Council Regulation (EC) No 1976/2004 of 15 November 2004 extending the definitive countervailing duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 2597/1999 on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating 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, import, monetary compensatory amount, originating product, plastics, thin sheet

L 342/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.11.2004

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1976/2004

of 15 November 2004

extending the definitive countervailing duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 2597/1999 on imports
film originating in India to imports of polyethylene
of polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
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
Community,

establishing the European

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6
October 1997 on protection against subsidised imports from
countries not members of the European Community (1)
(the
basic Regulation), and in particular Article 23 thereof,

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

Whereas:

A. PROCEDURE

1. EXISTING MEASURES

(1)

(2)

(3)

the Council

By Regulation (EC) No 2597/1999 (2) (the original Regu-
imposed countervailing duties on
lation),
imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
film (PET
film) originating in India. The rates of the countervailing
duties ranged between 3,8 and 19,1 %.

Imports of PET film originating in India are also subject
to anti-dumping duties, ranging between 0 and 62,6 %,
imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 (3).

2. ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS

On 28 June 2002, the Commission announced by a
notice of initiation published in the Official
Journal of
the European Communities (4),
the initiation of a partial
interim review pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regu-
lation. 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.

(4)

On 22 November 2003, the Commission announced by
a notice of initiation published in the Official Journal of
the European Union (5), the initiation of a partial interim

(1) OJ L 288, 21.10.1997, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regu-

lation (EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 12).

(2) OJ L 316, 10.12.1999, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 227, 23.8.2001, p. 1.
(4) OJ C 154, 28.6.2002, p. 2.
(5) OJ C 281, 22.11.2003, p. 4.

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No
384/96 (6),
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 (7),
interim
review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No
384/96 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 23(2) 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 countervailing 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 in India, there had been
trade involving
significant changes in the patterns of
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 impo-
sition of duties on imports of PET film from India.

It was

claimed that

Finally, the applicant alleged and submitted prima facie
evidence that
this duty were
the remedial effects of
being undermined both in terms of quantities and
significant volumes of
prices.
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 PET film originating in India continues to benefit
found to be countervailable in the
from subsidies
original investigation.

(6) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation

(EC) No 461/2004.

(7) OJ C 43, 19.2.2004, p. 14.

18.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 342/9

4.

INITIATION

By Regulation (EC) No 283/2004 (1) (the initiating Regu-
lation),
the Commission 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 and, pursuant to Article 23(2) and Article 24(5) of
the basic Regulation, directed the customs authorities to
register imports of PET film consigned from Brazil and
from Israel, whether declared as 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 Regu-
lation (EC) No 284/2004 (2),
the Commission also
initiated an investigation concerning the possible circum-
vention of anti-dumping measures on imports of PET
film originating in India by imports of PET film
from Israel, whether
and
consigned
declared as originating in Brazil or Israel or not. The
findings of that investigation are presented in Council
Regulation (EC) No 1975/2004 (3).

from Brazil

(12)

(13)

(9)

(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
the
Indeed,
and Countervailing Measures.
Subsidies
Final Act Embodying the Results of
the Uruguay
Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations contains a
Decision on anti-circumvention (4), 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
several WTO
knowing
Members already had their own anti-circumvention legis-
lation,
as
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

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 appli-
cation of Article 28 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.

Replies to the questionnaire were received from six
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
imported Indian PET film from
that
Brazil or from Israel during the investigation period.
Therefore, none of
these companies submitted ques-
tionnaire replies.

they had not

(14)

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

the

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

5.

INVESTIGATION

Indian exporting producers:

(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

(1) OJ L 49, 19.2.2004, p. 25.
(2) OJ L 49, 19.2.2004, p. 28. Regulation as amended by Regulation No

1830/2004 (OJ L 321, 22.10.2004, p. 26).

(3) See p. 1 of this Official Journal.
(4) Decision on Anti-circumvention adopted by the Trade Negotiations

Committee on 15 December 1993.

— ‘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,

L 342/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.11.2004

— ‘Jindal Polyester Limited’, 56 Hanuman Road, New

Delhi 110 001, 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 1998 up to the end of the IP to
investigate the alleged changes in the pattern of trade.

B. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

1. DEGREE OF COOPERATION

(16) As stated in recital 12, six exporters/producers of PET
film in India cooperated with the investigation by
submitting questionnaire replies.
Information was also
obtained from one exporting producer of PET film in
and from one processing company slitting,
Brazil
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)

(18)

(19)

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
to the
concerning exports of PET film from Brazil
Community were also obtained from the Brazilian
national
also
submitted information identifying the schemes used by
the companies subject
to measures which were still
extant.

Indian Government

database.

The

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 has the same basic character-
istics and the same uses. Therefore, they are considered
as like products within the meaning of Article 1(5) of the
basic Regulation.

3. CHANGE IN THE PATTERN OF TRADE

India

(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
level.
In 1999 countervailing duties were imposed on
imports to the Community of PET film originating in
in volumes of
India, prompting a decrease
such
imports
in 1998 to 10 600
from 11 700 tonnes
tonnes in 1999. In 2000 imports recovered to 11 600
tonnes but this was followed by the imposition of anti-
dumping measures in 2001 which led to a decrease of
imports to 6 100 tonnes. Since then imports gradually
recovered and stood at 11 500 tonnes during the IP.

(21)

(22)

the above pattern it

increasing its share of all

In respect of
is noted that one
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,
Indian
exports of the product concerned to the Community
hugely
countervailing
measures and the IP. Notably, between 2000 and
2001, when anti-dumping measures were introduced,
this company massively increased its share of all Indian
exports to the Community. Discounting this irregular
trend,
the product concerned
imported into the Community remained well below
that prior to the imposition of countervailing measures.

the total volume of

imposition of

between the

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 coun-
tervailing measures by the Indian PET film producers.
However, the data referred to is inconsistent with the
Indian
export
exporters, at
to Israel are
concerned; these data show increasing volumes of trade
from India to Israel from 2000 through to 2003. As far
as Brazil
Indian export data for direct
exports to Brazil shows an increase from around 460
tonnes in 1998 to over 1 500 tonnes in 2000 and
then relative stability at this level. This shows a very
significant increase and the stability of exports thereafter
does not prove the non-existence of circumvention as
these figures do not include indirect sales via other inter-
mediary 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 during the IP.

is concerned,

Indeed,

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

18.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 342/11

(23)

(24)

(25)

Brazil

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 115 tonnes in 1998 (0,2 % of all imports), to over
650 tonnes in 2000 (0,6 %) the year following the impo-
sition of the countervailing measures. Over 1 200 tonnes
(1,4 %) were imported in 2001 increasing to just over
2 500 tonnes (3,2 %) in 2002 and remaining at just over
2 000 tonnes during the IP (2,4 % of
total PET film
imports).

The sole cooperating 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 1998 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

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, declined
between 1998 and 1999 from 1 100 tonnes to just
under 1 000 tonnes in 1999 (1,3 % of total PET film
imports) but then increased to 3 000 tonnes in 2000
(3,7 % of total
imports) and to 3 400 tonnes in 2001
(4,1 % of total PET film imports). 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 an initial decrease in
exports to Israel from 53 tonnes in 1998 to 44 tonnes
in 1999. 81 tonnes were exported in 2000, 395 tonnes
in 2001, 1 032 tonnes in 2002 and 2 453 tonnes in the
IP.

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 the
company 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 in
recital 31.

(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 1999, of the counter-
vailing 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 JUSTIFI-

CATION

Brazil

Non-cooperating exporting producers

(29)

In the absence of any other cooperation and given that
the abovementioned change in the pattern of trade for
Brazil took place following the imposition of counter-
it has to be concluded, on the basis of
vailing duties,
the information available and in the absence of any
other explanation,
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 23(1) of the
basic Regulation.

that

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
following the imposition of countervailing 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 impo-
sition of the duty rather than from any other sufficient
due cause or economic justification within the meaning
of Article 23(1) of the basic Regulation.

(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
Indian
origin and therefore it can not be considered to be the
product concerned. The company has been supplying
PET film to the Community since the 1990s. The quan-

is generally not of

Cooperating 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
the measures on Indian PET film. The
force of

L 342/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.11.2004

(32)

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 a 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
in the
exports, which is
Community market in respect of PET film manufactured
by them.

in line with its activities

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

change

the end of

the measures,

than 1 000 tonnes

The figures in recitals 20 to 28 indicate that a clear
quantitative
in the pattern of Community
imports of the product concerned occurred since the
imposition of measures in 1999. There was a decrease
in Indian imports to the Community at the time of the
from 11 700 tonnes in
imposition of
1998 to 10 600 tonnes in 1999 (9 %).
Increases in
exports of
the product concerned to the Community
from Brazil and Israel surged from 1999 to 2000,
from cumulatively less
to over
from 1998
3 500 tonnes. Eurostat data indicate that,
until
the increases in imports to the
Community amounted to 1 900 tonnes from Brazil
from India,
and 3 500 tonnes
countervailing
which fell
measures and fell again after the imposition of anti-
dumping measures, have since recovered to the levels
before countervailing measures were imposed.
is
therefore considered that part of the export trade flows
from India have been first compensated, and later supple-
mented, 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.

from Israel. Exports
imposition of

after

the

IP,

It

(33) With regard to prices of

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

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

the product

(34)

The average price of imports of PET film from Brazil
during the IP, adjusted for post-import costs, was
around 67 % of the injury elimination level established
in the investigation which led to the imposition of coun-
tervailing 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 75 % of the injury elimination level established
in the original anti-subsidy 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 countervailing measures both in terms of
quantities and prices.

6. EVIDENCE OF CONTINUED SUBSIDISATION OF THE
PRODUCT CONCERNED

(37)

that

Export

(DEPB),

original

identified

investigation

(post-export)

from SEZ/EPZ,

the companies concerned were not

Indian
The
companies benefited from the following subsidies: Duty
entitlement passbook (pre-export), Duty entitlement
passbook
promotion
capital goods scheme (EPCG) and Export promotion
zones/Export oriented units (EPZ/EOU) schemes as well
as certain regional schemes. The Indian Government
submitted information indicating that the DEPB (post-
export) and EPCG schemes continued to be used, but
located in
that
areas where they could benefit
the
successor scheme to EPZ/EOU. No information was
received in respect of the regional schemes. Five of the
six cooperating companies confirmed having received
the DEPB and EPCG
funds through one or both of
schemes The remaining company refused to provide
information unless the Commission agreed to recalculate
the level of subsidy. One of the companies considered
that the subsidies were not countervailable. It should be
noted that Article 23(1) of the basic Regulation does not
require that
the subsidies received
continue to be countervailable, nor that the level of the
subsidies should be recalculated. It was found that at least
identified during the
some of
in
original
cooperating Indian exporters
place
benefited from them. In the absence of cooperation,
it
must be assumed that any other exporting producer
would equally benefit from such subsidies. Accordingly,
it
still
benefits from the subsidy as required by Article 23(1)
of the basic Regulation for the purpose of extending
the countervailing duties to imports of the like product
from third countries.

investigation as countervailable were still

the exported like product

the subsidy schemes

is concluded that

and that most

is shown that

it

18.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 342/13

(38)

(39)

(40)

(41)

(42)

(43)

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.

(44)

By Regulation (EC) No 1830/2004 (1), the Commission
amended the initiating Regulation in order to cease regis-
tration of imports of PET film from Terphane and Jolybar
which were found not to be circumventing the counter-
vailing duties.

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

(45)

D. MEASURES

In view of the findings above, it is found that circum-
vention has taken place within the meaning of Article
23(1) of the basic Regulation. In accordance with Article
23(1) of the basic Regulation, the existing countervailing
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 Israel or not with
the exception of those manufactured by Terphane and
by Jolybar.

In accordance with Article 24(5) of the basic Regulation,
which provides that measures shall be applied against
registered imports from the date of registration,
the
countervailing 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 those consigned from Israel
and produced by Jolybar.

The exemptions from the extended measures granted to
PET film produced by Jolybar and to Terphane shall, in
accordance with Article 23(3) 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
evidence
companies

Should prima

concerned.

facie

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

indicate otherwise, an investigation may be initiated by
the Commission to establish if withdrawal of
the
exemption is warranted.

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
2597/1999.

E. PROCEDURE

Israeli

Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and
considerations on the basis of which the Council
intended to extend the definitive countervailing duty in
force and were given the opportunity to comment and to
those
be heard. The
comments made by the Indian Government,
indicated
in recital 10. A list of
Israeli converters of PET film
which had exported to the European Community
during 2003 and 2004 was also submitted. However,
as these companies had not cooperated within the time
limits, they could not be exempted from the extension of
the measures to Israel,

authorities

reiterated

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Israel or not)

1.
The definitive countervailing duty of 19,1 % imposed by
Regulation (EC) No 2597/1999 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
(whether declared as
from Brazil and consigned from Israel
(TARIC codes
in Brazil or
originating
3920 62 19 04,
3920 62 19 07,
3920 62 19 01,
3920 62 19 14,
3920 62 19 17,
3920 62 19 11,
3920 62 19 24,
3920 62 19 27,
3920 62 19 21,
3920 62 19 34,
3920 62 19 37,
3920 62 19 31,
3920 62 19 44,
3920 62 19 47,
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, 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,
(TARIC additional
code A570).

Israel

L 342/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.11.2004

The duty extended by paragraph 1 of this Article shall be
2.
collected on imports registered in accordance with Article 2 of
Regulation (EC) No 283/2004 and Article 23(2) and Article
24(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 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 Filmtechnic Converting Ltd (1987), Hacharutsim str. 7,
Ind. 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 that
of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

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

Done at Brussels, 15 November 2004.

For the Council
The President

M. VAN DER HOEVEN