given  that  no 
new  evidence  was  provided,  the  conclusions  drawn  in  recital  (76)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are confirmed and the claim is rejected. 

4.3.  Normal Value 

4.3.1.  Determination of normal value for all exporting producers not granted MET 

a) Analogue country 

(41)  The  exporting  producers  have  repeated  their  objection  to  the  choice  of  the  United 
States  of  America  (‘US’)  as  the  analogue  country.  The  main  reasons  given  were  the 
difference in cultural and economic development, the difference in costs and the fact 
that  countries  such  as  Pakistan  or  the  Republic  of  South  Korea  (‘Korea’)  would  be 
much more appropriate than the US. 

(42)  First of all, differences in terms of cultural development are considered irrelevant for 
the  choice  of  an  analogue  country,  because  an  analogue  country  is  taken  to  reflect 
market economy conditions and not comparable cultural development levels. 

(43)  As  regards  the  use  of  a  country  with  different  economic  development,  it  should  be 
mentioned  that,  by  definition,  a  non-market-economy  country  or  an  economy  in 
transition  does  not  have  the  same  economic  characteristics  as  a  market-economy 
country. It is not unusual that such difference in economic development exists between 
an analogue country and a non-market-economy country or an economy in transition. 
This, however, does not prevent the US to be chosen as analogue country as long as it 
is deemed more appropriate. 

(44)  Regarding the difference in costs, it is recalled that no significant difference was found 
in  the  prices  paid  by  producers  in  the  US  and  the  PRC  for  the  main  raw  material 
(PTA) which represents the most significant part of the cost of production of PET. 

(45)  Some exporting producers stressed the fact that while labour costs are higher in the US 
than in the PRC, labour costs in Pakistan and Korea are more comparable to Chinese 
labour costs. In these circumstances, these producers considered that Pakistan or Korea 
would be a more appropriate analogue country than the US. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
(46)  As  mentioned  in  recital  (43)  above,  a  country  with  a  different  level  of  economic 
development may be chosen as analogue country for a non-market-economy country 
or an economy in transition. Similarly, labour costs which reflect the state of economic 
development of a country are not in isolation considered as a relevant criterion. In the 
present case, in view of the very small part that labour cost accounts for in the total 
cost of production (i.e. less than 3% of the total cost of production) compared to the 
cost  of  PTA  (more  than  60%  of  the  total  cost  of  production),  this  criterion  was  not 
considered  sufficiently  significant  to  choose  Pakistan  or  Korea  as  analogue  country 
instead  of  the  US.  Moreover,  in  the  light  of  the  level  of  competition  in  the  chosen 
analogue  country  and  of  the  representativity  of  domestic  sales  to  independent 
customers  in  the  analogue  country  as  compared  to  the  Chinese  exports  of  PET, 
Pakistan and Korea were deemed less appropriate than the US, as explained in recitals 
(78) to (86) of the provisional Regulation. Therefore, the claim was rejected.  

(47) 

In the absence of any other comments concerning the analogue country, the choice of 
the US is confirmed.  

b) Determination of normal value 

(48) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  concerning  the  determination  of  normal  value,  the 
methodology  described  in  recitals  (87)  and  (88)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  is 
confirmed. 

4.3.2.  Determination of normal value for exporting producers granted MET 

(49)  Two  exporting  producers  claimed  that  the  Commission  had  double  counted  the 
amount  of  the  duty  drawback  in  the  cost  of  production  and  substantiated  their  claim 
with  supporting  documents.  On  the  basis  of  this  new  evidence,  the  claims  were 
accepted  for  the  two  companies  concerned  and  the  calculation  of  the  cost  of 
production  was  corrected  accordingly.  One  of  these  exporting  producers  also  argued 
that  some  adjustments  have  been  either  omitted  or  not  correctly  applied.  After 
verification, the claim was accepted with one exception relating to credit cost. For this 
latter,  the  methodology  applied  by  the  Commission  at  the  provisional  stage  and 
explained in recitals (89) to (91) of the provisional Regulation is confirmed. 

4.4.  Export prices 

(50)  Two  exporting  producers  contested  the  exchange  rates  used  by  the  Commission.  As 
already explained in recitals (12) and (13) above, this claim has been accepted. 

4.5.  Comparison 

(51) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  concerning  the  basis  on  which  normal  value  and 
export  prices  were  compared  and  the  adjustments  made  to  ensure  a  fair  comparison 
between the export prices and normal value, the provisional conclusion as contained in 
recital (93) of the provisional Regulation is confirmed. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
4.6.  Dumping margin 

4.6.1.  For the cooperating exporting producers granted MET/IT 

(52)  The  dumping  margins  expressed  as  a  percentage  on  the  CIF  import  price  at  the 
Community border, which were reviewed in the light of the issues outlined above, are 
now as follows : 

Changzhou Worldbest Radici Co. Ltd 

0 % 

Far Eastern Industries Shanghai Ltd 

2.6 % 

Jiangyin Xingye Plastic Co. Ltd 

Hubei  Changfeng  Chemical  Fibres 
Industry Co. Ltd 

18.4 % 

18.5 % 

4.6.2.  For all other exporting producers 

(53)  One exporting producer claimed that the calculation of the anti-dumping duty for all 
co-operating exporting producers neither granted MET nor IT resulted in an individual 
duty  for  each  of  these  companies.  More  particularly,  this  exporting  producer  argued 
that all co-operating exporting producers neither granted MET nor IT should pay the 
same amount of duty. 

(54)  At the provisional stage, these companies had the same dumping margin in percentage 
of the CIF value. However, the calculation of the specific duty per tonne on the basis 
of the CIF value of the imports of each of these companies led to different amounts of 
duty. In particular, specific duties of 188 EUR per tonne and 191 EUR per tonne have 
been established for two exporting producers respectively. The amount of the specific 
duty per tonne had been corrected for the calculation of the definitive duty as follows: 
the  individual  dumping  margin  for  the  co-operating  exporting  producers  was 
calculated  by  comparing  the  weighted  average  normal  value  established  for  the 
analogue  country  and  the  weighted  average  export  price  reported  by  the  exporting 
producers concerned. The average dumping margin was then calculated as a weighted 
average of the individual dumping margins established for the co-operating exporting 
producers  which  were  neither  granted  MET  nor  IT.  The  specific  duty  per  tonne  has 
been calculated by applying this single dumping margin to the weighted average CIF 
value per tonne established for these companies. If the methodology explained above 
had been applied at the provisional stage, the provisional specific duty per tonne for all 
exporting  producers  neither  granted  MET  nor  IT  would  have  been  183  EUR. 
Therefore,  to  the  extent  that  the  duties  imposed  by  the  provisional  Regulation  were 
higher than this amount, the difference should not be definitively collected.  

(55)  On this basis, the countrywide definitive level of dumping was established at 22,9% of 

the CIF Community frontier price. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
1. 

Community production 

D. 

INJURY 

(56) 

In the absence of any new information submitted, the basis for the calculation of the 
total  Community  production  as  set  out  in  recitals  (100)  to  (101)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

2. 

Definition of the Community industry 

(57) 

In  the  absence  of  any  new  information  submitted,  the  definition  of  the  Community 
industry as set out in recital (102) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

3. 

Community consumption 

(58) 

In  the  absence  of  any  new  information  submitted,  the  calculation  of  Community 
consumption  as  set  out  in  recitals  (103)  to  (106)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  is 
hereby confirmed. 

4. 

Imports into the Community from the countries concerned 

4.1.  Cumulative assessment of the effects of the dumped imports concerned - market 
shares of dumped imports 

(59)  As  mentioned  in  recital  (52)  above,  one  of  the  exporting  producers  in  the  PRC  was 
found not to have sold at dumped prices during the IP. Furthermore, and as mentioned 
in  recital  (37)  above,  the  dumping  margin  found  for  the  co-operating  exporting 
producers  in  Pakistan  was  below  the  de  minimis  threshold.  Consequently,  the  export 
volumes from these exporting producers should be decumulated from the total import 
volumes  from  the  countries  concerned.  The  evolution  of  dumped  imports  from  the 
countries  concerned,  as  given  in  recital  (108)  in  the  provisional  Regulation,  should 
therefore be the following : 

PRC 

Market Share (%) 

Australia 

Market Share (%) 

Total countries 
concerned 

1999 

2000 

144 

0 % 

0 

0 % 

144 

20 

0 % 

0 

0 % 

20 

2001 

9,000 

0.6 % 

2002 

IP 

86,788 

117,953 

4.8 % 

6.4 % 

5,157 

17,031 

27,538 

0.5 % 

0.9 % 

1.5 % 

14,157 

103,819 

145,491 

Market share (%) 

0 % 

0 % 

1.1 % 

5.7 % 

7.9 % 

(60) 

In the absence of any new information submitted, it follows from the data above that, 
even  taking  into  account  the  decumulation  of  non-dumped  imports,  as  explained  in 
recital (59), the criteria of Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation are still met with regard 
to  the  cumulation  of  imports  originating  in  the  PRC  and  Australia.  Therefore,  the 
decumulation  of  the  non-dumped  imports  does  not  affect  the  findings  relating  to  the 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
appropriateness  of  the  cumulative  assessment  of  the  effects  of  the  dumped  imports 
concerned, as set out in the provisional Regulation, especially in the light of the fact 
that  the  level  of  undercutting  found  in  the  provisional  Regulation  corresponds  to  the 
level  of  undercutting  found  for  those  exporting  producers  that  remain  after 
decumulation of the non-dumped imports. Finally, the market share as regards dumped 
imports  from  Australia,  as  set  out  in  recitals  (107)  to  (111)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation, is hereby confirmed. 

(61) 

In the absence of any new information submitted in addition to the above, the findings 
relating to the cumulative assessment of the effects of the dumped imports concerned 
and  the  market  share  of  these  imports,  as  set  out  in  recitals  (107)  to  (111)  of  the 
provisional Regulation, are hereby confirmed. 

4.2. 

Prices of imports and undercutting 

(62) 

It is recalled that, in making its provisional findings, the Commission had, as set out in 
recitals (112) to (114) of the provisional Regulation, compared the ex-works prices of 
the  Community  industry  with  those  of  the  exporting  producers  in  the  countries 
concerned  at  CIF  Community  frontier  level,  taking  into  account  customs  duties,  and 
with adjustments for handling costs and different levels of trade. 

(63)  On  the  basis  of  new  CIF  Community  frontier  prices  calculated  for  the  exporting 
producers in Australia (see recital (21)) and the PRC (see recital (52)), and due to new 
exchange-rates  used  (see  recitals  (12)  to  (13)),  new  undercutting  margins  were 
calculated.  

(64)  The  new  margins  by  which  imports  of  the  products  concerned  originating  in  the 
countries concerned undercut the Community industry’s average prices, expressed as a 
percentage of the latter, are the following:  

– 

– 

Australia: 9.5 % to 13.8 %,  

PRC: 10.49 % to 14.09 %.  

(65)  The  differences  in  comparison  with  the  level  of  undercutting  for  the  exporting 
producers  in  Australia  and  the  PRC,  as  presented  in  recital  (113)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation, are not considered to be significant. The conclusion drawn on the level of 
undercutting in the provisional Regulation is therefore confirmed. 

(66)  Some  exporting  producers  argued  that  the  adjustments  made  for  handling  costs  and 
different  levels  for  trade  (1%)  were  insufficient.  According  to  these  exporting 
producers, the adjustments made were not sufficient to cover the real costs incurred on 
importation of the goods. 

(67)  However,  the  adjustments  were  based  on  actual  information  collected  during  the 
investigation. In the absence of any new evidence that the level of adjustments made 
was  incorrect,  i.e.  not  based  on  facts  collected,  the  arguments  of  these  exporting 
producers are rejected. The level of adjustment made in the provisional Regulation is 
hereby confirmed. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
(68) 

In the absence of any information submitted in addition to the above, the findings in 
respect of prices of imports and undercutting as set out in recitals (112) to (114) of the 
provisional Regulation are confirmed. 

5. 

Situation of the Community Industry 

(69) 

It  is  recalled  that  in  recital  (147)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the  Commission 
provisionally  concluded  that  the  Community  industry  had  suffered  material  injury 
within the meaning of Article 3 of the basic Regulation. 

(70)  Many  exporting  producers  questioned  the  interpretation  of  the  figures  relating  to  the 
situation  of  the  Community  industry  as  presented  in  recitals  (117)  to  (144)  of  the 
provisional Regulation. They stated that the figures did not show any material injury. 
These exporting producers claimed that the figures instead showed a massive increase 
of  production  volumes,  production  capacity,  sales  volumes  and  average  prices  since 
the start of the period considered (1999), which should lead to the conclusion that the 
Community industry has not suffered material injury.  

(71)  The  exporting  producers  also  referred  to  the  fact  that  consumption  had  increased  by 
37 % during the period considered (recital (106) of the provisional Regulation). They 
claimed  that,  if  the  Community  industry  under  these  advantageous  circumstances 
could not obtain a level of efficiency, which could ensure a sustainable profit margin, 
even though being confronted with imports from third countries, the poor performance 
had  to  be  attributed  to  factors  within  the  Community  industry  itself  rather  that  to 
competition from imports.  

(72) 

It is noted that none of the exporting producers has questioned the figures relating to 
the situation of the Community industry as such, but rather their interpretation. 

(73)  When  analysing  the  development  of  the  Community  industry’s  economic  indicators 
between 1999 and the IP, one must bear in mind that the Community industry was in a 
seriously depressed state in 1999 with losses of 16.4% due to dumped imports of the 
product  concerned  from  India,  Indonesia,  Malaysia,  Republic  of  Korea,  Taiwan  and 
Thailand. 

(74)  As  stated  in  recital  (129)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  anti-dumping  duties  were 
imposed  on  imports  of  the  product  concerned  from  India,  Indonesia,  Malaysia, 
Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand in 20005. 

(75)  Subsequent to the imposition of the anti-dumping measures in 2000, the Community 
market  stabilised  and  the  economic  indicators  for the  Community industry improved 
as  a  result  of  the  measures  imposed.  The  Commission  emphasised  this  particular 
development when, in recital (143) of the provisional Regulation, it concluded that by 
2001 the Community industry had recovered from past dumping. 

(76) 

In  these  circumstances,  in  order  to  measure  the  effects  of  dumped  imports  from  the 
countries concerned, it is considered that the relevant economic indicators have to be 
particularly  examined  from  the  time  when  the  Community  industry  had  fully 

5 

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1742/2000 (OJ L 199, 5.8.2000, p. 48.) and Council Regulation (EC) 
No 2604/2000 (OJ L 301, 30.11.2000, p. 21). 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
recovered  from  past  dumping,  which  in  this  case  was  2001.  When  examining  the 
relevant  economic  factors  from  2001,  it  emerges  that,  contrary  to  the  above 
submissions,  but  as  found  already  by  the  Commission  in  its  provisional  findings 
(recitals (135) and (146) of the provisional Regulation), the Community industry did 
show a significant decrease in profit, price depression and a significant loss in market 
share, especially from 2002 and during the IP.  

(77) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  information  submitted  in  addition  to  the  above,  the 
findings in respect of the situation for the Community industry, as set out in recitals 
(117) to (144) of the provisional Regulation, are hereby confirmed.  

6. 

Conclusion 

(78) 

In  view  of  the  above,  it  is  concluded  that  the  Community  industry  has  suffered 
material injury within the meaning of Article 3 of the basic Regulation.  

1. 

Effect of the dumped imports 

E. 

CAUSATION 

(79) 

It  is  recalled  that  in  recitals  (150)  to  (153)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the 
Commission concluded that there was a causal link between dumped imports from the 
countries concerned and the material injury suffered by the Community industry. 

(80)  Since one of the exporting producers in the PRC was found not to have sold at dumped 
prices during the IP, and the dumping margin for the co-operating exporting producers 
in Pakistan was found to be below the de minimis threshold, the export volumes from 
these exporting producers should be decumulated from the effects of dumped imports.  

(81)  The  exports  to  the  Community  by  the  Chinese  exporting  producer  concerned 
represented less than 5 % of the imports volumes originating in the PRC during the IP 
(less  than  1  %  in  terms  of  market  share  of  Community  consumption).  The 
decumulation  of  the  exports  from  this  exporter  is  therefore  considered  to  have  a 
marginal  effect  on  the  causal  link  established  in  the  investigation  leading  up  to  the 
provisional Regulation.  

(82)  The  exports  to  the  Community  by  the  co-operating  exporting  producers  in  Pakistan 
represented 4 % in terms of market share of Community consumption in the IP, and 
were therefore considered to have been significant. Still, as compared to total imports 
from  the  countries  concerned,  the  exports  originating  in  Pakistan  only  represented 
33.4 %  of  the  total  imports  from  the  countries  concerned,  i.e.  66.7  %  of  the  imports 
from  the  countries  concerned  were  still  found  to  have  been  sold  at  prices  with  a 
dumping  margin  above  the  de  minimis  threshold.  It  is  therefore  considered  that  a 
causal link  still exists between dumped imports from Australia and  the  PRC and the 
material injury suffered by the Community industry. 

(83)  Some  exporting  producers  claimed  that  there  was  a  positive  correlation  between  the 
Community  industry’s  and  the  exporting  producers’  prices,  in  that  increases  and 
decreases  occurred  simultaneously.  According  to  these  exporting  producers,  this 
showed that the price decreases suffered during the last two years by the Community 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
industry were not due to competition from dumped imports but rather adjustments to 
changes in the costs for raw materials. 

(84) 

It  is  recalled  that  approximately  two  thirds  of  the  cost  of  production  consists  of  raw 
materials (see recital (162) in the provisional Regulation). In this context, as both the 
exporting producers and the Community industry rely on the same raw material, it is 
considered that the question whether or not prices react simultaneously to changes in 
the  underlying  cost  structure  is  not  considered  relevant  in  isolation.  In  any  event,  as 
will be shown below, an analysis of the actual prices does not confirm that there was a 
positive correlation.  

(85)  Recitals (162) to (172) of the provisional Regulation set out in detail an analysis of the 
possible  contribution  of  the  cost  of  raw  materials  to  the  injury  suffered  by  the 
Community industry. It should furthermore be noted that, an analysis of the prices of 
dumped  imports  from  the  countries  concerned  after  2001  when  the  Community 
industry had recovered from past dumping shows the following:  

– 

– 

prices  of  imports  of  the  product  concerned  originating  in  Australia  decreased 
from 868/tonne in 2002 to 838/tonne during the IP, or by - 3.4 %, 

prices  of  imports  of  the  product  concerned  originating  in  the  PRC  increased 
from 788/tonne in 2002 to 825/tonne during the IP, or by + 4.5 %. 

(86)  Whereas the increase in the price of imports from the PRC (+ 4.5 %) coincides with 
the price development over the same period for the main raw material, PTA (+ 5.1 % 
(see  recital  (168)  in  the  provisional  Regulation),  the  prices  of  imports  originating  in 
Australia decreased over the same period. The Community industry’s prices increased 
by less than 1% during this period. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that there was a 
positive  correlation  between  the  Community  industry’s  and  the  exporting  producers’ 
prices,  as  the  price  development  from  the  three  countries  is  not  coherent.  In  this 
context,  it  should  also  be  recalled  that  the  Commission  had  found  a  significant 
undercutting  of  the  Community  industry’s  sales  prices  by  all  exporting  producers  in 
the course of the investigation. 

(87) 

In the absence of any information submitted in addition to the above, the conclusion 
drawn  in  respect  of  the  effects  of  dumped  imports  in  recitals  (150)  to  (153)  of  the 
provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed. However, it is to be noted that the exports 
by one exporting producer in the PRC whose exports were found to be dumped in the 
provisional Regulation, have been found not to sell at dumped prices. Furthermore, the 
dumping  margin  of  the  co-operating  exporting  producers  in  Pakistan  whose  exports 
were found to be dumped in the provisional Regulation was found to be below the de 
minimis threshold. The effect of these exports should therefore no longer be assessed 
under the effect of dumped imports but under the effect of other factors. 

2. 

Effect of other factors 

(88)  Since one of the exporting producers in the PRC was found not to have sold at dumped 
prices during the IP, and the dumping margin for the co-operating exporting producers 
in Pakistan was found to be below the de minimis threshold, the export volumes from 
these  exporting  producers  should  be  decumulated  from  the  total  volume  of  dumped 
imports. However, the prices of these exporting producers were found to significantly 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
undercut the Community industry’s average sales prices. As mentioned in recitals (81) 
and  (82),  the  non-dumped  volumes  of  imports  from  the  countries  concerned 
represented between 4% and 5% of Community consumption. It can therefore not be 
excluded that the exports to the Community by this exporting producer in the PRC and 
the co-operating exporting producers in Pakistan also have significantly contributed to 
the material injury suffered by the Community industry. 

(89)  Some  exporters  claimed  that  the  Commission  had  not  sufficiently  investigated  the 
effect  of  the  depreciation  of  the  USD  and  RMB  against  the  EUR.  These  exporters 
claimed that, due to the depreciation of the USD and the RMB against the EUR during 
the  IP,  the  exporters  had  gained  market  shares  in  the  Community  by  keeping  their 
prices in USD, which effectively entailed a reduction in the price expressed in EUR. 
Based  on  the  foregoing,  the  exporting  producers  expressed  doubts  whether  the 
material  injury  suffered  by  the  Community  industry  had  been  caused  by  dumped 
imports or by imports at prices which were lower due to the currency effect. 

(90)  Currency  fluctuations  in  isolation  are  normally  not  taken  into  account  in  an  anti-
dumping  investigation  as  they  can  not  be  considered  to  be  of  a  lasting  nature. 
Nevertheless, the effects of currency fluctuations are, in effect, included in the analysis 
insofar they had an effect on the cost of raw materials consumed by the Community 
industry  (recitals  (162)  to  (173)  in  the  provisional  Regulation)  and  on  the  price  of 
dumped imports (recitals (150) to (153) in the provisional Regulation).  

(91) 

(92) 

It  is  recalled  that  significant  levels  of  dumping  have  been  found  from  exporters  in 
Australia and the PRC during the investigation (see recitals (21) and (52). Moreover, it 
is also recalled that exporting producers from Australia and the PRC have been found 
to undercut the prices of the Community industry by significant amounts (see recital 
(64)). 

It  cannot  be  excluded  that  non-dumped  imports  originating  in  the  PRC  and  imports 
originating  from  the  co-operating  exporting  producers  in  Pakistan,  whose  dumping 
margin was found to be below the de minimis threshold, could contribute to the injury 
suffered by the Community industry. This effect, however, is not such as to break the 
causal link established in the provisional Regulation  between  dumped  imports  in  the 
countries  concerned  and  the  material  injury  suffered  by  the  Community  industry. 
Therefore, in the absence of any new information submitted, the conclusions drawn in 
respect of the effect of dumped imports in recitals (150) to (153) and in respect of the 
effect  of  other  factors  in  recitals  (154)  to  (178)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are 
hereby confirmed. 

F. 

COMMUNITY INTEREST 

1. 

Interest of the Community industry 

(93) 

In  the  absence  of  any  information  submitted  with  respect  of  the  interest  of  the 
Community  industry,  the  findings  as  set  out  in  recitals  (183)  to  (184)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
2. 

Interest of unrelated importers 

(94)  One submission from an unrelated importer was received. In addition, a hearing with 
another importer (agent) was also held. The arguments of the first importer coincided 
with those of the exporting producers and have been discussed in recital (70) above. 
The arguments of the second importer (agent) are discussed under recital (102) below, 
as they coincide with the arguments of two mineral water producers.  

(95) 

In the absence of any further information submitted with respect of the interest of the 
unrelated importers, the findings as set out in recitals (185) to (187) of the provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3. 

Interest of suppliers 

(96) 

In  the  absence  of  any  information  submitted  with  respect  of  the  interest  of  the 
Community  suppliers,  the  findings  as  set  out  in  recitals  (188)  to  (189)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4. 

nterest of users 

4.1. 

Preliminary remarks 

(97)  The  manner  in  which  Community  consumption  of  the  product  concerned  was 
distributed  between  various  types  of  users  was  explained  under  the  heading 
preliminary  remarks  in  recitals  (190)  to  (192)  of  the  provisional  Regulation.  In  the 
absence of any new information, this description is hereby confirmed. 

4.2. 

Preform/Bottle converters 

(98) 

It  is  recalled  that  the  Commission  in  its  provisional  findings  (recital  (196)  of  the 
provisional Regulation) could not establish whether it would be in the interest of the 
preform/bottle  converters  to  impose  anti-dumping  duties.  This  conclusion  was  based 
on  the  fact  that,  whereas  two  co-operating  preform/bottle  converters  supported  the 
introduction of anti-dumping measures, the Association of Plastic Converters opposed 
it. 

(99)  Subsequent  to  the  imposition  of  provisional  anti-dumping  measures,  no  new 
submissions,  nor  a  request  for  a  hearing,  were  made  by  the  Association  of  Plastic 
Converters.  On  this  basis,  it  cannot  be  concluded  that  the  interests  of  the 
preform/bottle converters would constitute a compelling reason against the imposition 
of  anti-dumping  measures.  The  findings  as  set  out  in  recitals  (193)  to  (195)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are therefore confirmed.  

4.3.  The mineral and spring water producers 

(100)  After  disclosure  of  the  basis  upon  which  provisional  measures  were  imposed,  a 
clerical error has been rectified by including L’Européenne D’embouteillage on the list 
of  co-operating  users.  This  user  opposed  the  introduction  of  provisional  measures. 
Consequently,  there  were  two  rather  than  one  mineral  and  spring  water  producers 
opposing the imposition of anti-dumping duties, while two others remained in favour. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
(101)  It is recalled that in the investigation leading up to provisional duties, the Commission 

had concluded the following as regards filled mineral water bottles: 

– 

– 

– 

the  cost  of  PET  for  mineral  and  spring  water  producers  represented 
approximately  30  %  of  their  manufacturing  costs  (see  recital  (198)  in  the 
provisional Regulation), 

the cost of PET at the level of the end-consumer only represented 3 cents, or 
6-10 % of the retail price (see recital (199) in the provisional Regulation), 

a  10  %  increase  in  the  price  of  PET  would  entail  a  possible  maximum  price 
increase of 0.6 % to 1 % at the level of end-consumer if all the costs are passed 
on. This increase was not considered significant in the provisional Regulation 
because it could either be absorbed by the downstream industry or passed on to 
retailers or end-consumers (see recital (202) of the provisional Regulation). 

(102)  Subsequent to the disclosure of the provisional findings, two mineral and spring water 
producers and one importer (the ‘group’) made a joint submission. The group claimed 
that: 

– 

– 

the  interest  of  the  small  and  medium  sized  preform/bottle  converters  had  not 
been  duly  taken  into  account.  They  claimed  that  the  price  increases  resulting 
from the imposition of measures could not be passed on to soft drink producers 
but  had  to  be  absorbed  by  preform/bottle  converters,  which  would  negatively 
affect  the  financial  stability  for  small  and  medium  sized  preform/bottle 
converters,  

the Commission had overstated the retail price for a bottle of mineral water in 
the provisional Regulation, thereby underestimating how significant the cost of 
PET is for a bottle of mineral water. Rather than 6-10% of the retail price, as 
the Commission indicated, the group claimed that the cost of PET was around 
20%  of  the  retail  price.  Hence,  the  group  claimed  that  the  Commission  had 
underestimated  the  impact  that  increases  of  the  costs  for  PET  had  on  the 
downstream industry, 

– 

the  risk  for  outsourcing  from  the  European  Community  had  not  sufficiently 
been considered. 

(103)  Concerning the group’s claim that price increases on PET could not be passed on to 
the  next  level  of  users  (i.e.  to  retailers,  end-consumers  and,  in  the  case  of 
preform/bottle converters, to soft drink producers), this claim was not substantiated. In 
addition,  no  retailers  nor  any  consumer  organisations  have  made  themselves  known 
during the investigation. This argument is therefore rejected. 

(104)  Concerning  the  alleged  overstatement  of  the  retail  price  by  the  Commission  in  the 
provisional  Regulation  (which  would  entail  an  underestimation  of  the  effects  that 
increases  of  PET  had  on  the  downstream  industry),  the  retail  prices  have  been  re-
investigated. However, they were found to be in the range presented in the provisional 
Regulation. This argument is therefore rejected. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
(105)  As concerns the risk of outsourcing, it is recalled that health regulations in respect of 
the  bottling  of  mineral  water  require  that  preform  bottles  should  be  in  principle 
produced  at  the  place  at  which  they  are  filled.  Accordingly,  preforms  used  by  water 
producers are self-produced close to the blowing and filling lines. Hence, the risk for 
any outsourcing of preform/bottling capacity would be limited to the case of preforms 
for soft drinks producers, which account for only about 40 % of the total consumption 
of  the  product  concerned.  Furthermore,  as  noted  in  recital  (99)  above,  it  cannot  be 
concluded  that  the  interests  of  the  preform/bottle  converters  would  constitute  a 
compelling  reason  against  the  imposition  of  anti-dumping  measures.  In  these 
circumstances,  the  group’s  argument  concerning  the  alleged  risk  for  outsourcing  of 
bottling/converting capacity is rejected.  

(106)  In the absence of any new information submitted in addition to the above, the findings 
as set out in recitals (197) to (202) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4.4.  The soft drink producers 

(107)  In the absence of any new information submitted with respect of the interest of the soft 
drink  producers,  the  findings  as  set  out  in  recitals  (203)  to  (206)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4.5. 

Shortages of PET in the Community market 

(108)  In the absence of any new information submitted with respect of the claimed shortages 
of PET in the Community market, the findings as set out in recitals (207) to (209) of 
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

5. 

Conclusion on Community Interest 

(109)  In view of the conclusions drawn in the provisional Regulation and taking into account 
the  submissions  made  by  the  various  parties,  it  is  concluded  that  there  are  no 
compelling  reasons  not  to  impose  definitive  anti-dumping  measures  against  dumped 
imports of PET originating in the countries concerned. 

G. 

DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 

(110)  Based  on  the  methodology  explained  in  recitals  (212)  to  (215)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation, an injury elimination level was calculated for the purposes of establishing 
the level of measures to be imposed.  

(111)  When calculating the injury margin in the provisional Regulation, the target profit for 
the Community industry was set at 7%, a level which originated from the investigation 
leading  to  the  imposition  of  anti-dumping  measures  on  imports  of  the  product 
concerned  originating  in,  inter  alia,  India  in  2000.  It  was,  at  that  time,  based  on  an 
estimate on the level of profit that the Community industry could expect in the absence 
of dumping and a level which was considered necessary to ensure the viability of the 
industry. 

(112)  However,  in  the  present  investigation,  it  was  found,  based  on  evidence,  that  a  profit 
level of 7.6 % could be achieved in the absence of dumping. Hence, it is considered 
that  a  target  profit  of  7.6  %  is  more  appropriate  when  calculating  the  injury  margin 
rather than 7 % used in the provisional Regulation.  

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
(113)  In  the  absence  of  any  new  comments  on  this  subject,  other  than  to  the  amendment 
above, the methodology set out in recitals (212) to (215) of the provisional Regulation 
is hereby confirmed. 

1. 

Definitive measures 

(114)  In  the  light  of  the  foregoing  and  in  accordance  with  Article  9(4)  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  should  be  imposed  at  the  level  of  the 
dumping margin calculated, since they were in all cases lower than the injury margins. 

(115)  On the basis of the above, the definitive duties should be as follows: 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
Country 

Company 

Injury 
elimination 
margin 

Dumping 
margin 

Anti-dumping 
duty rate 

Proposed anti-
dumping duty 

Australia 

Leading Synthetics Pty Ltd 

19.8 % 

7.8 % 

7.8 % 

66 EUR/t 

Novapex Australia Pty Ltd 

26.3 % 

15.9 % 

15.9 % 

128 EUR/t 

All other companies 

26.3 % 

15.9 % 

15.9 % 

128 EUR/t 

PRC 

Sinopec Yizheng Chemical 
Fibre Company Ltd, 

27.3 % 

22.9 % 

22.9 % 

184 EUR/t 

Changzhou Worldbest Radici 
Co. Ltd, 

27.1 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 EUR/t 

Jiangyin Xingye Plastic Co. Ltd,

20.9 % 

18.4 % 

18.4 % 

157 EUR/t 

Far Eastern Industries Shanghai 
Ltd, 

Yuhua Polyester Co. Ltd. of 
Zhuhai, 

Guangdong Kaiping Polyester 
Enterprises Group Co. and 
Guangdong Kaiping Chunhui 
Co. Ltd. 

Yibin Wuliangye Group Push 
Co., Ltd. (Sichuan) and Yibin 
Wuliangye Group Import & 
Export Co., Ltd. (Sichuan) 

Hubei Changfeng Chemical 
Fibres Industry Co. Ltd 

21.2 % 

2.6 % 

2.6 % 

22 EUR/t 

27.3 % 

22.9 % 

22.9 % 

184 EUR/t 

27.3 % 

22.9 % 

22.9 % 

184 EUR/t 

27.3 % 

22.9% 

22.9% 

184 EUR/t 

26.2 % 

18.5 % 

18.5 % 

151 EUR/t 

All other companies 

27.3 % 

22.9 % 

22.9 % 

184 EUR/t 

Pakistan 

Gatron (Industries) Ltd 

Novatex Ltd 

All other companies 

22.1 % 

22.1 % 

22.1 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 EUR/t 

0 EUR/t 

0 EUR/t 

(116)  The  individual  anti-dumping  duty  rates  specified  in  this  Regulation  were  established 
on  the  basis  of  the  findings  of  the  present  investigation.  Therefore,  they  reflect  the 
situation found during that investigation with respect to these companies. These duty 
rates (as opposed to the countrywide duty applicable to "all other companies") are thus 
exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the country concerned and 
produced  by  the  companies  specifically  mentioned.  Imported  products  produced  by 
any other company not specifically mentioned by its name and address in the operative 
part  of  this  Regulation,  including  entities  related  to  those  specifically  mentioned, 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to "all 
other companies". 

(117)  Any claim requesting the application of these individual anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. 
following  a  change  in  the  name  of  the  entity  or  following  the  setting-up  of  new 
production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission6 forthwith with all 
relevant information, in particular any modification in the company's activities linked 
to production, domestic and export sales associated with e.g. that name change or that 
change  in  the  production  and  sales  entities.  If  appropriate,  the  Regulation  will 
accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual 
duty rates.  

(118)  As  mentioned  in  recital  (162)  in  the  provisional  Regulation,  PET  prices  can  and  do 
fluctuate in line with fluctuations in crude oil prices, but this should not of itself entail 
a higher duty. It was therefore considered appropriate to impose duties in the form of a 
specific  amount  per  tonne.  These  amounts  result  from  the  application  of  the  anti-
dumping  duty  rate  to  the  CIF  export  prices  used  for  the  calculation  of  the  injury 
elimination level. 

2. 

Undertakings 

(119)  Subsequent  to  the  adoption  of  provisional  anti-dumping  measures,  one  co-operating 
exporting producer in Australia offered a price undertaking in accordance with Article 
8(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  In  this  undertaking,  the  exporting  producer  in  question 
has  offered  to  sell  the  product  concerned  at  or  above  price  levels  that  eliminate  the 
injurious effect of dumping. 

(120)  The Commission, by Decision 2004/XX/EC7, accepted the undertaking offered by the 
exporting producer concerned. The reasons for accepting this undertaking are set out 
in that Decision. 

3. 

Collection of provisional duties 

(121)  In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and in the light of the level of 
the material injury caused to the Community Industry, it is considered necessary that 
the  amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty,  imposed  by 
Regulation  (EC)  No  306/2004,  should  be  collected  at  the  rate  of  the  duty  definitely 
imposed.  Where  the  definitive  duties  are  higher  than  the  provisional  duties,  only  the 
amounts secured at the level of the provisional duties should be definitively collected, 

6 

7 

European Commission 
Directorate-General for Trade 
Direction B 
Office J-79 5/16   
B-1049 Brussels. 
XXXX 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 

2. 

A  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  is  hereby  imposed  on  imports  of  poly(ethylene 
terephthalate) having a viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher, according to the ISO 
Standard 1628-5, classified under CN code 3907 60 20 and originating in Australia, 
the People’s Republic of China and Pakistan. 

The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net free-at-Community-
frontier  price  for  products  manufactured  by  the  companies  listed  below  shall  be  as 
follows: 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
Country 

Company 

Anti-dumping duty

Australia 

Leading Synthetics Pty Ltd  

Novapex Australia Pty Ltd 

All other companies 

PRC 

Sinopec Yizheng Chemical Fibre Company Ltd,

Changzhou Worldbest Radici Co. Ltd, 

Jiangyin Xingye Plastic Co. Ltd, 

Far Eastern Industries Shanghai Ltd, 

Yuhua Polyester Co. Ltd. of Zhuhai, 

Guangdong Kaiping Polyester Enterprises 
Group Co. and Guangdong Kaiping Chunhui 
Co. Ltd. 

Yibin Wuliangye Group Push Co., Ltd. 
(Sichuan) and Yibin Wuliangye Group Import 
& Export Co., Ltd. (Sichuan) 

Hubei Changfeng Chemical Fibres Industry Co. 
Ltd 

All other companies 

Pakistan 

Gatron (Industries) Ltd 

Novatex Ltd 

All other companies 

TARIC additional 
code 

A503 

A504 

A999 

A505 

A506 

A507 

A508 

A509 

(EUR/t) 

66 

128 

128 

184 

0 

157 

22 

184 

184  

A511 

184 

151 

184 

0 

0 

0 

A512 

A513 

A999 

A514 

A515 

A999 

3. 

4. 

The  application  of  the  individual  duty  rates  specified  for  the  16  companies 
mentioned  in  paragraph  2  shall  be  conditional  upon  presentation  to  the  customs 
authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform 
to the requirements set out in Annex 1. If no such invoice is presented, the duty rate 
applicable to all other companies shall apply. 

In  cases  where  goods  have  been  damaged  before  entry  into  free  circulation  and, 
therefore, the price actually paid or payable is apportioned for the determination of 
the  customs  value  pursuant  to  Article  145  of  Commission  Regulation  (EEC)  No 
2454/93  of  2  July  1993  laying  down  provisions  for  the  implementation  of  Council 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Common Customs Code8 the amount 
of anti-dumping duty, calculated on the basis of paragraph 2 above, shall be reduced 
by a percentage which corresponds to the apportioning of the price actually paid or 
payable. 

5. 

6. 

Notwithstanding the provisions in paragraph 2, the definitive duty shall not apply to 
imports declared for release into free circulation in accordance with the provisions of 
Article 2. 

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

Article 2 

Imports  declared  for  release  into  free  circulation  by  companies  which  offered  undertakings 
accepted by and named in Commission Decision 2004/XX/EC shall be exempt from the anti-
dumping  duties  imposed  by  Article  1,  provided  that  they  are  manufactured,  shipped  and 
invoiced directly by the said companies to the first independent customer in the Community; 
and provided that such imports are accompanied by a commercial invoice containing at least 
the elements listed in Annex 2. Exemption from the duty shall further be conditional on the 
goods  declared  and  presented  to  customs  corresponding  precisely  to  the  description  on  the 
commercial invoice. 

Article 3 

Amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 
306/2004  on  imports  of  poly(ethylene  terephthalate)  falling  within  CN  Code  3907  60  20 
originating  in  Australia,  the  People’s  Republic  of  China  and  Pakistan  shall  be  definitely 
collected at the rate definitively imposed by the present Regulation. The amounts secured in 
excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping duties shall be released. 

A  correction  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  imposed  on  imports  of  poly(ethylene 
terephtahalate)  falling  within  CN  Code  3907  60  20  originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of 
China  shall  apply  for  the  following  companies,  since  the  corrected  duty  would  have  been 
lower than the provisional duty imposed: 

8 

OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2286/2003 
(OJ L 343, 31.12.2003, p. 1). 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Country 

Company 

Yuhua Polyester Co., Ltd of Zhuhai, 

PRC 

Guangdong Kaiping Polyester Enterprises 
Group Co. and Guangdong Kaiping Chunhui 
Co. Ltd. 

Provisional Anti-
dumping duty as 
imposed by 
Regulation (EC) 
No 306/2004  

(EUR/t) 

188 

191 

Corrected 
provisional Anti-
dumping duty  

TARIC 
additional 
code 

183 

183 

A509 

A511 

The  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  imposed  on  these  companies  shall  only  be  definitively 
collected at the rate of the corrected provisional anti-dumping duty. 

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

Article 4 

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

Done at Brussels,  

By the Council 
The President 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1 

The  valid  commercial  invoice  referred  to  in  Article  1(3)  of  this  Regulation  must  include  a 
declaration signed by an officer of the company, in the following format: 

1. 

2. 

The  name  and  function  of  the  official  of  the  company  which  has  issued  the 
commercial invoice; 

The following declaration: 

‘I, the undersigned, certify that the [volume] of poly(ethylene terephthalate) sold for 
export  to  the  European  Community  covered  by  this  invoice  was  manufactured  by 
[company name and address] [TARIC additional code] in [country]; I declare that the 
information provided in this invoice is complete and correct.’ 

3. 

Date and signature. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
 
ANNEX 2 

Elements to be indicated on the commercial invoice referred to in Article 2 

The following elements shall be indicated in the commercial invoice accompanying sales of 
the  product  concerned,  which  are  subject  to  an  Undertaking  and  for  which  an  exemption  to 
the anti-dumping duty is claimed: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

The  heading  “COMMERCIAL  INVOICE  ACCOMPANYING  GOODS  SUBJECT 
TO AN UNDERTAKING”. 

The name of the company referred to in Article 2, issuing the commercial invoice. 

The commercial invoice number. 

The date of issue of the commercial invoice. 

The TARIC additional code under which the goods on the invoice are to be customs-
cleared at the Community frontier. 

The exact description of the goods, including: 

– 

– 

– 

 the product code number (PCN),  

 CN code, 

 quantity (in tonnes). 

7. 

The description of the terms of the sale, including: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

price per tonne, 

the applicable payment terms, 

the applicable delivery terms, 

 total discounts and rebates. 

8. 

9. 

The  name  of  the  company  acting  as  an  importer  to  which  the  invoice  is  issued 
directly by the company. 

The name of the official of the company that has issued the commercial invoice and 
the following signed declaration: 

‘I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for direct export to the European Community 
of the goods covered  by  this  invoice is being made within the scope  and under the 
terms of the undertaking offered by [company name and address], [Taric additional 
code], and accepted by the European Commission through Decision XXX/YYY/EC. 
I declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct.’ 

EN 

29 

   EN