Council Regulation (EC) No 1975/2004 of 15 November 2004 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by 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: 2004-11-15
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Brazil, India, Israel, anti-dumping duty, import, originating product, plastics, thin sheet

18.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 342/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1975/2004

of 15 November 2004

extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by 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

(4)

(5)

(6)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty
Community,

establishing the European

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22
December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from
countries not members of the European Community (1)
(the
basic Regulation), and in particular Article 13 thereof,

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

Whereas:

A. PROCEDURE

1. EXISTING MEASURES

the Council

By Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 (2) (the original Regu-
imposed anti-dumping duties on
lation),
imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
film (PET
film) originating,
in India. The rates of the
inter alia,
anti-dumping duties ranged between 0 % and 62,6 %.
By Decision 2001/645/EC (3), 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
2597/1999 (4).

(1)

(2)

(3)

2. ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS

(7)

On 28 June 2002, the Commission announced by a
notice of initiation published in the Official
Journal of
the European Communities (5),
the initiation of a partial
interim review pursuant to Article 19 of Council Regu-
lation 2026/97 (6). The request is limited in scope to the

form of the measure and,
in particular, to the exami-
nation 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 Union (7), 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 Union (8),
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.

the initiation of a partial

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.

(1) 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).

(2) OJ L 227, 23.8.2001, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 227, 23.8.2001, p. 56.
(4) OJ L 316, 10.12.1999, p. 1.
(5) OJ C 154, 28.6.2002, p. 2.
(6) OJ L 288, 21.10.1997, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regu-

lation (EC) No 461/2004.

(7) OJ C 281, 22.11.2003, p. 4.
(8) OJ C 43, 19.2.2004, p. 14.

L 342/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.11.2004

(8)

(9)

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.

to the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices in the
absence of an agreement on a specific text. As this
Decision was made
several WTO
knowing
Members already had their own anti-circumvention legis-
as
lation,
permitting individual Members to adopt or maintain
provisions in this respect, pending the adoption of multi-
laterally agreed rules. The same principles should logically
apply to anti-subsidy investigations.

the European Community

interprets

that

it

4.

INITIATION

5.

INVESTIGATION

(11) Questionnaires were sent to exporters/producers in India,
Brazil and Israel which cooperated in the original inves-
tigation, 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 inves-
tigation that led to the existing measures. All parties were
informed that non-cooperation might lead to the appli-
the basic Regulation and to
cation of Article 18 of
findings which, being made on the basis of the facts
available, can be less favourable than if the party had
cooperated.

By Regulation (EC) No 284/2004 (1) (the initiating Regu-
lation),
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 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 283/2004 (2) the Commission also initiated an inves-
tigation concerning the possible circumvention of coun-
tervailing 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
investigation are
Israel or not. The findings of
presented in Council Regulation (EC) No 1976/2004 (3).

that

(12)

(13)

(10)

The Indian authorities indicated that they considered that
anti-circumvention investigations were not permissible
the Agreement on Implementation of
under either
Article VI of
the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade 1994 or the Agreement on Subsidies and Counter-
vailing Measures. This claim was rejected on the grounds
that the anti-circumvention provisions of the basic Regu-
lation are not
incompatible with the Agreement on
Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade 1994 and the Agreement on
Indeed,
Subsidies
the
and Countervailing Measures.
Final Act Embodying the Results of
the Uruguay
Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations contains a
Decision on Anti-Circumvention (4) referring the matter

(1) OJ L 49, 19.2.2004, p. 28.
(2) OJ L 49, 19.2.2004, p. 25.
(3) See page 8 of this Official Journal.
(4) Decision on Anti-circumvention adopted by the Trade Negotiations

Committee on 15 December 1993.

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
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.

that

came

importers

in the Community

forward
Five
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
imported Indian PET film from
Brazil or from Israel during the investigation period.
Therefore, none of
these companies submitted ques-
tionnaire replies.

they had not

18.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 342/3

(14)

The Commission carried out verification visits at
premises of the following companies:

the

to the
concerning exports of PET film from Brazil
Community were also obtained from the Brazilian
national database.

Brazilian exporting producer:

— ‘Terphane Ltda.’, BR 101, km 101, City of Cabo de
Pernambuco, Brazil
State of

Santo Agostinho,
(‘Terphane’);

Israeli processor:

— ‘Jolybar

Filmtechnic

Hacharutsim str. 7,
South, 42504. POB 8380, Israel (‘Jolybar’);

Converting

(1987)’,
Ind. Park Siim 2000, Natania

Ltd

Indian exporting producers:

— ‘Ester Industries Limited’, 75-76, Amrit Nagar, Behind
South Extension Part — I, New Delhi — 110003,
India,

— ‘Flex Industries Limited’, A-1, Sector 60, Noida

201301 (U.P.), India,

— ‘Polyplex Corporation Limited’, B-37, Sector-1, Noida
201301, 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 inves-
tigate the alleged change in the pattern of trade.

B. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

1. DEGREE OF COOPERATION

cooperated in the

(16) As stated in recital 12, five exporters/producers of PET
film in India
investigation by
Information was also
submitting questionnaire replies.
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

(18)

(19)

2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

The product concerned is, as defined in the original
investigation, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film origi-
nating in India, normally declared under CN codes
ex 3920 62 19
product
concerned).

ex 3920 62 90

(the

and

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 character-
istics 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

to

on

had

been

imports

imposed

(20) Over the period 1999 to 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
It should be noted that in 1999 countervailing
level.
duties
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
from all other
53,3 % is
exporting
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 investi-
gation. Furthermore, as regards the changes in volumes
these should be viewed in the
from 2000 to 2003,
from those
imports
context of a large increase of
exporters which are subject
levels of
to the lowest
measures.

to imports
In

applicable
producers.

imports

2000

to

L 342/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.11.2004

is noted that one
In respect of the above pattern it
company had a significantly lower cumulative duty (1)
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
fell massively.
the
the total volume of
Discounting this irregular trend,
the product concerned imported into the Community
remained well below that prior to the imposition of
anti-dumping measures.

remaining

producers

Indian

inter alia,

the official

cooperating

they considered that

the
far as exports

data provided by
least as

submitted statistical data on
The Indian authorities
the Community. They indicated
exports to,
that
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
Indian
exporters, at
to Israel are
concerned; these data show a clear increase in exports
following the imposition of measures (from
to Israel
around 40 tonnes in 2000 to around 800 tonnes in
the IP). As far as Brazil
Indian
export data for direct exports to Brazil show only a
increase over the same period, but this does
marginal
intermediary
via other
not
countries.
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.

is concerned, official

indirect

include

Indeed,

sales

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). 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 cooperating company, increased
from 3 000 tonnes in 2000 (3,7 % of total PET film
to 3 400 tonnes in 2001 (4,1 %). Volumes
imports)
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.

Brazil

(21)

(22)

(23)

Imports into the Community of PET film from Brazil as
less the imports of
reported by Eurostat at CN level,
goods produced by the cooperating company, increased
from around 650 tonnes
total
imports),
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).

to 1 200 tonnes (1,4 %)

in 2000 (0,6 % of

(24)

The sole cooperating company in Brazil, Terphane, is, as
noted above (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

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

(27)

is generally not of
cannot be

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
Indian
origin and therefore
considered the
it
product concerned. The company has been supplying
PET film to the Community since the 1990's. The quan-
tities 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
Irrespective as to
the measures on Indian PET film.
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 in
recital 31.

18.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 342/5

(28)

In view of the above, and in particular given the coin-
cidence 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.

(32)

5. UNDERMINING OF THE REMEDIAL EFFECTS OF THE
THE
THE
DUTY
QUANTITIES OF LIKE PRODUCT

PRICES AND/OR

IN TERMS OF

Non-cooperating exporting producers

change

The figures in recitals 20 to 28 indicate that a clear
quantitative
in the pattern of Community
imports of the product concerned has occurred since
in 2001. There was a
the imposition of measures
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,
to the
disregarding those imports which are subject
is
It
lowest
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.

levels of measures,

is 5 653 tonnes.

(33) With regard to prices of

consigned from Brazil and from Israel,
low cooperation,
data, which is the best evidence available.

concerned
in view of the
it was necessary to refer to Eurostat

the product

(34)

(35)

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.

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.

(29)

(30)

(31)

4.

INSUFFICIENT DUE CAUSE OR ECONOMIC

JUSTIFICATION

Brazil

In the absence of any other cooperation and given that
the abovementioned 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

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 infor-
mation available and in the absence of any other expla-
nation, 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 Regu-
lation.

Cooperating exporting producer

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
the qualities of European film as base
latter prefer
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
required
a larger consignment which the customer
urgently. It is therefore concluded that there is sufficient
economic justification for the development of Jolybar's
exports, which is
in the
Community market in respect of PET film manufactured
by them.

in line with its activities

L 342/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.11.2004

6. EVIDENCE OF DUMPING IN RELATION TO THE NORMAL
LIKE OR
VALUES

ESTABLISHED FOR

PREVIOUSLY

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 (recital 16),
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 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 Regu-
lation.

(39)

In accordance with Article 2(11) and 2(12) of the basic
Regulation, the weighted average normal value as estab-
lished during the original investigation was compared to
the average export prices
the IP established as
indicated in recitals 34 and 35. 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.

for

(40)

C. REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION
OR EXTENSION OF THE DUTY

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 coop-
erated in the investigation, by submitting a questionnaire
reply and accepting a verification visit. By Regulation
(EC) No 1830/2004 (1), 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.

(1) OJ L 321, 22.10.2004, p. 26.

(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.

(42)

(43)

(44)

(45)

D. MEASURES

In view of the findings above, it is found that circum-
vention 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
imports of PET film consigned from Brazil and
of
produced by Terphane and consigned from Israel and
produced by Jolybar.

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

Should prima

concerned.

facie

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 Regulation (EC) No
1676/2001.

18.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 342/7

E. PROCEDURE

(46)

authorities

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
those
Israeli
indicated
comments made by the Indian Government
at
Israeli
converters of PET film which had exported to the
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,

recital 10. They also submitted a list of

reiterated

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.
The definitive anti-dumping duty of 53,3 % imposed by
Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 on imports of polyethylene
terephthalate film originating in India, falling within CN codes
is hereby extended to
ex 3920 62 19 and ex 3920 62 90,
imports of the same polyethylene terephthalate film consigned
(whether declared as
from Brazil and consigned from Israel
(TARIC codes
originating
in Brazil or
3920 62 19 07,
3920 62 19 01,
3920 62 19 17,
3920 62 19 11,
3920 62 19 27,
3920 62 19 21,

3920 62 19 04,
3920 62 19 14,
3920 62 19 24,

Israel or not)

3920 62 19 37,
3920 62 19 34,
3920 62 19 31,
3920 62 19 47,
3920 62 19 44,
3920 62 19 41,
3920 62 19 57,
3920 62 19 54,
3920 62 19 51,
3920 62 19 61,
3920 62 19 74,
3920 62 19 67,
3920 62 19 92, 3920 62 90 31 and 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.
Ind. Park Siim
(1987), Hacharutsim str. 7,
2000, Natania South, 42504, POB 8380, Israel (TARIC addi-
tional code A570).

2.
The duty extended by paragraph 1 of this Article shall be
collected on imports registered in accordance with Article 2 of
Regulation (EC) No 284/2004 and Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of
Regulation (EC) No 384/96 with the exception of
those
produced by Terphane Ltda, BR 101, km 101, City of Cabo
de Santo Agostinho, State of Pernambuco, Brazil and by Jolybar
Ind.
(1987), Hacharutsim str. 7,
Filmtechnic Converting Ltd.
Park Siim 2000, Natania South, 42504, POB 8380, Israel.

The provisions in force concerning customs duties shall

3.
apply.

Article 2

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

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

Done at Brussels, 15 November 2004.

For the Council
The President

M. VAN DER HOEVEN