Proposal for a Council Regulation extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating, inter alia, in India to imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film consigned from Brazil and from Israel, whether declared as originating in Brazil or Israel or not
Date: 2004-10-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Brazil, Israel, common tariff policy, countervailing charge, plastics

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 20.10.2004 
COM(2004) 703 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) 
No 1676/2001 on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating, inter alia, 
in India to imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film consigned from Brazil and 
from Israel, whether declared as originating in Brazil or Israel or not 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 
By Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001, the Council imposed in 2001 anti-dumping duties 
on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating, inter alia, in India. Imports 
of PET film originating in India are also subject to countervailing duties imposed in 1999 by 
Council Regulation (EC) No 2597/1999. 

2. 
Following a request lodged by a number of large Community producers of PET film, 
the Commission initiated in February 2004 an investigation into the alleged circumvention of 
the  anti-dumping  measures  on  imports  of  PET  film  originating  in  India  by  imports  of  PET 
film consigned from Brazil and from Israel. 

The investigation showed a significant increase in the imports into the Community of 
3. 
PET film exported from Brazil and from Israel. The increase in imports from these countries 
coincided in time with the imposition of the duty on imports of PET film originating in India. 
With  the  exception  of  two  companies  (Terphane  Ltda.  in  Brazil  and  Jolybar  Filmtechnic 
Converting  Ltd.  in  Israel),  no  economic  justification  or  sufficient  due  cause  could  be 
established for these practices other than the existence of the measures. The remedial effects 
of the duty are being undermined in terms of the prices and quantities of the goods imported, 
and there is evidence of dumping.  

4. 
It is therefore proposed that the anti-dumping duty of 53,3%, imposed on imports of 
PET  film  originating  in  India  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1676/2001,  be  extended  to 
imports of PET film consigned from Brazil and from Israel, whether declared as originating in 
Brazil  or  Israel  or  not,  with  the  exception  of  PET  film  consigned  from  the  two  above-
mentioned companies. 

The issue of circumvention in the context of the WTO was fully explained when the 

5. 
most recent modification of the basic Regulation was proposed.1 

1 

COM(2003) 799 final, paragraph 5. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) 
No 1676/2001 on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating, inter alia, 
in India to imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film consigned from Brazil and 
from Israel, whether declared as originating in Brazil or Israel or not 

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 Community2 (‘the basic 
Regulation’), and in particular Article 13 thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

A. 

PROCEDURE 

1. 

Existing measures 

(1) 

(2) 

By Regulation (EC) No 1676/20013 (‘the original Regulation’), the Council imposed 
anti-dumping duties on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film (‘PET film’) 
originating, inter alia, in India. The rates of the anti-dumping duties ranged between 
0%  and  62.6%.  By  Commission  Decision  2001/645/EC4,  the  Commission  accepted 
undertakings from five Indian exporting producers. 

Imports  of  PET  film  originating  in  India  are  also  subject  to  countervailing  duties, 
ranging  between  3,8%  and  19,1%,  imposed  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
2597/19995.  

2.  Ongoing investigations 

(3) 

On 28 June 2002, the Commission announced by a notice of initiation published in the 
Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities6,  the  initiation  of  a  partial  interim 

2 

3 
4 
5 
6 

OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L 77, 
13.3.2004, p. 12.) 
OJ L 227, 23.8.2001, p. 1. 
OJ L 227, 23.8.2001, p. 56. 
OJ L 316, 10.12.1999, p. 1. 
OJ C 154, 28.6.2002, p. 2. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

review pursuant to Article 19 of Council Regulation 2026/977. The request is limited 
in  scope  to  the  form  of  the  measure  and,  in  particular,  to  the  examination  of  the 
acceptability of an undertaking offered by the applicant. This review is still ongoing. 

On 22 November 2003, the Commission announced by a notice of initiation published 
in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union8,  the  initiation  of  a  partial  interim 
review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, limited in scope to the form 
of the anti-dumping measures. This review is still ongoing.  

On 19 February 2004, the Commission announced by a notice of initiation published 
in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union9,  the  initiation  of  a  partial  interim 
review  pursuant  to  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation  limited  to  dumping  for  the 
Indian exporting producer Jindal Polyester Limited. This review is still ongoing.  

3.  Request 

On 6 January 2004, the Commission received a request pursuant to Article 13(3) of the 
basic Regulation (‘the request’) from the Community producers DuPont Teijin Films, 
Mitsubishi Polyester Film GmbH and Nuroll SpA (‘the applicants’) to investigate the 
alleged circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of PET film 
originating  in  India.  The  applicants  represent  a  major  proportion  of  the  Community 
production of PET film. 

The applicants alleged and submitted sufficient evidence showing that, following the 
imposition of measures on imports of PET film originating, inter alia, in India, there 
had  been  significant  changes  in  the  patterns  of  trade  involving  exports  of  PET  film 
from India, Brazil and Israel to the Community. These changes in the patterns of trade 
were  alleged  to  stem  from  the  transhipment  via  Brazil  and  via  Israel  of  PET  film 
originating in India. It was alleged that there was insufficient due cause or economic 
justification for the aforementioned changes other than the imposition of the duty on 
imports of PET film from India.  

Finally,  the  applicants  alleged  and  submitted  prima  facie  evidence  that  the  remedial 
effects  of  this  duty  were  being  undermined  both  in  terms  of  quantities  and  prices.  It 
was  claimed  that  significant  volumes  of  imports  of  PET  film  from  Brazil  and  Israel 
appear  to  have  replaced  imports  of  PET  film  originating  in  India.  In  addition,  the 
applicant  submitted  prima  facie  evidence  that  the  prices  of  PET  film  imported  from 
Brazil and Israel were dumped in relation to the normal values previously established 
for PET film originating in India. 

4. 

Initiation 

(9) 

By  Regulation  (EC)  No  284/200410  (‘the  initiating  Regulation’),  the  Commission 
initiated  an  investigation  concerning  the  possible  circumvention  of  anti-dumping 
measures  on  imports  of  PET  film  originating  in  India  by  imports  of  PET  film 

7 

8 
9 
10 

OJ L 288, 21.10.1997, p.1. Regulation as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L 
77, 13.3.2004, p. 12.) 
OJ C 281, 22.11.2003, p. 4. 
OJ C 43, 19.2.2004, p.14. 
OJ L 49, 19.2.2004, p. 28. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
consigned  from  Brazil  and  from  Israel,  whether  declared  as  originating  in  Brazil  or 
Israel or not and, pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, directed 
the  customs  authorities  to  register  imports  of  PET  film  consigned  from  Brazil  and 
from Israel, whether originating in Brazil or Israel or not, as of 20 February 2004. The 
Commission advised the authorities of India, Brazil and Israel of the initiation of the 
investigation.  At the same  time, by Regulation (EC) No 283/200411 the Commission 
also initiated an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of countervailing 
measures  on  imports  of  PET  film  originating  in  India  by  imports  of  PET  film 
consigned  from  Brazil  and  from  Israel,  whether  declared  as  originating  in  Brazil  or 
Israel  or  not.  The  findings  of  that  investigation  are  presented  in  Council  Regulation 
(EC) No ---/2004. 

(10)  The  Indian  authorities  indicated  that  they  considered  that  anti-circumvention 
investigations were not permissible under either the Agreement on Implementation of 
Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 or the Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing  Measures. This claim was  rejected on the grounds that 
the  anti-circumvention  provisions  of  the  basic  Regulation  are  not  incompatible  with 
the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and  Trade  1994  and  the  Agreement  on  Subsidies  and  Countervailing  Measures. 
Indeed,  the  Final  Act  Embodying  the  Results  of  the  Uruguay  Round  of  Multilateral 
Trade Negotiations contains a Decision on Anti-Circumvention12 referring the matter 
to  the  Committee  on  Anti-Dumping  Practices  in  the  absence  of  an  agreement  on  a 
specific text. As this Decision was made knowing that several WTO Members already 
had their own anti-circumvention legislation, the European Community interprets it as 
permitting individual Members to adopt or maintain provisions in this respect, pending 
the adoption of multilaterally agreed rules. The same principles should logically apply 
to anti-subsidy investigations. 

5. 

Investigation 

(11)  Questionnaires  were  sent  to  exporters/producers  in  India,  Brazil  and  Israel  which 
cooperated  in  the  original  investigation,  were  named  in  the  request  or  subsequently 
became  known  to  the  Commission.  Questionnaires  were  sent  to  importers  in  the 
Community  which  were  named  in  the  request  or  cooperated  in  the  original 
investigation  that  led  to  the  existing  measures.  All  parties  were  informed  that  non-
cooperation might lead to the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation and to 
findings which, being made on the basis of the facts available, can be less favourable 
than if the party had cooperated. 

(12)  Replies  to  the  questionnaire  were  received  from  five  exporters/producers  in  India, 
from  one  exporter/producer  in  Brazil  and  from  one  processing  company  involved  in 
slitting,  sheeting  and  converting  PET  film  in  Israel  and  exporting  PET  film  to  the 
Community. Another company in Israel came forward and explained that it processed 
PET film but that the resulting products were not exported under the CN codes under 
which  PET  film  was  classified.  On  that  basis  the  company  did  not  submit  a 
questionnaire reply.  

11 
12 

OJ L 49, 19.2.2004, p. 25. 
Decision on Anti-circumvention adopted by the Trade Negotiations Committee on 15 December 1993. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(13)  Five  importers  in  the  Community  came  forward  following  receipt  of  questionnaires. 
Three of these reported that they had never imported PET film from either Brazil or 
Israel. The other two importers stated that they had not imported Indian PET film from 
Brazil  or  from  Israel  during  the  investigation  period.  Therefore,  none  of  these 
companies submitted questionnaire replies. 

(14)  The  Commission  carried  out  verification  visits  at  the  premises  of  the  following 

companies:  

Brazilian exporting producer: 

– 

Terphane  Ltda.  BR  101,  km  101,  City  of  Cabo  de  Santo  Agostinho,  State  of 
Pernambuco, Brazil (‘Terphane’) 

Israeli processor: 

– 

Jolybar Filmtechnic Converting Ltd (1987), Hacharutsim str. 7, Ind. Park Siim 
2000, Natania South, 42504. POB 8380, Israel (‘Jolybar’) 

Indian exporting producers: 

– 

– 

– 

Ester Industries Limited, 75-76, Amrit Nagar, Behind South Extension Part – I, 
New Delhi – 110 003, India; 

Flex Industries Limited, A-1, Sector 60, Noida 201 301 (U.P.), India; 

Polyplex  Corporation  Limited,  B-37,  Sector-1,  Noida  201  301,  Dist.  Gautam 
Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, India. 

6. 

Investigation Period 

(15)  The  investigation  period  covered  the  period  from  1  January  2003  to  31  December 
2003 (‘the IP’). Data was collected from 2000 up to the end of the IP to investigate the 
alleged change in the pattern of trade. 

B. 

RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION 

1.  Degree of cooperation 

(16)  As  stated  in  recital  (12)  above,  five  exporters/producers  of  PET  film  in  India 
cooperated  in  the  investigation  by  submitting  questionnaire  replies.  Information  was 
also  obtained  from  one  exporting  producer  of  PET  film  in  Brazil  and  from  one 
processing  company  slitting,  sheeting  and  converting  PET  film  in  Israel.  These 
Brazilian and Israeli companies accounted for a minor part (less than 1% and around 
5%, respectively) both in volume and in value, of the total imports of PET film from 
those countries to the Community during the IP as reported by Eurostat. 

(17)  The  Indian  authorities  made  a  written  submission  further  to  the  initiation  of  the 
investigation and provided statistical information concerning exports of PET film from 
India  to,  inter  alia,  the  Community.  Statistical  data  concerning  exports  of  PET  film 
from  Brazil  to  the  Community  were  also  obtained  from  the  Brazilian  national 
database.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
2. 

Product concerned and like product  

(18)  The  product  concerned  is,  as  defined  in  the  original  investigation,  polyethylene 
terephthalate  (PET)  film  originating  in  India,  normally  declared  under  CN  codes  ex 
3920 62 19 and ex 3920 62 90 (‘the product concerned’).  

(19) 

It  is  considered  that  PET  film  exported  to  the  Community  from  India  and  PET  film 
consigned  from  Brazil  and  from  Israel  to  the  Community  have  the  same  basic 
characteristics  and  the  same  uses.  Therefore,  they  are  considered  as  like  products 
within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation. 

3.  Change in the pattern of trade  

India 

(20)  Over  the  period  1999-2003,  imports  of  the  product  concerned  represented  96,5%  of 
total imports from India under the relevant CN codes. Market analysis was therefore 
carried  out  using  Eurostat  data  at  CN  code  level.  It  should  be  noted  that  in  1999 
countervailing  duties  had  been  imposed  on  imports  to  the  Community  of  PET  film 
originating  in  India,  which  had  already  prompted  a  decrease  in  volumes  of  such 
imports.  This  was  followed  by  the  imposition  of  anti-dumping  measures  in  2001 
which  led  to  a  further  decrease.  Anti-dumping  measures  concerning  India  consist  of 
price-based undertaking agreements with five individual exporting producers and one 
company  with  a  0%  anti-dumping  duty  rate.  As  a  result,  anti-dumping  duties  are 
essentially  not  payable  on  imports  from  the  larger  part  of  the  Indian  producers.  A 
residual anti-dumping duty of 53,3% is applicable to imports from all other exporting 
producers. In 2000 imports to the Community of PET film originating in India stood at 
11.600  tonnes.  Those  imports  initially  decreased  to  6.100  tonnes  in  2001  but  then 
increased  to  7.700  tonnes  in  2002,  and  further  increased  during  the  IP  to  11.500 
tonnes.  The  data  submitted  by  the  cooperating  Indian  exporting  producers  showed 
similar trends – an increase of around 1.300 tonnes from 2001 to 2002 and a further 
increase  of  around  3.400  tonnes  from  2002  to  2003.  It  should  be  borne  in  mind 
however that not all Indian producers cooperated in the investigation. Furthermore, as 
regards  the  changes  in  volumes  from  2000  to  2003,  these  should  be  viewed  in  the 
context  of  a  large  increase  of  imports  from  those  exporters  which  are  subject  to  the 
lowest levels of measures. 

(21) 

In respect of the above pattern it is noted that one company had a significantly lower 
cumulative  duty13  rate  than  the  other  producers.  This  company’s  trading  pattern 
followed a markedly different trend to that of the other producers, hugely increasing 
its  share  of  all  sales  of  the  product  concerned  to  the  Community  between  2000  and 
2003  (the  IP).  Conversely,  the  share  of  the  product  concerned  exported  to  the 
Community  by  the  remaining  Indian  producers  fell  massively.  Discounting  this 
irregular  trend,  the  total  volume  of  the  product  concerned  imported  into  the 
Community  remained  well  below  that  prior  to  the  imposition  of  anti-dumping 
measures.  

13 

The company in question was subject to countervailing duty at 7%. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(22)  The  Indian  authorities  submitted  statistical  data  on  exports  to,  inter  alia,  the 
Community. They indicated that they considered that the official Indian statistics did 
not  suggest  any  circumvention  of  the  existing  anti-dumping  measures  by  the  Indian 
PET film producers. However, the data referred to is inconsistent with the export data 
provided  by  the  cooperating  Indian  exporters,  at  least  as  far  as  exports  to  Israel  are 
concerned;  these  data  show  a  clear  increase  in  exports  to  Israel  following  the 
imposition  of  measures  (from  around  40  tonnes in 2000 to around 800  tonnes in  the 
IP).  As  far  as  Brazil  is  concerned,  official  Indian  export  data  for  direct  exports  to 
Brazil show only a marginal increase over the same period, but this does not include 
indirect  sales  via  other  intermediary  countries.  Indeed,  the  only  known  Brazilian 
producer of PET film cooperated in the investigation and its exports to the Community 
only represent a negligible part (0,5%) of all sales to the Community from Brazil.  

Brazil 

(23) 

Imports into the Community of PET film from Brazil as reported by Eurostat at CN 
level, less the imports of goods produced by the cooperating company, increased from 
around 650 tonnes in 2000 (0,6% of total imports), to 1.200 tonnes (1,4%) in 2001 and 
just  over  2.500  tonnes  (3,2  %)  in  2002,  the  year  following  the  imposition  of  anti-
dumping  measures,  remaining  at  just  over  2.000  tonnes  during  the  IP  (2,4%  of  total 
PET film imports).  

(24)  The  sole  co-operating  company  in  Brazil,  Terphane,  is,  as  noted  above  (see  recital 
(22)), the only known producer of PET film in Brazil. This company only exported a 
single consignment of 10,6 tonnes of PET film to the Community during the IP. Apart 
from  a  sample  sold  in  2002,  this  was  the  company’s  first  export  of  PET  film  to  the 
Community. The company does not therefore appear to be responsible for the volumes 
of PET film entering the Community from Brazil in the period 2000 to 2003 (recital 
(23) above). The film supplied to the Community is manufactured by the company in 
facilities established before the entry into force of the measures on Indian PET film. 
Thus, no change in the pattern of trade was found for this company. 

Israel 

(25) 

Imports  into  the  Community  of  PET  film  from  Israel  as  reported  by  Eurostat  at  CN 
level, less the imports of goods produced by the co-operating company, increased from 
3.000 tonnes in 2000 (3,7% of total PET film imports) to 3.400 tonnes in 2001 (4,1%). 
Volumes continued to rise to just over 4.200 tonnes in 2002 (5,1% of imports) and to 
over  4.400  tonnes  in  2003  (5,3%  of  imports).  A  small  number  of  converters  of  PET 
film are located in Israel but the information received within the time-limits indicated 
that, even cumulatively, it is unlikely that they would have had sufficient capacity to 
be  responsible  for  the  volumes  of  film  entering  the  Community  from  Israel  in  the 
period 2000 to 2003. 

(26)  Official Indian export data shows steadily rising exports to Israel from India. 81 tonnes 
were exported in 2000, 395 tonnes in 2001, 1.032 tonnes in 2002 and 2.453 tonnes in 
the IP. 

(27)  The sole cooperating company in Israel, Jolybar, slits, sheets and converts purchased 
PET film and sells it as products which fall under the same CN codes as the product 
concerned, but is generally not of Indian origin and therefore it cannot be considered 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
the product concerned. The company has been supplying PET film to the Community 
since  the  1990’s.  The  quantities  of  PET  film  exported  by  Jolybar  to  the  Community 
doubled  between  1999  and  2003  (the  IP).  The  film  supplied  to  the  Community  is 
manufactured  by  them  in  facilities  established  before  the  entry  into  force  of  the 
measures on Indian PET film. Irrespective as to whether this development of exports 
indicates  a  change  in  the  company’s  pattern  of  trade  this  issue  was  not  considered 
further as there was, in any event, a clear economic justification for this behaviour, as 
set out below in recital (31). 

(28) 

In  view  of  the  above,  and  in  particular  given  the  coincidence  between  the  rise  of 
imports  from  Brazil  and  Israel  and  the  entry  into  force  in  2001,  of  the  anti-dumping 
measures  on  PET  film  originating  in  India,  a  change  in  the  pattern  of  trade  is 
established in respect of exports of PET film from India, Israel and Brazil. 

4. 

Insufficient due cause or economic justification  

Brazil 

(29) 

In the absence of any other cooperation and given that the above-mentioned change in 
the pattern of trade for Brazil took place immediately following the imposition of anti-
dumping duties, it has to be concluded, on the basis of the information available and in 
the absence of any other explanation, that the change in the pattern of trade stemmed 
from  the  imposition  of  the  duty  rather  than  from  any  other  sufficient  due  cause  or 
economic justification within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation.  

Israel  

Non-cooperating exporting producers 

(30) 

In  the  absence  of  cooperation  and  given  that  the  above-mentioned  change  in  the 
pattern  of  trade  took  place  immediately  following  the  imposition  of  anti-dumping 
duties,  it  has  to  be  concluded,  on  the  basis  of  the  information  available  and  in  the 
absence of any other explanation, that the change in the pattern of trade stemmed from 
the imposition of the duty rather than from any other sufficient due cause or economic 
justification within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation.  

Co-operating exporting producer 

(31)  The  investigation  established  that  Jolybar’s  export  trade  to  the  Community  is  long 
established and the film supplied to the Community is manufactured by the company 
in facilities established before the entry into force of the measures on Indian PET film. 
The  company  explained  that  as  a  general  rule  it  does  not  supply  Indian  film  to 
Community  customers  since  the  latter  prefer  the  qualities  of  European  film  as  base 
material  for  treatment  by  Jolybar.  Exceptionally,  during  the  IP,  a  quantity  of 
approximately one tonne  of  Indian film was  shipped to  one  Community customer as 
part  of  a  larger  consignment  which  the  customer  required  urgently.  It  is  therefore 
concluded  that  there  is  sufficient  economic  justification  for  the  development  of 
Jolybar’s  exports,  which  is  in  line  with  its  activities  in  the  Community  market  in 
respect of PET film manufactured by them.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
5.  Undermining  of  the  remedial  effects  of  the  duty  in  terms  of  the  prices 

and/or the quantities of the like product 

Non-cooperating exporting producers 

(32)  The figures in recitals (20) to (28) above indicate that a clear quantitative change in the 
pattern  of  Community  imports  of  the  product  concerned  has  occurred  since  the 
imposition  of  measures in 2001. There  was a significant decrease of 5.500 tonnes in 
Indian imports to the Community at the time of the imposition of the measures, with 
corresponding increases in exports of the product concerned to the Community from 
Brazil  and  Israel.  Eurostat  data  indicates  that,  from  2000  until  the  end  of  IP,  the 
increases  in  imports  to  the  Community  amounted  to  1.376  tonnes  from  Brazil  and 
1.392  tonnes  from  Israel.  The  parallel  decline  of  exports  from  India,  disregarding 
those imports which are subject to the lowest levels of measures, is 5.653 tonnes. It is 
therefore considered that part of the export trade flows from India has been substituted 
by export flows through Brazil and Israel thus undermining the remedial effects of the 
measures in terms of the quantities imported into the Community market. 

(33)  With regard to prices of the product concerned consigned from Brazil and from Israel, 
in view of the low co-operation, it was necessary to refer to Eurostat data, which is the 
best evidence available. 

(34)  The average price of imports of PET film from Brazil during the IP, adjusted for post-
import  costs,  was  around  50%  of  the  injury  elimination  level  established  in  the 
investigation which led to the imposition of existing anti-dumping measures. On this 
basis,  there  is  evidence  that  PET  films  consigned  from  Brazil  also  undermined  the 
remedial effects of the duty imposed in terms of prices. 

(35)  The average price of imports of PET film from Israel during the IP, adjusted for post-
import costs, was around 55% of the injury elimination level established in the original 
anti-dumping investigation. On this basis, there is evidence that the Israeli imports also 
undermined the remedial effects of the duty imposed in terms of prices.  

(36) 

It  is  therefore  concluded  that  the  imports  of  PET  film  from  Brazil  and  from  Israel 
undermined  the  remedial  effects  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  both  in  terms  of 
quantities and prices. 

6. 

Evidence  of  dumping  in  relation  to  the  normal  values  previously 
established for like or similar products  

Non-cooperating exporting producers 

(37) 

In  accordance  with  Article  13(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  it  was  examined  whether 
there was evidence of dumping in relation to the normal value previously established 
for the like or similar products. As explained (see recital (16) above), given the limited 
cooperation, in order to determine whether evidence of dumping could be found with 
respect  to  the  exports  of  the  product  concerned  to  the  Community  from  Brazil  and 
from Israel during the IP, Eurostat data was used pursuant to Article 18 of the basic 
Regulation as the basis for establishing export prices to the Community. Likewise, for 
the  purpose  of  comparing  the  export  price  and  normal  value,  it  was  considered 
appropriate  to  assume  that  the  product  mix  of  the  goods  consigned  from  Brazil  and 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
Israel  during  the  IP  was  the  same  as  that  consigned  from  India  in  the  original 
investigation. 

(38)  For the purpose of a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, 
due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences in factors affecting 
price  and  price  comparability.  These  adjustments  were  made  in  accordance  with 
Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. 

(39) 

In  accordance  with  Article  2(11)  and  2(12)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  weighted 
average normal value as established during the original investigation was compared to 
the average export prices  for  the  IP  established as indicated in recitals (34) and (35) 
above.  These  comparisons  revealed  approximate  dumping  margins,  expressed  as  a 
percentage  of  the  CIF  price  at  the  Community  frontier,  duty  unpaid,  of  17,5%  for 
Brazil and 14,5% for Israel.  

C. 

REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION OR EXTENSION 

OF THE DUTY 

(40)  The Commission received a request for exemption from the registration and measures 
from  Terphane  and  Jolybar.  As  stated  in  recitals  (24)  and  (27),  these  companies 
cooperated  in  the  investigation,  by  submitting  a  questionnaire  reply  and  accepting  a 
verification  visit.  By  Regulation  (EC)  No  xxx/200414,  the  Commission  amended  the 
initiating  Regulation  in  order  to  cease  registration  of  imports  of  PET  film  from 
Terphane  and  Jolybar  which  were  found  not  to  be  circumventing  the  anti-dumping 
duties. 

(41) 

In  accordance  with  the  above  findings  that  Terphane  and  Jolybar  were  found  not  to 
have  circumvented  the  anti-dumping  measures in force, these companies should also 
be exempted from the extension of the measures envisaged.  

D.  MEASURES 

(42) 

(43) 

In view of the findings above, it is found that circumvention has taken place within the 
meaning  of  Article  13(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  In  accordance  with  Article  13(1) 
first sentence of the basic Regulation, the existing anti-dumping measures on imports 
of  the  product  concerned  (i.e.  PET  film  originating  in  India),  should  be  extended  to 
imports of PET film consigned from Brazil or Israel, whether declared as originating 
in Brazil or in Israel or not, with the exception of those manufactured by Terphane and 
Jolybar. 

In  accordance  with  Article  14(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  which  provides  that 
measures shall be applied against registered imports from the date of registration, the 
anti-dumping duty should be collected on imports of PET film consigned from Brazil 
and  consigned  from  Israel  which  entered  the  Community  under  registration  imposed 
by the initiating Regulation with the exception of imports of PET film consigned from 
Brazil and produced by Terphane and consigned from Israel and produced by Jolybar. 

(44)  The exemptions from the extended measures granted to PET film produced by Jolybar 
and  by  Terphane  shall,  in  accordance  with  Article  13(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation, 

14 

xxx 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
remain  valid  under  the  requirement  that  it  is  not  established  that  the  exemption  was 
granted  on  the  basis  of  false  or  misleading  information  submitted  by  the  companies 
concerned.  Should  prima  facie  evidence  indicate  otherwise,  an  investigation  may  be 
initiated by the Commission to establish if withdrawal of the exemption is warranted. 

(45)  The non-extension of the duties to the imports of PET film from Terphane and Jolybar 
was  established  on  the  basis  of  the  findings  of  the  present  investigation.  This  non-
extension is thus exclusively applicable to imports of PET film consigned from Brazil 
or  Israel,  respectively,  and  produced  by  these  specific  legal  entities.  Imported  PET 
film  produced  or  consigned  by  any  other  company  not  specifically  mentioned  in  the 
operative part of this Regulation with its name and address, including entities related 
to  those  specifically  mentioned,  cannot  benefit  from  the  exemption  and  should  be 
subject  to  the  residual  duty  rate  as  imposed  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1676/2001.  

E. 

PROCEDURE 

(46) 

Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis 
of which the Council intended to extend the definitive anti-dumping duty in force and 
were  given  the  opportunity  to  comment  and  to  be  heard.  The  Israeli  authorities 
reiterated  those  comments  made  by  the  Indian  Government  indicated  at  recital  (10). 
They also submitted a list of Israeli converters of PET film which had exported to the 
European  Community  during  2003  and  2004.  However,  as  these  companies  had  not 
cooperated  within  the  time-limits,  it  could  not  be  established  that  they  had  not 
circumvented the measures. Therefore, they could not be exempted from the extension 
of the measures to Israel, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 

The definitive anti-dumping duty of 53,3% imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 
1676/2001 on imports of polyethylene terephthalate film originating in India, falling 
within CN codes ex 3920 62 19 and ex 3920 62 90, is hereby extended to imports of 
the same polyethylene terephthalate film consigned from Brazil and consigned from 
Israel (whether declared as originating in Brazil or Israel or not) (TARIC codes 3920 
62 19 01, 3920 62 19 04, 3920 62 19 07, 3920 62 19 11, 3920 62 19 14, 3920 62 19 
17, 3920 62 19 21, 3920 62 19 24, 3920 62 19 27, 3920 62 19 31, 3920 62 19 34, 
3920 62 19 37, 3920 62 19 41, 3920 62 19 44, 3920 62 19 47, 3920 62 19 51, 3920 
62 19 54, 3920 62 19 57, 3920 62 19 61, 3920 62 19 67, 3920 62 19 74, 3920 62 19 
92, 3920 62 90 31, 3920 62 90 92) with the exception of those produced by Terphane 
Ltda,  BR  101,  km  101,  City  of  Cabo  de  Santo  Agostinho,  State  of  Pernambuco, 
Brazil  (TARIC  additional  code  A569)  and  by  Jolybar  Filmtechnic  Converting  Ltd. 
(1987), Hacharutsim str. 7, Ind. Park Siim 2000, Natania South, 42504, POB 8380, 
Israel (TARIC additional code A570). 

2. 

The  duty  extended  by  paragraph  1  of  this  Article  shall  be  collected  on  imports 
registered in accordance with Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 284/2004 
and  Articles  13(3)  and  14(5)  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  with  the 
exception  of  those  produced  by  Terphane  Ltda,  BR  101,  km  101,  City  of  Cabo  de 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
Santo  Agostinho,  State  of  Pernambuco,  Brazil  and  by  Jolybar  Filmtechnic 
Converting  Ltd.  (1987),  Hacharutsim  str.  7,  Ind.  Park  Siim  2000,  Natania  South, 
42504, POB 8380, Israel. 

3. 

The provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply. 

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

Article 2 

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

13 

   EN