Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate film originating, inter alia, in India and terminating the partial interim review of the anti-subsidy measures applicable to imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating, inter alia, in India
Date: 2006-02-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: India, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, originating product, plastics, thin sheet

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 13.2.2006 
COM(2006) 54 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping 
duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate film originating, inter alia, in India and 
terminating the partial interim review of the anti-subsidy measures applicable to 
imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating, inter alia, in India  

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1)  CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This  proposal  concerns  the  application  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of 
22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members 
of  the  European  Community  and  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2026/97  on  protection 
against  subsidised  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European  Community, 
both as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 of 21 December 2005 
(‘the basic Regulations’) in the proceeding concerning imports of PET-film originating 
in India. 

•  General context 

This  proposal  is  made  in  the  context  of  the  implementation  of  the  basic  Regulations 
and is the result of an investigation which was carried out in line with the substantive 
and procedural requirements laid out in the basic Regulations. 

•  Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1676/2001  imposing  definitive  anti-dumping  duties  on 
imports of PET film originating, inter alia, in India (OJ L 227, 23.8.2001, p. 1). 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2597/1999  imposing  definitive  countervailing  duties  on 
imports of PET film originating, inter alia, in India (OJ L 316, 10.12.1999, p. 1). 

Commission  Decision  2001/645/EC  (OJ  L  227,  23.8.2001,  p. 56),  accepting 
undertakings  from  five  Indian  companies,  Ester  Industries  Limited  (‘Ester’),  Flex 
Industries  Limited  (‘Flex’),  Garware  Polyester  Limited  (‘Garware’),  MTZ  Polyfilms 
Limited (‘MTZ’), and Polyplex Corporation Limited (‘Polyplex’).  

•  Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

2)  CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

•  Consultation of interested parties 

Interested  parties  concerned  by  the  proceeding  have  already  had  the  possibility  to 
defend their interests during the investigation, in line with the provisions of the basic 
Regulations. 

•  Collection and use of expertise 

There was no need for external expertise. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  Impact assessment 

This proposal is the result of the implementation of the basic Regulations. 

The  basic  Regulations  do  not  foresee  a  general  impact  assessment  but  contain  an 
exhaustive list of conditions that have to be assessed. 

3)  LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

In  November  2003,  the  Commission  initiated  a  partial  interim  review  of  the  anti-
dumping measures applicable to imports into the Community of PET-film originating 
in India, limited to the form of the measures.  

In  June  2002,  a  partial  interim  review  of  the  form  of  the  anti-subsidy  measures 
applicable  to  imports  into  the  Community  of  PET-film  originating  in  India  was 
initiated, in particular to examine the acceptability of an undertaking offer by an Indian 
producer.  

The  attached  proposal  to  withdraw  the  existing  undertakings  offered  by  five  Indian 
producers  and  accepted  by  Decision  2001/645/EC  is  based  on  the  definitive  findings 
which confirmed that the undertakings are impracticable and therefore not effective to 
counteract the injurious effect of dumping. 

Likewise, the proposal not to accept the undertaking offered by one Indian producer as 
regards  anti-subsidy  measures  is  based  on  the  confirmed  inappropriateness  of  the 
product  concerned  for  undertakings,  given  the  difficulties  to  be  efficiently  monitored 
and enforced. 

The Member States were consulted regarding these investigations.  

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopts the attached proposal for a Regulation 
which should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union. 

•  Legal basis 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22  December  1995  on  protection  against 
dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community and Council 
Regulation  (EC)  No  2026/97  on  protection  against  subsidised  imports  from  countries 
not members of the European Community, both as last amended by Council Regulation 
(EC) No 2117/2005 of 21 December 2005.  

•  Subsidiarity principle 

The proposal falls under the exclusive competence of the Community. The subsidiarity 
principle therefore does not apply. 

•  Proportionality principle 

The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reasons. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The form of action is described in the above-mentioned basic Regulations and leaves 
no scope for national decision. 

Indication  of  how  financial  and  administrative  burden  falling  upon  the  Community, 
national governments, regional and local authorities, economic operators and citizens is 
minimized and proportionate to the objective of the proposal is not applicable. 

•  Choice of instruments 

Proposed instruments: regulation. 

Other  means  would  not  be  adequate  because  the  basic  Regulations  do  not  foresee 
alternative options. 

4)  BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping 
duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate film originating, inter alia, in India and 
terminating the partial interim review of the anti-subsidy measures applicable to 
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  384/96  of  22  December  1995  on  protection 
against dumped  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European  Community1 
(‘the basic anti-dumping  Regulation’),  in  particular  Article  11(3)  thereof,  and  Council 
Regulation  (EC)  No  2026/97  on  protection  against  subsidised  imports  from  countries  not 
members  of  the  European  Community2  (‘the  basic  anti-subsidy  Regulation’),  in  particular 
Article 19 thereof,  

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

Whereas: 

A. 

PROCEDURE 

1. 

Existing  measures  and  terminated  investigations  concerning  the  same 
product 

(1) 

The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 2597/19993, imposed a definitive countervailing 
duty  on  imports  of  polyethylene  terephthalate  (‘PET’)  film  falling  within  CN  codes 
ex 3920 62 19  and  ex 3920 62 90  and  originating 
(‘the  definitive 
countervailing measures’). The measures took the form of an ad valorem duty ranging 
between 3,8% and 19,1% imposed on imports from individually named exporters, with 
a residual duty rate of 19,1% imposed on imports from all other companies. 

India 

in 

(2) 

The  Council,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1676/20014,  imposed  definitive  anti-dumping 
duties on imports of PET film originating, inter alia, in India. The measures took the 
form of an ad valorem duty ranging between 0% and 62,6% on imports of PET film 

1 

2 

3 
4 

OJ  L  56,  6.3.1996,  p.  1.  Regulation  as  last  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  2117/2005  (OJ L 340, 
23.12.2005, p. 17). 
OJ L 288, 21.10.1997, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ L 340, 
23.12.2005, p. 17). 
OJ L 316, 10.12.1999, p. 1. 
OJ L 227, 23.8.2001, p. 1. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
originating  in  India  (‘the  definitive  anti-dumping  measures’),  with  the  exception  of 
imports from five Indian companies (Ester Industries Limited (‘Ester’), Flex Industries 
Limited  (‘Flex’),  Garware  Polyester  Limited  (‘Garware’),  MTZ  Polyfilms  Limited 
(‘MTZ’),  and  Polyplex  Corporation  Limited  (‘Polyplex’))  from  whom  undertakings 
had been accepted by Decision 2001/645/EC 5. 

The  Council,  by  Regulations  (EC)  Nos  1975/2004  and  1976/20046,  extended  the 
definitive  countervailing  and  anti-dumping  measures  on  imports  of  PET  film 
originating in India, to imports of the same product consigned from Brazil and Israel, 
whether declared as originating in Brazil or Israel or not. 

On 4 January 20057, the Commission initiated a partial interim review of Regulation 
(EC) No 1676/2001 limited to the level of the definitive anti-dumping measures. This 
investigation has been concluded by Council Regulation (EC) No YYY/20068 which 
amended the level of the definitive anti-dumping measures. 

On  10  December  20049,  the  Commission  initiated  an  expiry  review  of  the  definitive 
countervailing measures. This investigation has been concluded by Council Regulation 
(EC) No ZZZ/2006 which maintained the definitive countervailing measures. 

2.  Requests for reviews 

Request for a review as regards countervailing measures 

In  2002,  a  request  for  a  partial  interim  review,  limited  in  scope  to  the  form  of  the 
countervailing  measures  in  respect  of  one  company,  was  lodged  by  Polyplex 
Corporation  Limited  (‘Polyplex’),  an  Indian  exporting  producer  from  whom  an 
undertaking had already been accepted by Decision 2001/645/EC in connection with 
the  anti-dumping  measures  in  force.  Polyplex  provided  information  that  an 
undertaking of the same nature would remove the injurious effects of subsidisation and 
could  be  monitored.  Therefore,  it  was  warranted  to  review  the  form  of  the 
countervailing measure.  

Request for a review of the form of the anti-dumping measures 

In October 2003, a request for a partial interim review limited to the form of the anti-
dumping  measures  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. 
Toray  Plastics  Europe  indicated  its  support  for  the  request,  although  it  was  not  a 
formal applicant. 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

The applicants alleged that the form of the measures (i. e. the existing undertakings as 
accepted by Commission Decision 2001/645/EC) was no longer effective in removing 
the injurious dumping. The applicants alleged that, since the acceptance of the existing 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

OJ L 227, 23.8.2001, p. 56. 
OJ L 342, 18.11.2004, p. 1 and p. 8. 
OJ C 1, 4.1.2005, p. 5. 
OJ 
OJ C 306, 10.12.2004, p. 2. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
undertakings, which are based on minimum import prices, the range of products sold 
by  the  exporters  concerned  had  developed,  notably  to  include  more  technically 
sophisticated  film,  so  that  the  minimum  prices  under  which  some  products  may  be 
categorised  no  longer  reflected  their  true  value,  and  thus  the  mechanism  of  the 
measures  was  no  longer  adequate  in  view  of  the  new  technological  developments. 
Consequently,  the  undertakings  were  said  to  be  no  longer  adequate  to  eliminate  the 
injurious effects of dumping.  

3. 

Investigations 

Review regarding countervailing measures 

(9) 

On 28 June 2002, the Commission announced by a notice of initiation published in the 
Official Journal of the European Union10, the initiation of a partial interim review of 
the anti-subsidy measures limited in scope to the examination of the acceptability of 
an  undertaking  offered  by  the  Indian  exporting  producer  Polyplex,  pursuant  to 
Article 19 of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.  

(10)  Given that a partial interim review of the form of the anti-dumping measures (i.e. the 
existing undertakings) was initiated in November 2003, as mentioned in recitals (12) 
and (13) below, the question of the acceptability of Polyplex’s offer of an undertaking 
was kept open in order to complete both reviews at the same time. The Commission 
officially informed Polyplex of its intentions in this regard. No comments were made 
by the applicant in this respect. 

Review of the form of the anti-dumping measures 

(11)  On 22 November 2003, the Commission announced by a notice of initiation published 
in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union11,  the  initiation  of  a  partial  interim 
review in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation. 

(12)  The  review  was  limited  in  scope  to  the  form  of  the  measures  applicable  to  the  five 
Indian  exporting  producers  from  whom  undertakings  had  been  accepted.  The 
investigation period was from 1 October 2002 to 30 September 2003 (‘the current IP’). 

(13)  The  Commission  officially  informed  the  exporting  producers,  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 indicated in the notice of initiation. 

(14) 

In  order  to  obtain  the  information  deemed  necessary  for  its  investigation,  the 
Commission  sent  questionnaires  to  the  exporting  producers  concerned,  which  all 
cooperated by replying to the questionnaire. Verification visits were carried out at the 
premises of the following exporting producers in India: 

– 

– 

Ester Industries Limited, New Delhi, 

Flex Industries Limited, New Delhi, 

10 
11 

OJ C 154, 28.6.2002, p. 2. 
OJ C 281, 22.11.2003, p. 4. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
– 

Garware Polyester Limited, Aurangabad, 

–  MTZ Polyfilms Limited, Mumbai, 

– 

Polyplex Corporation Limited, New Delhi. 

B. 

PRODUCT CONCERNED  

(15)  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.  

C. 

FINDINGS 

Review of the form of the anti-dumping measures 

(16)  PET film has specific physical, chemical and technical characteristics, which include 
thickness,  coating  properties,  surface  treatment  and  mechanical  properties  among 
others, which determine various types of PET film through different treatments of base 
film during or after the production process, including corona treatment, metallisation 
or  chemical  coating.  It  therefore  exists  in  many  different  forms  or  types.  Given  the 
existence  of  the  large  number  of  different product  presentations (product  types),  and 
for  the  purpose  of  facilitating  the  monitoring  of  the  undertakings,  the  products  were 
grouped  under  different  categories  (groupings)  based  on  technical  characteristics. 
These  groupings  served  as  the  basis  for  establishing  the  minimum  import  prices 
(MIPs) set out in the undertakings. In the original investigation, the number of MIPs 
established on the basis of those groupings ranged from 10 to 32 per exporter. 

(17) 

In the framework of the current review, a comparison was made, within groupings, of 
the mix of model types and of price variations between the investigation period used in 
the original investigation (‘original IP’) and the current IP.  

(18)  The analysis showed that the mix of model types sold under certain product groupings 
have changed since the acceptance of the undertakings. For several companies under 
investigation  these  changes  have  been  very  significant,  to  the  extent  that  for  some 
groupings most of the product presentations exported to the Community during the IP 
no  longer  correspond  to  the  products  exported  during  the  original  IP.  Examples  of 
changes  which  were  noted  within  groupings  were  the  dropping  of  lower  value 
products,  the  addition  of  new  apparently  higher  value  products,  and  sometimes  a 
combination of both of these.  

(19)  The  analysis  also  showed  that  for  certain  product  groupings  the  price  variance  (the 
range  of  product  values)  within  the  grouping  has  changed  significantly  since  the 
acceptance  of  the  undertakings.  In  this  context  it  should  also  be  noted  that  there  has 
been  a  significant  change  in  the  pattern  of  sales  between  the  different  product 
groupings  following  the  acceptance  of  undertakings.  In  particular,  there  appears  to 
have been a tendency to concentrate sales on those groupings with a lower minimum 
price. 

(20)  Since  the  MIPs  and  the  undertakings  were  established  on  the  basis  of  the  mix  of 
product types and their corresponding values within the product groupings during the 
original IP, it is clear that the changes found in relation to the actual mix of products 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
and  values  within  those  product  groupings  have  rendered  those  specific  MIPs,  and 
therefore the undertakings, inappropriate to counteract the injurious effect of dumping.  

Request regarding countervailing measures 

(21)  As  regards  the  review  limited  in  scope  to  the  examination  of  the  acceptability  of  an 
undertaking  offered  by  Polyplex,  the  analysis  showed  that  the  corporate  structure  of 
that  company  would  render  monitoring  of  an  undertaking  complex,  thus  making  an 
undertaking  inappropriate  as  a  form  of  effective  countervailing  measure.  The 
complexity arises from the fact that the product concerned is also manufactured by a 
related  company  of  Polyplex  in  a  third  country  (Thailand),  which  creates  a  risk  of 
cross-compensation of prices should the company in Thailand also export the product 
concerned  to  the  Community.  Monitoring  and  therefore  enforcement  would  be  too 
difficult to guarantee a proper functioning of the undertaking. 

D. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Review of the form of the anti-dumping measures 

(22)  The undertakings as they are, with MIPs based on groups of products, permit a large 
degree  of  flexibility  for  the  exporters  to  change  the  technical  characteristics  of  the 
products within the group. The product concerned comprises numerous and evolving 
differentiating  features,  which  largely  determine  sales  prices.  Changes  in  those 
features  consequently  have  a  significant  impact  on  prices.  The  only  viable  way  to 
make the groupings more homogeneous in terms of physical characteristics and prices 
would  be  to  subdivide  the  groupings.  However,  the  consequence  would  be  a 
multiplication of groupings that would render monitoring unworkable, in particular, by 
making  it  difficult  for  customs  authorities  to  discern  the  difference  between  product 
types and the classification of products by grouping upon importation. Moreover, the 
number of groupings per company might increase by a factor of 5 to 11 compared to 
those  in  the  undertakings  if  more  characteristics  of  the  different  product  types  were 
considered in order to arrive at a more accurate classification. Currently, product types 
already  fall  into  more  than  several  hundred  detailed  groupings,  thus  rendering 
undertakings  unworkable.  This  number  might  increase  with  further  developments  of 
the product characteristics. 

(23)  For  certain  companies  subject  to  the  review,  the  model  types  sold  under  a  particular 
product  grouping  did  not  change  significantly  since 
the 
undertakings. However, the likely increase in the number of product groupings due to 
further  developments  in  the  product  groupings,  as  mentioned  in  recital  (22)  above, 
could arise at any future stage and in the case of any exporting producer.  

the  acceptance  of 

(24) 

It  can  therefore  be  concluded  that,  in  order  to  enable  effective  monitoring  of  the 
undertakings, the groupings of products should be considerably more homogeneous in 
terms  of  physical  characteristics  and  prices.  These  characteristics  should  be  stable 
throughout the duration of the undertaking. The investigation has confirmed that this 
has not been the case as regards PET-film.  

(25)  On  the  basis  of  the  above  facts  and  considerations,  it  is  considered  that  the 
undertakings  are  not  appropriate  to  counteract  the  injurious  effect  of  dumping,  since 
they  present  both  considerable  monitoring  and  enforcement  difficulties  and 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
unacceptable  risks.  In  these  circumstances,  the  undertakings  accepted  from  the  five 
Indian  producers  subject  to  the  review  of  the  form  of  the  anti-dumping  measures 
should be withdrawn.  

(26)  All  parties  concerned  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the 
basis of which the decision to withdraw the existing undertakings was made, and were 
given the opportunity to comment. 

(27)  Further  to  disclosure,  some  parties  indicated  that  they  considered  that  there  were  no 
monitoring or enforcement difficulties related to the undertakings and therefore there 
were  no  risks  associated  with  the  form  of  the  measures.  Furthermore  many  of  the 
exporting producers indicated that they had not violated their undertaking agreements. 
One  of  the  exporting  producers  concerned  indicated  that  whereas  the  Notice  of 
Initiation  referred  to  the  significance  of  the  development  of  new  product  types,  they 
had not introduced any new product types into the EU between the time of the offer of 
the existing undertaking and the current IP.  

(28)  As  regards  the  technical  aspects,  the  sheer  number  of  variations  of  this  product, 
coupled  with  product  development  possibilities,  makes  this  product  unsuited  to 
undertakings  as  product  developments  would  require  a  constant  update  of  the  MIPs 
which is not feasible (see recital 22). In this respect, it should be recalled that Article 
8(3) of the basic Regulation indicates that undertakings offered need not be accepted if 
the  authorities  consider  their  acceptance  impractical,  for  example,  if  the  number  of 
actual or potential exporters is too great, or for other reasons. In regard to the claim by 
exporters  that  they  have  not  violated  the  terms  of  the  undertakings,  there  is  no 
suggestion  that  violation  took  place.  The  decision  to  withdraw  the  undertakings  is 
based  on  evidence  assembled  during  the  investigation  that  changes  in  the  mix  of 
products  make  the  undertaking  inappropriate  and  that  monitoring  of  sales  of  this 
product are unsuited to undertaking agreements (see recitals 18 to 20 and 22). Finally, 
the  investigation  showed  that  films  different  from  the  mix  of  products  on  which  the 
MIPs  were  based  were  now  widely  sold  in  the  Community  under  the  undertaking 
agreements and that potentially that number and variety of products could grow. Thus, 
the  market  situation  on  which  the  undertakings  had  been  established,  as  regards  the 
products  sold,  is  no  longer  representative  in  the  current  review  and  therefore  the 
undertakings MIPs have become inappropriate.  

(29) 

(30) 

In  this  context,  the  fact  that  one  exporting  producer  had  not  yet  introduced  any  new 
product types, does not change the fact that the undertakings for the product concerned 
have been found to be inappropriate and their monitoring not feasible, as explained in 
recital 28 above.  

In addition, some exporting producers made reference to Article 15 of the WTO Anti-
dumping  Agreement12  and  the  requirement  therein  for  developed  countries  to  assist 
developing  countries,  indicating  that  the  exporting  producers  should  be  given  the 
opportunity to offer new undertaking agreements. It was suggested that the withdrawal 
of the undertakings was being made on speculative, non-material grounds which was 
devaluing  the  spirit  of  Article  15  of  the  WTO  Anti-dumping  Agreement  and  that 
withdrawal of the undertakings was a violation of the principle of proportionality. 

12 

Agreement on the implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(31)  Article  15  of  the  WTO  Anti-Dumping  Agreement  refers  to  the  need  to  seek 
constructive remedies before applying anti-dumping duties. The existing undertakings 
were accepted in the spirit of seeking a constructive remedy to the injurious dumping. 
However, it should be recalled that Article 8.3 of the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement 
indicates  that  undertakings  offered  need  not  be  accepted  if  the  authorities  consider 
their  acceptance  impractical,  for  example,  if  the  number  of  actual  of  potential 
exporters is too great, or for other reasons. Far from withdrawing the undertakings on 
speculative  grounds,  the  investigation  has  revealed  that  the  products  on  which  the 
Indian producers agreed to fix undertaking prices (MIPs) are largely different from the 
products currently being sold into the Community. The withdrawal of the undertakings 
is  therefore  not  disproportionate  but  a  considered  response  to  developments  in  the 
market place brought about by the exporting producers themselves. 

Request for an undertaking as regards countervailing measures 

(32)  The  conclusions  of  the  review  of  the  form  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  that 
undertakings  are  not  appropriate  to  counteract  the  injurious  effect  of  dumping  since 
they  present  both  considerable  monitoring  and  enforcement  difficulties  and 
unacceptable risks are equally valid as concerns countervailing measures. It was also 
found that the corporate structure of the Polyplex Group would lead to monitoring and 
enforcement difficulties vis-à-vis an undertaking. For this reason the acceptance of the 
undertaking is considered impractical within the meaning of Article 8(3) of the basic 
anti-subsidy Regulation. 

(33) 

In the light of the above, it was concluded that the review investigation on the form of 
the  anti-subsidy  measures,  limited  to  the  acceptability  of  the  undertaking  offered  by 
Polyplex, should be terminated and the undertaking in question not be accepted, since 
the conditions set out in Article 13(1) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation regarding 
the acceptance of an undertaking are not met.  

(34)  The reasons why the undertaking offered could not be accepted were disclosed to the 

applicant concerned, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 shall be deleted. 

Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 shall be renumbered Article 1(3). 

Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 shall be deleted. 

Articles  3  and  4  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1676/2001  shall  be  renumbered  Articles  2 
and 3. 

The  partial  interim  review  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  2597/1999  is  hereby  terminated  with  the 
non acceptance of the undertaking. 

Article 2 

EN 

11 

   EN 

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

Article 3 

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

12 

   EN