Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 on imports of polyethylene terephthalate originating inter alia in the Republic of Korea and Taiwan
Date: 2004-12-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: CCT duties, South Korea, Taiwan, anti-dumping legislation, plastics

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 20.12.2004 
COM(2004) 821 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

amending Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 on imports of polyethylene terephthalate 
originating inter alia in the Republic of Korea and Taiwan 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

The measures under investigation in this interim review were imposed on 27 November 2000, 
when  the  Council  imposed  definitive  anti-dumping  duties  on  imports  of  polyethylene 
terephthalate (‘PET’) originating in inter alia the Republic of Korea and Taiwan. 

The Commission announced on 22 May 2003 the initiation of an interim review on the anti-
dumping  duties  in  force  against  imports  into  the  Community  of  Polyethylene  Terephthalate 
(‘PET’) originating in the Republic of Korea and Taiwan. 

On  30  June  2004,  the  applicant  withdrew  its  request  for  the  interim  review.  It  was 
nevertheless considered that the continuation of the investigation ex officio on dumping only 
was warranted.  

The  enclosed  Commission  proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  contains  the  definitive 
conclusions regarding dumping of PET originating in the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, and 
it is proposed that the anti-dumping duties in force should be amended accordingly.  

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

amending Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 on imports of polyethylene terephthalate 
originating inter alia in the Republic of Korea and Taiwan 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 

Having  regard  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22  December  1995  on  protection 
against  dumped  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European  Communities1  (the 
‘basic Regulation’) and in particular Article 11(3) thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

A. PROCEDURE 

1. Measures in force 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

1 

2 

3 

The  Council,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  2604/20002  (the  ‘definitive  Regulation’), 
imposed  definitive  anti-dumping  duties  on  imports  of  polyethylene  terephthalate 
(‘PET’) originating in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and 
Thailand.  

2. Present investigation 

On  22  May  2003,  the  Commission  announced,  by  a  notice  published  in  the  Official 
Journal of the European Union3, the initiation of an interim review of the anti-dumping 
measures applicable to imports into the Community of PET originating in the Republic 
of Korea and Taiwan (‘countries concerned’).  

The interim review was initiated as a result of a request lodged in April 2003 by the 
Association of Plastic Manufacturers in Europe (APME) (‘the applicant’) on behalf of 
producers  representing  a  major  proportion,  in  this  case  more  than  80  %,  of  the  total 
Community production of PET. The request contained sufficient prima facie evidence 
that  dumping  and  injury  had  recurred  and  that  the  existing  measures  were  no  longer 

OJ  L  56,  6.3.1996,  p.  1,  as  last  amended  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  461/2004  (OJ  L  77, 
13.03.2004, p.12).  
OJ  L  301,  30.11.2000,  p.  21,  as  last  amended  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  823/2004  (OJ  127, 
29.4.2004, p.7).  
OJ C 120, 22.5.2003, p. 13. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
sufficient to counteract the injurious dumping. The evidence provided was considered 
sufficient  to  justify  the  initiation  of  a  full  interim  review  of  the  existing  measures, 
pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.  

On 30 June 2004, the applicant withdrew its request for the interim review. 

Nevertheless,  it  was  considered  that,  in  view  of  the  evidence  available  and  the 
preliminary  findings  already  obtained  in  the  course  of  the  investigation,  the 
continuation  of  the  investigation  ex  officio  on  dumping  only  was  warranted.  With 
regard  to  all  other  aspects  of  the  review  investigation,  it  was  found  that  the  interim 
review  should  be  terminated  following  the  withdrawal  of  the  request.  This  approach 
has been communicated to all interested parties, none of which made any comment. 

3. Other proceedings 

On  22  May  2003,  the  Commission  announced,  by  a  notice  published  in  the  Official 
Journal  of  the  European  Union4,  the  initiation  of  an  anti-dumping  proceeding  with 
regard  to  imports  into  the  Community  of  PET  originating  in  Australia,  the  People’s 
Republic of China (‘PRC’) and Pakistan.  

By  Regulation  (EC)  No  306/20045,  the  Commission  imposed  a  provisional  anti-
dumping duty on imports of PET originating in the Australia, PRC and Pakistan. By 
Regulation (EC) No 1467/20046, the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duties 
on imports of PET originating in the Australia and PRC and terminated the proceeding 
on imports of PET originating in Pakistan.  

4. Parties concerned by the investigation 

The  Commission  services  officially  advised  the  applicant,  the  Community  producers 
included  in  the  complaint,  the  other  Community  producers,  the  exporting  producers, 
importers,  suppliers  and  users  as  well  as  associations  known  to  be  concerned,  and 
representatives  of  the  Republic  of  Korea  and  Taiwan,  of  the  opening  of  the 
investigation. Interested parties were given an opportunity to make their views known 
in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.  

The  Community  producers  represented  by 
the  applicant,  other  co-operating 
Community  producers,  exporting  producers,  importers,  suppliers,  users  and  user 
associations  made  their  views  known.  All  interested  parties,  who  so  requested,  were 
granted a hearing.  

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10)  Questionnaires  were  sent  to  all  parties  known  to  be  concerned  and  to  all  the  other 
companies that made themselves known within the deadlines set out in the notice of 
initiation. Replies were received from the seven Community producers represented by 
the  applicant;  four  other  Community  producers;  three  exporting  producers  in  the 
Republic of Korea, including one company not currently subject to an individual duty 
rate; four exporting producers in Taiwan, including one company not currently subject 

4 
5 
6 

OJ C 120, 22.5.2003, p. 9. 
OJ L 52, 21.2.2004, p. 5. 
OJ L 271, 19.8.2004, p.1 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
to  an  individual  duty  rate;  two  suppliers,  two  related  importers,  four  unrelated 
importers and nine unrelated users in the Community.  

(11) 

In  the  notice  of  initiation,  it  was  indicated  that  sampling  may  be  applied  in  this 
investigation. However, given that the number of exporting producers in the countries 
concerned which indicated their willingness to cooperate was lower than expected, it 
was decided that sampling was not required.  

(12)  The  Commission  services  sought  and  verified  all  the  information  deemed  necessary 
for determination of dumping and resulting injury and carried out verifications at the 
premises of the following companies:  

(a) Community producers 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Aussapol SpA, San Giorgio Di Nogaro (UD), Italy  

Brilen SA, Zaragoza, Spain 

Catalana di Polimers, Barcelona, Spain 

Dupont Sabanci SA, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom 

INCA International, Milano, Italy 

KoSa, Frankfurt am Main, Germany 

–  M & G Finanziaria Industriale, Milano, Italy 

– 

– 

– 

Tergal Fibres, Gauchy, France 

VPI SA, Athens, Greece 

Voridian, Rotterdam, Netherlands 

–  Wellman PET Resins, Arnhem, Netherlands 

(b) Exporting producers/exporters in the Republic of Korea 

– 

– 

– 

Daehan Synthetic Fiber Co. Ltd, Seoul 

SK Chemicals Co. Ltd, Seoul 

KP Chemical Corp., Seoul 

(c) Exporting producers in Taiwan 

– 

– 

– 

Far Eastern Textile Ltd, Taipei 

Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corp., Taipei 

Hualon Corp., Taipei 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
(d) Related importers 

– 

– 

SK Networks, Seoul, Republic of Korea 

SK Global (Belgium) N.V., Antwerp, Belgium 

(e) Unrelated importers 

–  Mitsubishi Chemicals, Düsseldorf, Germany 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Helm AG, Hamburg, Germany 

Global Services International, Milano, Italy 

SABIC Italia, Milano, Italy 

(f) Community suppliers 

Interquisa SA, Madrid, Spain 

BP Chemicals, Sunbury-on-Thames, United Kingdom 

(g) Community users 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Danone Waters Group, Paris, France 

Aqua Minerale San Benedetto, Scorze (VE), Italy 

RBC Cobelplast Mononate, Varese, Italy 

Nestlé Espana SA, Barcelona, Spain 

5. Investigation period 

(13)  The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 

(‘IP’).  

6. Product concerned and like product 

6.1 Product concerned 

(14)  The  product  concerned  is  the  same  as  in  the  original  investigation,  i.e.  PET  with  a 
viscosity  number  of  78  ml/g  or  higher,  according  to  the  ISO  Standard  1628-5 
originating  in  the  Republic  of  Korea  and  Taiwan,  currently  classifiable  within  CN 
code 3907 60 20.  

6.2 Like product 

(15)  As  in  the  original  investigation  it  was  found  that  PET  produced  and  sold  on  the 
domestic  market  of  the  Republic  of  Korea  and  Taiwan,  and  PET  produced  and 
exported to the Community have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics 
and uses. It is therefore concluded that all types of PET with a viscosity number of 78 
ml/g or higher are alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
B. DUMPING 

1. General methodology 

(16)  The general methodology set out below has been applied to all exporting producers in 
the  Republic  of  Korea  and  Taiwan  and  is  the  same  as  that  used  in  the  original 
investigation.  The  presentation  of  the  findings  on  dumping  for  each  of  the  countries 
concerned therefore only describes what is specific for each exporting country.  

1.1. Normal value 

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

(18)  Subsequently, those types of PET sold domestically by the companies having overall 
representative  domestic  sales,  and  that  were  identical  or  directly  comparable  to  the 
types sold for export to the Community, were identified.  

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

(20)  An examination was also made as to whether the domestic sales of each type of PET 
could be regarded as having been made in the ordinary course of trade, by establishing 
the  proportion  of  profitable  sales  to  independent  customers  of  the  PET  type  in 
question. In cases where the sales volume of a PET type, sold at a net sales price equal 
to or above the calculated cost of production, represented more than 80% of the total 
sales volume of that type, and where the weighted average price of that type was equal 
to  or  above  the  cost  of  production,  normal  value  was  based  on  the  actual  domestic 
price, calculated as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of that type 
made during the IP, irrespective of whether these sales were profitable or not. In cases 
where the volume of profitable sales of PET type represented 80 % or less of the total 
sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below 
the cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated 
as  a  weighted  average  of  profitable  sales  of  that  type  only,  provided  that  these  sales 
represented 10 % or more of the total sales volume of that type.  

(21) 

It was found that profitable sales of all types of PET represented 10 % or more of the 
total sales volume of that type.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
1.2. Export price 

(22) 

(23) 

In all cases where the product concerned was exported to independent customers in the 
Community,  the  export  price  was  established  in  accordance  with  Article  2(8)  of  the 
basic Regulation, namely on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable.  

In  cases  where  sales  were  made  via  a  related  importer,  the  export  price  was 
constructed  on  the  basis  of  the  resale  prices  of  that  related  importer  to  independent 
customers.  Adjustments  were  made  for  all  costs  incurred  between  importation  and 
resale  by  that  importer,  including  sales,  general  and  administrative  expenses,  and  a 
reasonable profit margin, in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation. The 
appropriate  profit  margin  was  established  on  the  basis  of  information  provided  by 
unrelated co-operating traders/importers operating on the Community market.  

1.3. Comparison 

(24)  The  normal  value  and  export  prices  were  compared  on  an  ex-works  basis.  For  the 
purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, 
due  allowance  in  the  form  of  adjustments  was  made  for  differences  affecting  price 
comparability  in  accordance  with  Article  2(10)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  Appropriate 
adjustments  were  granted  in  all  cases  where  they  were  found  to  be  reasonable, 
accurate and supported by verified evidence.  

1.4. Dumping margin 

(25) 

In  accordance  with  Article  2(11)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  a  dumping  margin  was 
calculated  for  each  co-operating  exporting  producer,  by  comparing  the  weighted 
average normal value with the weighted average export price.  

(26)  For those countries where the level of co-operation was found to be high (above 80%), 
and where there was no reason to believe that any exporting producer abstained from 
co-operating,  the  residual  dumping  margin  was  set  at  the  level  of  the  co-operating 
company with the highest dumping margin in order to ensure the effectiveness of the 
measures.  

(27)  For those countries where the level of co-operation was found to be low, the residual 
dumping  margin  was  determined  in  accordance  with  Article  18  of  the  basic 
Regulation, i.e. on the basis of the facts available. 

2. Republic of Korea 

(28)  Questionnaire replies were received from three exporting producers, one of which did 
not export PET to the Community during the IP, and two importers related to one of 
the exporting producers. It was established that the co-operating exporters represented 
100% of Korean exports of the product concerned during the IP.  

2.1. Normal value 

(29)  For all  types  of  PET exported by the  Korean exporting producers, it was possible to 
establish normal value on the basis of the prices paid or payable in the ordinary course 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
of trade by independent customers on the domestic market, in accordance with Article 
2(1) of the basic Regulation.  

2.2. Export price 

(30)  One of the Korean exporting producers made export sales to the European Community 
both  directly  to  independent  customers  and  via  related  importers  in  Korea  and  the 
European Community. Consequently, in the latter situation, a constructed export price 
has been established pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.  

2.3. Comparison 

(31) 

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

2.4. Dumping margin 

(32)  As  provided  by  Article  2(11)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  weighted  average  normal 
values  of  each  type  of  the  product  concerned  exported  to  the  Community  were 
compared  to  the  weighted  average  export  price  of  each  corresponding  type  of  the 
product concerned.  

(33)  The comparison showed the existence of either no dumping or de minimis dumping in 
respect of the three co-operating exporting producers. The dumping margins expressed 
as a percentage of the CIF import price at the Community border, duty unpaid are as 
follows:  

– 

– 

– 

Daehan Synthetic Fiber Co. Ltd.: 1.2% 

SK Chemicals Co. Ltd.: 0.0% 

KP Chemical Corp.: 0.1% 

(34)  Two  known  Korean  exporting  producers  of  PET  which  are  currently  subject  to  an 
individual  duty  rate  showed  that  they  had  not  made  any  exports  during  the  IP.  No 
evidence was provided by these exporters to indicate that a re-assessment of their duty 
margins was warranted.  

(35) 

In light of the high level of co-operation by Korean companies (see recital (28) above), 
the  residual  duty  was  set  at  the  level  of  the  co-operating  company  with  the  highest 
dumping margin in accordance with the approach outlined in recital (26). The level is 
the same as that in the original investigation 

3. Taiwan 

(36)  Questionnaire replies were received from four exporting producers, one of which did 
not  export  PET  to  the  Community  during  the  IP.  It  was  established  that  the  co-
operating  exporters  represented  less  than  60%  of  Taiwanese  exports  of  the  product 
concerned during the IP.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
3.1. Normal value 

(37)  For  all  types  of  PET  exported  by  the  Taiwanese  exporting  producers,  normal  value 
was  established  on  the  basis  of  the  prices  paid  or  payable  in  the  ordinary  course  of 
trade  by  independent  customers  on  the  domestic  market,  in  accordance  with  Article 
2(1) of the basic Regulation.  

3.2. Export price 

(38)  Export prices were established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, 

namely on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable.  

3.3 Comparison 

(39) 

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

3.4. Dumping margin 

(40)  As  provided  by  Article  2(11)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  weighted  average  normal 
values  of  each  type  of  the  product  concerned  exported  to  the  Community  were 
compared  to  the  weighted  average  export  price  of  each  corresponding  type  of  the 
product concerned.  

(41)  The  comparison  showed  the  existence  of  dumping  in  respect  of  two  of  the  co-
operating exporting producers. The dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the 
CIF import price at the Community border, duty unpaid are as follows:  

– 

– 

– 

Far Eastern Textile Ltd.: .0% 

Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corp.: 3.1% 

Hualon Corp.: 9.6% 

(42)  One exporting producer, which is currently subject to an individual duty, co-operated 
in this proceeding even though it had made no export sales to the Community during 
the IP. On the basis of the information provided, it was deemed appropriate to leave its 
current dumping margin unchanged, because no information was submitted to indicate 
that a re-assessment of its duty margin was warranted.  

(43)  There  is  one  known  Taiwanese  exporter  of  PET  which  is  currently  subject  to  an 
individual duty, but which did not co-operate in this proceeding. For this exporter, it 
was considered appropriate not to give it an individual duty so as not to reward non-
cooperation. More importantly, no data were available which would have allowed the 
determination of an individual duty.  

(44) 

In light of this fact and of the low level of co-operation by Taiwanese companies (see 
recital (36) above), the residual dumping margin was determined  in accordance with 
Article 18 of the basic Regulation, as outlined in recital (27)(26).  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
(45)  The  residual  dumping  margin,  which  was  calculated  on  the  basis  of  data  available 
from  Eurostat  and  also  from  the  co-operating  exporting  producers,  expressed  as  a 
percentage  of  the  CIF  import  price  at  the  Community  border,  duty  unpaid  is  as 
follows:  

– 

Taiwan: 20.1% 

C. 

LASTING NATURE OF THE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES 

(46) 

In  accordance  with  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  it  was  also  examined 
whether the changed circumstances with respect to the original investigation regarding 
dumping could reasonably be considered to be of a lasting nature.  

1. 

Republic of Korea 

(47)  For  those  companies  which  exported  during  the  IP  and  co-operated  with  the 
investigation, the current review showed that their dumping margin either remained at 
or had fallen to a de minimis level. The main reason for this was that whilst the normal 
values and domestic sales prices for these companies had risen as compared to the data 
from the original investigation, sales prices on the Community market had risen by a 
greater  margin.  Indeed,  it  was  found  that  export  prices  to  the  Community  were  on 
average 53% higher during the IP of this investigation when compared with the export 
prices  found  during  the  IP  of  the  original  investigation.  No  indications  were  found, 
suggesting that these changes would not be of a lasting nature. It should also be noted 
that these companies had a high capacity utilisation, in excess of 80% during the IP. 
Additionally  these  companies  do  not  have  any  plans  to  increase  existing  capacity, 
thereby  restricting  the  scope  for  any  future  changes  in  circumstances.  It  is  therefore 
considered  that  this  situation  as  far  as  export  price  and  volume  is  concerned  is  not 
likely to change.  

(48)  One company which did not export to the Community during the original investigation 
co-operated  and  exported  the  product  concerned  to  the  EU  during  this  investigation. 
The dumping margin for this company was also found to be de minimis. The normal 
value, as well as domestic and export prices of this company were found to be in the 
same range as those for the other two co-operating exporters.  

(49)  For  the  two  co-operating  exporting  producers  that  did  not  export  to  the  Community 
during the IP, no evidence to justify a change in their duty was found as outlined in 
recital (34). It should also be recalled that there was a wide range of dumping margins 
found in the original investigation (1.4% to 55.8%), which indicates that considerable 
differences in the dumping behaviour of Korean companies existed. For these reasons, 
it  cannot  be  concluded  that  the  findings  of  de  minimis  dumping  margins  for  the 
producers which exported to the Community during the IP are representative for those 
exporters  which  did  not.  Accordingly,  for  these  companies,  there  is  no  evidence  to 
suggest that a revision of their current anti-dumping duties is warranted, nor is there 
any  data  available  that  would  allow  a  revised  individual  margin  to  be  calculated  for 
them. These findings were disclosed to the parties concerned, none of which made any 
comments nor provided any additional information.  

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
2. Taiwan 

(50)  Three  of  the  four  companies  in  Taiwan,  currently  subject  to  an  individual  duty,  co-
operated  in  the  current  investigation.  For  one  of  these  companies,  the  current 
investigation showed that its dumping margin had fallen to a de minimis level. For the 
second  company  the  dumping  margin  fell  from  7.8%  in  the  original  investigation  to 
4.6% in the current investigation. In line with the situation in the Republic of Korea, 
the main reason for this was that whilst the normal values and domestic sales prices 
for  these  companies  had  risen  when  compared  with  data  from  the  original 
investigation, sales prices to the Community market had risen by a greater margin. For 
Taiwan,  it  was  found  that  export  prices  to  the  Community  were  on  average  42% 
higher during the IP of this investigation when compared with the export prices found 
during the IP of the original investigation. It was also found for these companies that 
their capacity utilisation were similar to those found for the companies in Korea. Nor 
did they have any plans to increase their installed capacity. 

(51)  The  third  co-operating  company,  currently  subject  to  an  individual  duty,  provided 
evidence that it did not export the product concerned to the EU during the IP of this 
investigation.  

(52) 

In  addition,  one  company  in  Taiwan  which  did  not  export  to  the  Community  during 
the  original  investigation  also  co-operated  during  this  investigation.  The  dumping 
margin for this company is 10.7%.  

(53)  For the three co-operating producers which exported to the Community during the IP 
of  the  current  investigation,  there  are  no  reasons  to  believe  that  the  nature  of  the 
changes between the current and the original investigations, particularly the increase in 
export prices to the Community, are not lasting in nature. Accordingly, it is considered 
that  the  dumping  margins  for  these  companies,  calculated  on  the  basis  of  the  data 
provided in this investigation are reliable.  

(54)  For the producer which co-operated but which did not export to the Community during 
the IP of the current investigation, there is no evidence to suggest that a revision of its 
current  anti-dumping  duties  is  warranted.  It  is,  therefore  considered  appropriate  to 
leave its current margin unchanged. As with the situation for Korea, there is no data 
available  that  would  allow  a  revised  individual  margin  to  be  calculated  for  this 
company.  Again,  following  disclosure,  the  party  concerned  made  no  comments  nor 
provided any additional information. 

D. PROPOSAL FOR ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 

(55) 

In view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping and the lasting nature of 
changed  circumstances,  the  present  anti-dumping  measures  against  imports  of  the 
product  concerned  originating  in  the  Republic  of  Korea  and  Taiwan  should  be 
amended to reflect the new dumping margins found.  

(56)  The  fact  that  PET  prices  can  fluctuate  in  line  with  fluctuations  in  crude  oil  prices, 
should  not  entail  a  higher  duty.  It  was  therefore  considered  appropriate  that  the 
amended duties should be expressed in the form of a specific amount per tonne. This 
approach was followed in the original investigation.  

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
(57)  The individual company anti-dumping duty rates were established on the basis of the 
findings of the present review. They, therefore, reflect the situation found during this 
review  with  respect  to  these  companies.  These  duty  rates,  as  opposed  to  the  duty 
applicable  to  "all  other  companies",  are  thus  exclusively  applicable  to  imports  of 
products  originating  in  the  country  concerned  and  produced  by  the  companies 
specifically  mentioned  in  the  operative  part  of  this  Regulation.  Imported  products 
produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of the 
Regulation,  including  by  entities  related  to  those  specifically  mentioned,  cannot 
benefit  from  these  rates  and  will  be  subject  to  the  duty  rate  applicable  to  “all  other 
companies”. 

(58)  The  proposed  anti-dumping  duties  for  those  companies  which  exported  to  the 

Community during the IP are as follows:  

Country 

Company 

Republic of 
Korea 

Daehan Synthetic Fiber Co. Ltd. 

SK Chemicals Co. Ltd. 

KP Chemical Corp. 

Taiwan 

Far Eastern Textile Ltd. 

Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corp. 

Hualon Corp. 

Dumping 
margin 

Anti-dumping 
duty rate 

Proposed duty 
(Euro/T) 

1.2% 

0.0% 

0.1% 

0.0% 

3.1% 

9.6% 

0.0 % 

0.0 % 

0.0 % 

0.0 % 

3.1 % 

9.6 % 

0 

0 

0 

0 

24.5 

81.9 

(59) 

In line with the revised residual dumping margin outlined in recital (45), the residual 
anti-dumping duty for Taiwan should be increased to 143,4 Euro/tonne. 

E. FINAL PROVISION 

(60) 

Interested  parties  were  informed  of  all  the  facts  and  considerations  on  the  basis  of 
which  it  was  intended  to  propose  an  amendment  to  the  Regulation  in  force.  No 
comments were received.  

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:  

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
1. 

The table in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 shall be replaced by the 
following table:  

Article 1 

Country 

India 

Indonesia 

Malaysia 

Korea 

Taiwan 

Thailand 

Anti-
dumping duty 

(Euro/t) 

TARIC 
additional 
code 

181.7 

A999 

187.7 

A999 

160.1 

A999 

148.3 

A999 

143.4 

A999 

83.2 

A999 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
2. 

The table in Article 1(3) shall be replaced by the following table:  

Country 

Company 

Anti-dumping 
duty (Euro/t) 

India 

India 

India 

India 

Pearl Engineering Polymers Limited 

130.8 

Reliance Industries Limited 

181.7 

A181 

Elque Polyesters Limited 

200.9 

A183 

Futura Polymers Limited 

161,2 

A184 

TARIC 
additional 
code 
A182 

Indonesia 

P.T. Bakrie Kasei Corporation 

187,7 

A191 

Indonesia  

P.T. Indorama Synthetics Tbk 

92,1 

A192 

Indonesia  

P.T. Polypet Karyapersada 

178,9 

A193 

Malaysia 

Hualon Corporation (M) Sdn. Bhd. 

36,0 

A186 

Malaysia 

MpI Poyester Industries Sdn. Bhd. 

160,1 

A185 

Republic of Korea  Daehan Synthetic Fiber Co., Limited 

0 

A194 

Republic of Korea  Honam Petrochemical Corporation 

101,4 

A195 

Republic of Korea  SK Chemicals Co., Limited 

0 

A196 

Republic of Korea  Tongkong Corporation 

148,3 

A197 

Republic of Korea  KP Chemical Corporation 

Taiwan 

Far Eastern Textile Limited 

Taiwan 

Tuntex Distinct Corporation 

Taiwan 

Shingkong Synthetic Fibers Corporation 

Taiwan 

Hualon Corporation 

0 

0 

69,5 

24.5 

81.9 

A577 

A188 

A198 

A189 

A578 

hailand 

Thai Shingkong Industry Corporation Limited 

83,2 

A190 

Thailand 

Indo Pet (Thailand) Ltd 

83,2 

A468 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
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 

16 

   EN