Proposal for a Council Regulation terminating the partial interim review of anti-dumping measures on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating, inter alia, in India
Date: 2005-02-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: India, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, originating product, plastics

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 11.2.2005 
COM(2005) 39 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

terminating the partial interim review of anti-dumping measures on imports of 
polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating, inter alia, in India  

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

By  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1676/20011,  the  Council  imposed  definitive  anti-dumping 
duties  on  imports  of  polyethylene  terephthalate  (PET)  film  originating,  inter  alia,  in  India. 
The duties ranged between 0% and 62.6% on imports of PET film originating in India. The 
existing duty applicable to Jindal Poly Films Limited is 0%. 

Following  a  request  lodged  by  a  number  of  large  Community  producers  of  PET  film,  the 
Commission initiated in February 2004 a partial interim review limited to dumping in respect 
of Jindal Poly Films Limited.  

The investigation showed that Jindal Poly Films Limited was not dumping. 

It  is  therefore  proposed  that  the  anti-dumping  duty  in  respect  of  Jindal  Poly  Films  Limited 
should remain unchanged at 0%. 

1 

OJ L 227, 23.8.2001, p. 1. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

terminating the partial interim review of anti-dumping measures on imports of 
polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating, inter alia, in India  

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,  

Having  regard  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/962  of  22  December  1995  (‘the  basic 
Regulation’), and in particular Article 11(3) thereof, 

After consulting the Advisory Committee, 

Whereas: 

A. 

PROCEDURE 

1. 

Previous procedure and existing measures 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

2 

3 
4 
5 

Following  an  investigation  initiated  in  May  2000  (‘the  original  investigation’),  the 
Council  imposed  definitive  anti-dumping  duties  in  August  2001,  pursuant  to 
Regulation (EC) No 1676/20013 on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film 
originating, inter alia, in India. The duties ranged between 0% and 62.6% on imports 
of PET film originating in India.  

The existing anti-dumping duty applicable to imports from Jindal Poly Films Limited, 
previously  Jindal  Polyester  Limited  (notice  of  change  of  name  published  on 
2 December 20044), is 0%. Imports of PET film from the company are also subject to 
a countervailing duty of 7%, which was imposed in 1999 by Council Regulation (EC) 
No 2597/19995. 

2.  Request for a review 

A  request  for  a  partial  interim  review  limited  to  dumping  in  respect  of  Jindal  Poly 
Films  Limited  was  lodged  by  the  following  Community  producers:  Du  Pont  Teijin 
Films,  Mitsubishi  Polyester  Film  GmbH  and  Nuroll  SpA  (‘the  applicants’).  The 
applicants  represent  a  major  proportion  of  the  Community  production  of  PET  film. 

OJ  L  56,  6.3.1996,  p.  1.  Regulation  as  last  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  461/2004  (OJ  No  L  77, 
13.3.2004, p. 12). 
OJ L 227, 23.8.2001, p. 1. 
OJ C 297, 2.12.2004, p. 2. 
OJ L 316, 10.12.1999, p. 1. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

Toray  Plastics  Europe,  indicated  its  support  for  the  request,  although  it  was  not  a 
formal applicant. 

The  applicants  alleged  that  the  dumping  margin  of  Jindal  Poly  Films  Limited  had 
changed and was higher than in the original investigation leading to the imposition of 
the existing measures. 

3. 

Investigation 

Having  determined,  after  consulting  the  Advisory  Committee,  that  the  request 
contained sufficient prima facie evidence, the Commission announced on 19 February 
2004  the  initiation  of  a  partial  interim  review  pursuant  to  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic 
Regulation by a notice (‘Notice of Initiation’) published in the Official Journal of the 
European Union6.  

The  review  was  limited  in  scope  to  the  examination  of  dumping  in  respect  of  Jindal 
Poly  Films  Limited.  The  investigation  period  (‘IP’)  was  1  January  2003  to 
31 December 2003.  

The Commission officially informed Jindal Poly Films Limited, the representatives of 
the exporting country and the Community producers about the initiation of the review. 
Interested  parties  were  given  the  opportunity  to  make  their  views  known  in  writing 
and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation. 

In  order  to  obtain  the  information  deemed  necessary  for  its  investigation,  the 
Commission sent a questionnaire to Jindal Poly Films Limited, the exporting producer 
concerned, which cooperated by replying to the questionnaire. A verification visit was 
carried out at the premises of the company in New Delhi to ensure the integrity of the 
information submitted. 

B. 

PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

1. 

Product concerned 

(9) 

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

2. 

Like product 

(10)  As in the original investigation, it was found that PET film produced and sold on the 
domestic market in India and PET film exported to the Community from India, as well 
as PET film produced and sold by the Community industry on the Community market 
have the same physical and technical characteristics and uses. Therefore, they are like 
products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation. 

6 

OJ C 43, 19.2.2004, p. 14. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
C. 

DUMPING 

1.  Normal value 

(11) 

In order to establish normal value, it was first verified that the total domestic sales of 
the exporting producer were representative in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic 
Regulation,  i.e.  that  they  accounted  for  5%  or  more  of  the  total  sales  volume  of  the 
product concerned exported to the Community. 

(12) 

It was then ascertained whether total domestic sales of each product type constituted 
5% or more of the sales volume of the same type exported to the Community.  

(13)  For  those  product  types  where  domestic  sales  constituted  5%  or  more  of  the  sales 
volume  of  the same  type  exported  to  the Community, it was then examined whether 
sufficient sales had been made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) 
of  the  basic  Regulation.  For  each  product  type,  where  the  volume  of  domestic  sales 
made above the cost of production represented at least 80% of sales, normal value was 
established  on  the  basis  of  the  weighted  average  price  actually  paid  for  all  domestic 
sales. For those product types where the volume of profitable transactions was equal to 
or lower than 80%, but not lower than 10% of sales, normal value was based on the 
weighted average price actually paid for the profitable domestic sales only.  

(14)  For  the  product  types  where  domestic  prices  of  the  exporting  producer  could  not  be 
used to establish normal value, due to insufficient representativity or to a lack of sales 
in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade,  normal  value  was  constructed  on  the  basis  of  the 
manufacturing  costs  incurred  by  the  exporting  producer  concerned  plus  a  reasonable 
amount for selling, general and administrative costs (‘SG&A costs’) and for profits, in 
accordance with Article 2(3) and (6) of the basic Regulation. 

(15)  The  SG&A  costs  were  based  on  such  costs  incurred  by  the  exporting  producer  with 
regard  to  its  domestic  sales  of  the  product  concerned,  which  were  found  to  be 
representative. The profit margin was calculated on the basis of the weighted average 
profit margin of the company for those product types sold on the domestic market in 
sufficient quantities in the ordinary course of trade. 

2. 

Export price 

(16)  The exporting producer reported sales (one consignment) made to a related company 
in the Community. Given that the quantity involved was negligible, these sales were 
disregarded. 

(17)  The other export sales of the product concerned to the Community in the IP had been 
made  to  independent  customers.  Therefore,  the  export  price  was  established  in 
accordance  with  Article  2(8)  of  the  basic  Regulation  on  the  basis  of  export  price 
actually paid or payable. 

3.  Comparison 

(18)  The  normal  value  and  export  price  were  compared  on  an  ex-works  basis.  For  the 
purpose of ensuring a fair comparison, due allowance in the form of adjustments was 
made for differences affecting price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
the  basic  Regulation.  Accordingly,  allowances  for  differences  in  discounts,  rebates, 
transport,  insurance,  handling,  loading  and  ancillary  costs,  packing,  credit  and 
commissions were granted, where applicable and supported by verified evidence. 

(a) Import charges 

(19) 

Jindal  Poly  Films  Limited  claimed  an  adjustment  to  the  normal  value  for  the  import 
duty  not  collected  under  the  Advance  Licence  Scheme  (ALS)  on  imports  of  raw 
material  used  in  the  manufacture  of  goods  for  export.  The  ALS  permits  the 
importation  of  raw  materials  free  of  duty,  provided  that  the  company  exports  a 
corresponding  quantity  and  value  of  finished  product  determined  in  accordance  with 
officially set standard input-output norms. Imports under the ALS can either be used 
for the production of export goods or for the replenishment of domestic inputs used to 
produce  such  goods.  The  company  claimed  that  exports  of  the  product  concerned  to 
the  EC  were  used  to  satisfy  the  requirements  under  the  ALS  in  respect  of  raw 
materials imported.  

(20)  No  conclusion  was  made  as  to  whether  or  not  an  adjustment  was  warranted  for  this 
claim,  given  that  it  would  have  no  impact  on  the  final  outcome  of  the  review 
investigation.  

(b) Other allowances 

(21)  The exporting producer claimed, for a limited number of exports, an adjustment on the 
export price pursuant to Article 2(10)(k) of the basic Regulation, based on the amount 
of the benefits received on exportation under the Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme 
(‘DEPB’)  on  a  post-export  basis.  Under  this  scheme,  the  credits  received  when 
exporting the product concerned could be used to offset customs duties due on imports 
of  any  goods  or  could  be  freely  sold  to  other  companies.  In  addition,  there  is  no 
constraint  that  the  imported  goods  should  only  be  used  in  the  production  of  the 
exported product. The producer did not demonstrate that the benefit under the DEPB 
scheme on a post-export basis affected price comparability, and in particular that the 
customers  consistently  paid  different  prices  on  the  domestic  market  because  of  the 
DEPB benefits. Therefore, the claim was rejected. 

4.  Dumping margin 

(22)  The  dumping  margin  was  established  on  the  basis  of  a  comparison  of  a  weighted 
average normal value with a weighted average export price, in accordance with Article 
2(11) of the basic Regulation. 

(23)  This comparison showed a dumping margin of 0%. 

D. 

CONCLUSION 

(24)  On  the  basis  of  the  above  facts  and  considerations,  and  in  view  of  the  information 
available,  it  is  concluded  that,  in  accordance  with  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  the  current  review  investigation  should  be  terminated  and  the  anti-
dumping duty of 0% imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 on imports of PET 
film  produced  and  exported  to  the  EC  by  Jindal  Poly  Films  Limited  should  be 
maintained. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
(25)  All  parties  concerned  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the 
basis of which the decision to maintain the current anti-dumping duty was made and 
were given the opportunity to comment.  

(26)  The Community Industry argued that the dumping calculation should have been made 
on  the  basis  of  a  comparison  of  the  weighted  average  normal  value  to  individual 
export transactions, since they alleged that targeted dumping to a ‘special category of 
purchasers’ existed. They argued that, if sales of a particular film type were only sold 
to  customers  within  a  specific  end-use  segment,  this  would  amount  to  targeting  by 
customer. They also considered that the approach was justified in view of an increase 
in  Indian  production  capacity,  which  they  believed  related  mainly  to  that  particular 
film type. In this regard, it should first be noted that the film type concerned was not 
only  sold  to  customers  solely  purchasing  that  film  type,  but  also  to  customers 
purchasing  other  film  types.  A  comparison  of  prices  for  the  same  film  types  sold  to 
different  customers  did  not  show  a  pattern  of  price  differentiation  by  client.  In  the 
absence of such a pattern, the existence of an alleged pattern of dumping by model is 
irrelevant for the purpose of the selection of the dumping calculation methodology, as 
indicated in Article 2(11) of the  basic Regulation.  Moreover, it  should also be  noted 
that changes in the production capacity are also not a relevant factor in determining the 
methodology  to  be  followed  for  the  determination  of  the  dumping  margin.  Since  no 
targeting by customer, region or time period was identified, the Community industry’s 
claim is rejected and the comparison of normal value to export price on the basis of a 
weighted  average  to  weighted  average  approach  is  maintained  as  the  appropriate 
methodology, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

The partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures concerning imports of polyethylene 
terephthalate (PET) film  originating, inter alia, in India, normally declared under CN codes 
ex  3920  62  19  and  ex  3920  62  90,  insofar  as  these  measures  concern  the  Indian  exporting 
producer Jindal Poly Films Limited, is hereby terminated.  

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 

7 

   EN