Proposal for a Council Regulation repealing the anti-dumping duty on imports of synthetic staple fibres of polyesters originating in Australia, India, Indonesia and Thailand and terminating the proceedings in respect of such imports, following expiry reviews pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96, and terminating the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of such imports originating in Thailand
Date: 2006-09-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Australia, India, Indonesia, Thailand, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, import, man-made fibre, originating product

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 12.9.2006 
COM(2006) 495 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

repealing the anti-dumping duty on imports of synthetic staple fibres of polyesters 
originating in Australia, India, Indonesia and Thailand and terminating the proceedings 
in respect of such imports, following expiry reviews pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council 
Regulation (EC) No 384/96, and terminating the partial interim review pursuant to 
Article 11(3) of such imports originating in Thailand 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1)  CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

110 

•  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, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 
of 21 December 2005 (‘the basic Regulation’) in the proceedings concerning imports 
of  synthetic  staple  fibres  of  polyesters  originating  in  Australia,  India,  Indonesia  and 
Thailand,  following  two  expiry  reviews  pursuant  to  Article  11(2)  of  the  basic 
Regulation and one interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation. 

120 

•  General context 

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

139 

•  Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

There are no existing provisions in the area of the proposal. 

141 

•  Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

2)  CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

•  Consultation of interested parties 

219 

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 
Regulation. 

•  Collection and use of expertise 

229 

There was no need for external expertise. 

230 

•  Impact assessment 

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

The  basic  Regulation  does  not  foresee  a  general  impact  assessment  but  contains  an 
exhaustive list of conditions that have to be assessed. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
3)  LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

305 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

On  14  July  2005,  the  Commission  initiated  an  expiry  review  of  the  anti-dumping 
measures applicable to imports of synthetic staple fibres of polyesters (PSF) originating 
in Australia, Indonesia and Thailand. 

On  3  December  2005,  the  Commission  initiated  a  partial  interim  review  of  the  anti-
dumping  measures  applicable  to  imports  of  PSF  originating  in  Thailand,  limited  in 
scope  to  the  examination  of  dumping  as  far  as  one  producer  from  Thailand  is 
concerned. 

On 20 December 2005, the Commission initiated an expiry review of the anti-dumping 
measures applicable to imports of PSF originating in India.  

The  two  expiry  review  investigations  revealed  that  it  is  unlikely  that  significant 
volumes  of  dumped  exports  of  PSF  to  the  Community  recur  from  Australia,  India, 
Indonesia  and  Thailand  should  the  measures  be  repealed.  Thus,  there  is  no  reason  to 
maintain the existing measures on imports of PSF from these countries.  

Therefore,  it  is  suggested  that  the  Council  adopts  the  attached  proposal  for  a 
Regulation in order to repeal the existing measures against Australia, India, Indonesia 
and  Thailand  and  terminate  the  proceedings  against  these  countries  and  the  partial 
interim review concerning Thailand. 

310 

•  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,  as  last 
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 of 21 December 2005.  

329 

•  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 reason(s). 

331 

332 

The form of action is described in the above-mentioned basic Regulation 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 

341 

Proposed instruments: Regulation. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
342  Other means would not be adequate for the following reason(s). 

The above-mentioned basic Regulation does not foresee alternative options. 

4)  BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

409 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

repealing the anti-dumping duty on imports of synthetic staple fibres of polyesters 
originating in Australia, India, Indonesia and Thailand and terminating the proceedings 
in respect of such imports, following expiry reviews pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council 
Regulation (EC) No 384/96, and terminating the partial interim review pursuant to 
Article 11(3) of such imports originating in Thailand 

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 
Regulation’), and in particular Articles 11(2) and 11(3) thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

1. 

Measures in force 

A. PROCEDURE 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

1 

2 
3 
4 

In  July  2000,  the  Council,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1522/20002,  imposed  a  definitive 
anti-dumping duty on imports of synthetic staple fibres of polyesters (‘polyester staple 
fibres’  or  ‘PSF’)  originating  in  Australia,  Indonesia  and  Thailand.  The  investigation 
that led to these measures will be referred to as ‘the original investigation 1’. 

In  December  2000,  the  Council,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  2852/20003,  imposed  a 
definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of PSF originating in India and the Republic 
of  Korea.  The  investigation  that  led  to  these  measures  will  be  referred  to  as  ‘the 
original investigation 2’. 

The measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 2852/2000 consisted of an ad valorem 
duty,  except  for  imports  from  one  Indian  exporting  producer  from  which  an 
undertaking  was  accepted  by  Commission  Decision  2000/818/EC4.  Following  an 
interim review covering both dumping and injury, the measures on imports originating 

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 175, 14.7.2000, p. 10. 
OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 17. 
OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 116. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
in the Republic of Korea have been amended and renewed for five years by Council 
Regulation (EC) No 428/20055. 

2. 

Requests for reviews 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

Following  the  publication  of  two  notices  of  impending  expiry,  one  concerning  the 
anti-dumping measures in force on imports of PSF originating in Australia, Indonesia 
and Thailand6 and another regarding the anti-dumping measures in force on imports of 
PSF originating in India7, the Commission, on 13 April 2005 and 23 September 2005, 
received  requests  to  review  these  measures  pursuant  to  Article  11(2)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. 

These requests were lodged by the Comité International de la Rayonne et des Fibres 
Synthétiques (‘CIRFS’) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this 
case more than 50 %, of the total Community production of PSF. The requests were 
based  on  the  grounds  that  the  expiry  of  the  measures  would  be  likely  to  result  in  a 
recurrence of dumping and injury to the Community industry. 

Furthermore, a request for a partial interim review of Regulation (EC) No 1522/2000 
was received from Tuntex (Thailand) Public Company Limited (‘Tuntex’), a producer 
of PSF in Thailand subject to the anti-dumping measures in force. 

In  the  request  pursuant  to  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  Tuntex  provided 
prima  facie  evidence  to  support  its  claims  that,  as  far  as  it  is  concerned,  the 
circumstances on the basis of which measures were established have changed and that 
these  changes  are  of  a  lasting  nature.  Tuntex  provided  evidence  showing  that  a 
comparison  of  normal  value  based  on  its  own  cost/domestic  prices  and  its  export 
prices  to  a  third  country  market  would  lead  to  a  reduction  of  dumping  significantly 
below  the  level  of  the  current  measure  (27,7  %).  Therefore,  Tuntex  claimed  that  the 
continued imposition of measures at the existing levels, which were based on the level 
of dumping previously established, was no longer necessary to offset dumping. 

Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence 
existed  for  the  initiation  of  two  reviews  pursuant  to  Article  11(2)  of  the  basic 
Regulation and one review, limited in scope to the examination of dumping, pursuant 
to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, the Commission initiated these three reviews 
by notices published in the Official Journal of the European Union8. 

3. 

Investigations 

(9) 

The  Commission  officially  advised  the  producers  in  Australia,  India,  Indonesia  and 
Thailand,  importers,  users  and  their  associations  in  the  Community  known  to  be 
concerned,  the  representatives  of  the  exporting  countries  concerned,  CIRFS  and 
known Community producers of the initiation of the expiry reviews. Interested parties 
were  given  the  opportunity  to  make  their  views  known  in  writing  and  to  request  a 
hearing within the time limit set out in the notices of initiation. 

5 
6 
7 
8 

OJ L 71, 17.3.2005, p. 1. 
OJ C 261, 23.10.2004, p. 2. 
OJ C 130, 27.5.2005, p. 8. 
OJ C 174, 14.7.2005, p. 15; OJ C 307, 3.12.2005, p. 2; OJ C 323, 20.12.2005, p. 21. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(10)  The  Commission  officially  advised  Tuntex,  as  well  as  the  representatives  of  the 
exporting country, of the initiation of the partial interim review. Interested parties were 
also  given  the  opportunity  to  make  their  views  known  in  writing  and  to  request  a 
hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation. 

(11) 

In  view  of  the  large  number  of  Indian,  Indonesian  and  Thai  producers  as  well  as 
Community  producers  listed  in  the  requests  for  the  expiry  reviews,  and  the  large 
number  of  Community  importers  of  PSF  known  to  be  concerned,  it  was  considered 
appropriate, in conformity with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, to examine whether 
sampling  should  be  used.  In  order  to  enable  the  Commission  to  decide  whether 
sampling  would  be  necessary  and,  if  so,  to  select  a  sample,  the  above  parties  were 
requested,  pursuant  to  Article  17(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  to  make  themselves 
known within 15 days of the initiation of the reviews and to provide the Commission 
with the information requested in the notices of initiation. 

(12)  After  examination  of  the  information  submitted  and  given  the  low  number  of  co-
operating producers in India, Indonesia and Thailand which indicated their willingness 
to co-operate, it was decided that sampling was not necessary as regards producers in 
these countries. 

(13)  No importer provided the Commission with the information requested in the notices of 
initiation and, therefore, sampling for importers was not necessary. In fact, no importer 
co-operated in the reviews. 

(14)  Ten  Community  producers  completed  the  sampling  form  and  formally  agreed  to  co-
operate further in the investigation. Five out of these ten companies, which were found 
to be representative of the Community industry in terms of volume of production and 
sales of PSF in the Community, were selected for the sample. This sample constituted 
the  largest  representative  volume  of  production  and  sales  of  PSF  in  the  Community 
which could reasonably be investigated within the time available.  

(15)  Questionnaires were, therefore, sent to the five sampled Community producers, to the 
producers in Australia and to those which cooperated with the sampling exercise for 
their country and to known users. The five non-sampled Community producers were 
requested  to  provide  information  on  certain  injury  indicators  and  to  comment  on  the 
impact of the repeal or maintenance of the anti-dumping measures. 

(16)  Replies to the questionnaires were received from four out of five sampled Community 
producers (so the sample represented 38 % of production and sales in the Community), 
one producer in Australia, three producers in India, four producers in Indonesia, four 
producers in Thailand (two of them related) and eight users. Two associations of users 
made submissions. Furthermore, four out of five non-sampled Community producers 
provided the information requested (so the cooperating producers represented 60 % of 
production in the Community). 

(17)  The  Commission  sought  and  verified  all  the  information  it  deemed  necessary  for  its 
analysis and carried out verification visits at the premises of the following companies: 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
(a) 

Sampled Community producers 

– 

– 

– 

Advansa GmbH, Hamm, Germany 

Elana, Branch Office of Boryszew S.A., Torun, Poland 

La Seda de Barcelona S.A., El Prat de Llobregat, Spain 

–  Wellman International Limited, Mullagh, Ireland 

(b)  Producers in Australia 

– 

Leading Synthetics Pty Ltd., Campbellfield 

(c)  Producers in India 

– 

– 

– 

Futura Polyesters Limited, Chennai 

Indo Rama Synthetics (India) Ltd., Nagpur 

Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai 

(d)  Producers in Indonesia 

– 

– 

– 

– 

P.T. Global Fiberindo, Tangerang  

P.T. Indo-Rama Synthetics Tbk., Jakarta 

P.T. Panasia Indosyntec Tbk., Bandung 

P.T. Susilia Indah Synthetic Fibers Industries, Tangerang 

(e)  Producers in Thailand 

– 

– 

– 

– 

New World Polyester Co., Ltd., Samutprakarn 

Teijin Polyester (Thailand) Limited, Bangkok 

Teijin (Thailand) Limited, Bangkok 

Tuntex (Thailand) Public Company Limited, Bangkok 

(18)  As regards the expiry reviews, the investigation on the continuation and/or recurrence 
of dumping and injury covered the period from 1st July 2004 to 30 June 2005 (‘review 
investigation  period’  or  ‘RIP’).  The  examination  of  the  trends  relevant  for  the 
assessment of a likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period 
from 1st January 2002 up to the end of the RIP (‘period considered’). The investigation 
period used in the partial interim review for the investigation of dumping is the same 
as the RIP used in the expiry reviews. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

1. 

Product concerned 

(19)  The  definition  of  the  product  concerned  corresponds  to  the  one  that  was  used  in  the 

original investigations mentioned under recitals (1) and (2) above. 

(20)  The product concerned is synthetic staple fibres of polyesters, not carded, combed or 
otherwise  processed  for  spinning  originating  in  Australia,  India,  Indonesia  and 
Thailand, currently classifiable within CN code 5503 20 00. It is commonly referred to 
as polyester staple fibres or PSF. 

(21)  PSF is a basic material used at various stages of the manufacturing process of textile 
products.  PSF  is  either  used  for  spinning,  i.e.  manufacturing  filaments  for  the 
production of textiles, after mixing or not with other fibres such as cotton and wool, or 
for  non-woven  applications  such  as  filling,  i.e.  stuffing  or  padding  of  certain  textile 
goods such as cushions, car seats and jackets. 

(22)  The product is sold in different product types which can be identified through different 
specifications such as denier or decitex, tenacity, lustre and silicon treatment. From a 
production  point  of  view,  a  distinction  can  be  made  between  virgin  PSF,  produced 
from  virgin  raw  materials,  and  regenerated  PSF,  produced  from  recycled  polyester. 
Finally, the quality may be first grade or sub-standard. 

(23)  The  investigation  has  shown  that  all  types  of  the  product  concerned  as  defined  in 
recital  (20)  above,  despite  differences  in  a  variety  of  factors  as  defined  in  the 
preceding  recital,  have  the  same  basic  physical  and  chemical  characteristics  and  the 
same  uses.  Therefore,  and  for  the  purpose  of  the  current  reviews,  all  types  of  the 
product concerned are considered as one product. 

2. 

Like product 

(24)  The current reviews have shown that the product concerned and the PSF produced and 
sold  on  the  domestic  markets  of  the  countries  concerned  as  well  as  the  PSF 
manufactured and sold in the Community by the Community producers have the same 
basic  physical  and  chemical  characteristics  and  the  same  uses.  Therefore,  these 
products are considered to be a like product within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the 
basic Regulation. 

C. LIKELIHOOD OF A CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF DUMPING 

1. 

Preliminary remarks 

(25)  Concerning  the  expiry  reviews,  in  accordance  with  Article  11(2)  of  the  basic 
Regulation, it was examined whether dumping was currently taking place and whether 
the expiry of the measures would be likely to lead to a continuation or a recurrence of 
dumping.  

(26)  During  the  RIP,  exports  to  the  Community  of  PSF  originating  in  Australia,  India, 
Indonesia  and  Thailand  (‘the  countries  concerned’)  were  negligible.  According  to 
Eurostat, imports from the countries concerned amounted to only 1 056 tonnes during 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
the  RIP  (0,1  %  of  Community  consumption),  whilst  they  were  more  than  69  000 
tonnes during the investigation periods of the original investigations. 

(27)  All co-operating producers had no or negligible export sales of PSF to the Community 
in the RIP and, thus, no representative dumping calculations could be made in order to 
determine the likelihood of continuation of dumping.  

(28)  Consequently, for the likelihood of recurrence of dumping analysis account was taken, 

amongst others, of prices for exports to other third countries. 

(29)  Given  the  findings  of  the  expiry  reviews  set  out  below,  it  was  not  considered 

necessary to pursue the interim review requested by Tuntex. 

2. 

Likelihood of recurrence of dumping should measures be repealed 

2.1.  Australia 

Preliminary remarks 

(30)  The  sole  producer  of  PSF  in  Australia  has  stopped  exporting  PSF  to  all  markets, 
including  the  Community,  in  2003.  The  company  has  invested  in  a  new  flexible 
production line allegedly in order to cover only a regional part of the Australian PSF 
market; mainly the market of the State of Victoria where it is located.  

Relationship between the domestic price level and the price level in the Community 

(31)  Since  there  were  no  exports  to  any  country  during  the  RIP,  the  domestic  prices  in 
Australia, which were found to be loss making but above variable cost, were compared 
and found significantly lower than the average price of the Community producers in 
the  RIP.  This  is  an  indication  that  the  company  might  have  an  incentive  to  resume 
some exports to the Community should measures be repealed. However, as set out in 
recital (32) below, the company has no capacity to resume any significant volume of 
exports to the Community. 

Unused capacity and stocks 

(32)  Although the capacity utilisation of the Australian producer was not very high in the 
RIP,  the  available  spare  capacity  is  a  small  fraction  of  the  Community  consumption 
(significantly  less  than  0,5  %).  Even  if  all  this  spare  capacity  were  sold  at  dumped 
prices to the Community following the repeal of the measures in force, the effect on 
the  Community  market  would  be  minimal.  Stocks  is  not  a  meaningful  indicator  as 
regards PSF produced in Australia because the product is mainly sold on client order 
basis. 

(33)  Finally, it is recalled that the company has not exported to any third country PSF since 
2003,  irrespective  of  the  existence  of  similar  spare  capacity  during  this  period. 
Consequently,  it  is  concluded  that  there  is  no  likelihood  of  recurrence  of  dumped 
exports  in  significant  volumes  from  Australia  to  the  Community  should  the  existing 
measures be repealed. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
2.2. 

India 

Preliminary remarks 

(34)  Three Indian PSF producers co-operated in the investigation. Two of them had some 
minor  export  sales  to  the  Community  in  the  RIP;  the  third  had  no  exports  to  the 
Community.  It  is  noted  that  one  of  these  co-operating  producers  had  three  related 
companies  producing  PSF  in  India.  However,  these  related  producers  were  not 
investigated  separately,  since  only  one  of  them  made  some  –  very  limited  –  direct 
sales of PSF in the RIP, all on the domestic market. 

(35) 

It is known that there was at least one small PSF producer in India in the RIP, which 
did  not  co-operate  in  the  investigation.  For  those  non-cooperating  producer(s),  the 
information available from Eurostat and other sources was analysed. On that basis, it 
was found  that the Indian exports  of PSF  to the Community from other than the co-
operating  Indian  producers  were  also  negligible  in  the  RIP.  However,  no  reliable 
information as to the production capacity and volumes, stocks and sales was available 
for the non-cooperating company/companies. In this respect, and in the absence of any 
indication  to  the  contrary,  it  was  considered  that  findings  for  any  non-cooperating 
companies would be in line with those established for co-operating companies.  

(36)  Since there were no sufficient exports to the Community for a representative dumping 
analysis in the RIP and in order to establish whether dumping would be likely to recur 
should the measures be repealed, the pricing behaviour of the co-operating producers 
on other export markets and their production capacity and stocks were examined. The 
analysis  was  based  on  the  information  provided  by  the  co-operating  producers 
mentioned in recital (17) above. 

Relationship between export prices to third countries and the price level in India 

(37)  Data from the three Indian co-operating producers showed that export prices to third 
countries  were  lower  than  domestic  prices  in  India.  In  fact,  the  investigation 
established  that  overall  this  price  difference  ranged  in  the  RIP  between  15  %  and 
27 %.  This  may  indicate  a  likelihood  of  recurrence  of  dumping  on  exports  to  the 
Community should measures be repealed.  

Relationship  between  export  prices  to  third  countries  and  the  price  level  in  the 
Community 

(38) 

It was found that the sales prices of the Community producers in the Community were 
on  average  considerably  higher  than  the  export  prices  of  the  co-operating  Indian 
producers  to  other  third  countries  in  the  RIP.  This  may  indicate  that  the  prevailing 
price  level  for  the  product  concerned  in  the  Community  market  could  make  this 
market attractive for the Indian producers. On this basis, it was considered that there is 
an economic incentive to shift exports from other third countries to the higher priced 
Community market in case of repeal of the measures in force. However, since prices in 
the Community are considerably higher than export prices to other third countries, it is 
unlikely that any exports to the Community would be made at dumped prices should 
measures be repealed.  

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
Unused capacity and stocks 

(39)  There were no significant spare capacities in the three co-operating companies in India 
during  the  RIP.  However,  two  of  these  major  producers  were  already  implementing 
significant  investments  into  their  PSF  production,  which  will  result  in  an  aggregated 
increase of their production capacity by 361 000 tonnes p.a. in the year 2007. These 
investments were said to be based on developments on the Indian PSF market, which 
they allege is expected to grow sharply this year and in the near future. According to 
the  information  available,  the  Indian  PSF  market  size  is  currently  about  610  000 
tonnes p.a. It is noted that the above production capacity increase represents more than 
50 % of the total production capacity of the three co-operating Indian producers in the 
RIP. It is also noted that, according to the information available, there was at least one 
new PSF producer in India in the start-up phase of production for this product at the 
time  of  the  investigation.  On  the  other  hand,  the  biggest  Indian  producer  acquired 
recently a Community producer which is non-cooperating with the investigation. Thus, 
this  Indian  exporter  may  have  no  interest  to  export  to  the  Community  significant 
quantities of PSF in the future. Moreover, data from the co-operating producers show 
that  their  domestic  sales  have  been  increasing  during  the  period  considered  and  that 
they  will  continue  increasing  in  the  future.  Thus,  the  new  capacities  will  meet  the 
rising  domestic  demand  although  it  cannot  be  excluded  that  there  might  be  at  times 
some excess capacity. 

(40)  Stock levels for the three Indian producers did not show any significant change in the 
period considered. It is, however, noted that stocks can not be considered a meaningful 
indicator  in  the  case  of  India  because  the  production  of  one  of  the  co-operating 
producers  is  based  on  orders  from  customers  and  another  co-operating  producer 
manufactures significant quantities of PSF for captive use. 

(41)  Overall,  it  is  considered  that  there  is  no  likelihood  of  resumption  of  exports  to  the 
Community  in  significant  quantities  and  that,  even  if  a  part  of  the  new  production 
capacities in India would end up in the Community should measures be repealed, it is 
unlikely that such exports would be made at dumped prices (see recital (38) above). 

2.3. 

Indonesia 

Preliminary remarks 

(42)  Four  Indonesian  PSF  producers  co-operated  in  the  investigation.  None  of  these 
producers had related companies producing PSF in Indonesia. Three of them had some 
minor  export  sales  to  the  Community  in  the  RIP;  the  fourth  had  no  exports  to  the 
Community. 

(43) 

It is known that there were at least five active PSF producers in Indonesia during the 
RIP,  which  did  not  co-operate  in  the  investigation.  For  those  non-cooperating 
producers, the information available from Eurostat and other sources was analysed. On 
that  basis,  it  was  found  that  the  Indonesian  exports  of  PSF  to  the  Community  from 
other than the co-operating Indonesian producers were also negligible in the RIP. No 
reliable information as to the production capacity and volumes, stocks and sales was 
available for these non-cooperating companies. In this respect, and in the absence of 
any indication to the contrary, it was considered that findings for any non-cooperating 
companies  would  be  in  line  with  those  established  for  co-operating  companies.  The 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
examination of whether it would be likely that dumping recurs should the measures be 
repealed  was  therefore  based  on  the  information  available,  i.e.  the  information 
provided by the co-operating producers mentioned in recital (17) above. 

(44) 

In order to establish whether dumping would be likely to recur should the measures be 
repealed, the pricing behaviour of the co-operating producers on other export markets 
and the exporters' production capacity and stocks were examined.  

Relationship between export prices to third countries and the price level in Indonesia 

(45)  For one of the four co-operating Indonesian producers, no data related to export prices 
could  be  found  since  this  company  did  not  export  PSF  at  all  in  the  RIP.  Data 
concerning the other three producers showed that export prices to third countries were 
in general slightly lower than domestic prices in Indonesia for two of them. In fact, the 
investigation established that this price difference was on average around 4 % in the 
RIP. For the third producer, export prices to third countries were found overall slightly 
higher  than  domestic  prices  in  Indonesia.  This  does  not  indicate  a  likelihood  of 
recurrence of any significant dumping on exports to the Community should measures 
be repealed.  

Relationship  between  export  prices  to  third  countries  and  the  price  level  in  the 
Community 

(46) 

It was found that the sales prices of the Community producers in the Community were 
on average considerably higher than the export prices of the co-operating Indonesian 
producers  to  third  countries  in  the  RIP.  This  may  indicate  that  the  prevailing  price 
level of the product concerned in the Community could make this market attractive for 
the  Indonesian  producers.  On  this  basis,  it  is  considered  that  should  measures  be 
repealed,  there  is  an  economic  incentive  to  shift  exports  from  third  countries  to  the 
higher  priced  Community  market.  However,  since  prices  in  the  Community  are 
considerably higher than export prices to other third countries, it is unlikely that any 
exports  to  the  Community  would  be  made  at  dumped  prices  should  measures  be 
repealed. 

Unused capacity and stocks 

(47)  There  was  no  uniform  pattern  concerning  capacity  utilisation  of  the  co-operating 
producers  in  Indonesia  during  the  RIP.  While  some  of  the  companies  were  able  to 
utilize  almost  all  their  installed  capacity,  others  had  significant  spare  capacities 
available.  However,  overall  this  spare  capacity  was  less  than  20  %  of  their  total 
capacity.  None  of  the  co-operating  companies  in  Indonesia  appeared  to  be  planning 
any significant investments in order to expand PSF production capacity in the future. 
Concerning  the  capacity  utilisation  of  the  non-cooperating  Indonesian  producers,  an 
estimate of the spare capacity was made on the basis of information provided by the 
co-operating companies and the Indonesian association of PSF producers. According 
to  this  information,  the  installed  capacity  of  the  co-operating  producers  accounts  for 
less than half of the total installed PSF production capacity in Indonesia. On this basis, 
it was estimated that the existing spare production capacity in Indonesia is maximum 
around  90  000  tonnes.  Furthermore,  data  form  the  co-operating  producers  show  that 
overall domestic sales have been increasing during the period considered and that they 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
will continue increasing in the future. Therefore, the spare capacity in Indonesia would 
be probably used for domestic sales rather than export sales to the Community. 

(48)  Stock levels for the four Indonesian producers did not show any significant change in 
the  period  considered.  It  is,  however,  noted  that  stocks  cannot  be  considered  a 
meaningful  indicator  because  the  production  of  PSF  is  mostly  based  on  orders  from 
customers and/or captive use. 

(49)  Overall,  it  is  considered  that  there  is  no  likelihood  of  resumption  of  exports  to  the 
Community  in  significant  quantities  and  that,  even  if  a  part  of  the  spare  production 
capacity in Indonesia would end up in the Community should measures be repealed, it 
is rather unlikely for the reasons set out in recitals (45) and (46) above that the prices 
of such exports would be dumped. 

2.4.  Thailand 

Preliminary remarks 

(50)  There are eight producers of PSF in Thailand known to the Commission. Four of them 
co-operated  in  the  current  investigation.  Only  one  of  them  has  exported  a  minor 
quantity of PSF to the Community in the RIP. 

(51)  The information on stocks and sales to markets other than the Community refers only 
to the co-operating producers. It was, however, possible to obtain data on production 
capacity in Thailand from the Thai Synthetic Fiber Manufacturer’s Association and to 
make an estimate of the production volume of all producers in Thailand. This estimate 
was  based  on  the  assumption  that  the  capacity  utilisation  of  the  non-cooperating 
producers was similar to that of the co-operating producers. In this respect, and in the 
absence  of  any  indication  to  the  contrary,  it  was  considered  that  findings  for  non-
cooperating  companies  would  be  in  line  with  those  established  for  co-operating 
companies. 

(52) 

In  order  to  establish  whether  a  recurrence  of  dumping  would  be  likely  should 
measures  be  repealed,  the  pricing  behaviour  of  the  co-operating  producers  in  export 
markets other than the Community, production capacity in Thailand and stocks of co-
operating producers were examined. 

(53)  According to Eurostat, import volumes originating in Thailand were negligible during 

the RIP.  

Relationship between export prices to third countries and the price level in Thailand 

(54)  Data  from  the  four  co-operating  producers  showed  that  sales  to  third  countries  were 
made  at  prices  below  those  on  the  domestic  market  or  below  cost  of  production  - 
differences  ranging  overall  from  10  %  to  15  %.  This  may  indicate  a  likelihood  of 
recurrence of dumping on exports to the Community should measures be repealed. 

Relationship  between  export  prices  to  third  countries  and  the  price  level  in  the 
Community 

(55)  The export prices to third countries charged by the co-operating producers in Thailand 
were  on  average  significantly  below  the  sales  prices  of  the  Community  producers  in 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
the  Community,  which  may  indicate  that  the  prevailing  price  level  of  PSF  on  the 
Community market would make this market attractive for producers in Thailand if the 
anti-dumping  measures  were  repealed.  On  this  basis,  it  is  considered  that  there  is  an 
economic  incentive  to  shift  exports  from  third  countries  to  the  higher  priced 
Community market in case the anti-dumping measures in force are repealed. However, 
since prices in the Community are considerably higher than export prices to other third 
countries, it is unlikely that any exports to the Community would be made at dumped 
prices should measures be repealed. 

Unused capacity and stocks 

(56)  The  capacity  utilisation  of  co-operating  producers  has  been  rather  high  in  the  period 
considered, on average around 92 %. At this level of capacity utilisation, and assuming 
that non-cooperating producers had a similar level of capacity utilisation, producers in 
Thailand  had  a  spare  capacity  of  not  more  than  50  000  tonnes  in  the  RIP.  Although 
such capacity could be partially used to resume export sales to the Community should 
measures  be  repealed,  given  the  important  share  of  domestic  sales  and  the  high 
number  of  export  markets  supplied  by  the  co-operating  producers,  it  is  unlikely  that 
significant volumes of PSF could end up in the Community market. 

(57)  Stocks is not a meaningful indicator as regards PSF produced in Thailand. Production 
is mostly based on orders from customers and, therefore, stocks are mainly made up of 
PSF that is awaiting to be shipped to already known buyers. 

(58)  Overall,  it  is  considered  that  there  is  no  likelihood  of  resumption  of  exports  to  the 
Community  in  significant  quantities  and  that,  even  if  a  part  of  the  spare  production 
capacity in Thailand would end up in the Community should measures be repealed, it 
is  rather  unlikely  for  the  reason  set  out  in  recital  (55)  above  that  the  prices  of  such 
exports would be dumped. 

2.5.  Conclusion 

(59)  For the examination as to whether it would be likely that dumping would recur should 
the anti-dumping measures be repealed, spare capacities and unused stocks as well as 
pricing and export strategies in different markets were analysed. 

(60)  This examination revealed that, whilst there may be some spare production capacities 
in  Australia,  India,  Indonesia  and  Thailand  which  could  lead  to  a  resumption  of 
exports to the Community if measures are allowed to  expire, there are no reasons to 
believe that the volume of such exports will be significant and, more importantly, any 
such  exports  are  not  expected  to  be  made  at  dumped  prices  as  established  in  the 
original investigations.  

(61)  Consequently, since there is no likelihood of recurrence of dumped exports from the 
countries  concerned  which  could  cause  injury,  there  is  no  need  to  analyse  the 
likelihood of recurrence of injury and Community interest. The measures on imports 
of  PSF  originating  in  Australia,  India,  Indonesia  and  Thailand  should  therefore  be 
repealed and the proceedings terminated.  

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
D. PARTIAL INTERIM REVIEW CONCERNING THAILAND 

(62)  Since  in  accordance  with  the  preceding  recital  the  measures  against  Thailand  should 
be  repealed  and  the  proceeding  terminated,  the  partial  interim  review  concerning 
Tuntex should also be terminated. 

E. DISCLOSURE 

(63) 

Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis 
of which it was intended to propose that the existing measures against Australia, India, 
Indonesia and Thailand be repealed and the proceedings terminated. All parties were 
given  an  opportunity  to  comment.  Producers  in the countries  concerned and users in 
the  Community  supported  the  above  conclusions.  However,  CIRFS  and  certain 
Community  producers  opposed  but,  overall,  the  comments  received  were  not  of  a 
nature to change the conclusions. 

(64)  CIRFS and certain Community producers argued that the Commission's own findings 
on  spare  capacity  and  dumping  clearly  indicated  that  there  was  likelihood  of 
recurrence of injurious dumping. 

(65)  As regards the sole Australian producer, they considered that it had not been explained 
whether the production capacity previously used for export to the Community is still 
available, and if so whether it is likely to be brought back on stream if the duties are 
allowed  to  expire.  They  noted  that  sales  on  the  domestic  market  were  below  normal 
value  and,  taking  into  account  that  injurious  dumping  on  exports  to  the  Community 
was found in  the original investigation as well as in another investigation on PET, a 
product  closely  related  to  PSF,  it  should  be  concluded  that  there  is  likelihood  of 
recurrence of injurious dumping. 

(66)  CIRFS and certain Community producers considered that an increase of the capacity 
of two major Indian producers by 361 000 tonnes in 2007 and the existence of at least 
one  new  PSF  producer  in  the  start-up  phase  with  an  estimated  capacity  of  180  000 
tonnes means overall Indian capacity will exceed domestic demand for PSF by more 
than  300  000  tonnes  in  the  whole  period  to  2010.  This  fact  coupled  with  dumping 
margins between 15 % and 27 % on exports to third countries in the RIP, as well as 
the  Commission's  own  admission  that  the  prevailing  price  level  on  the  Community 
market  could  make  it  attractive  for  Indian  producers,  shows  that  there  can  be  little 
doubt as to the likelihood of recurrence of injurious dumped imports if the measures 
are repealed. 

(67)  As  regards  Indonesia,  they  stressed  the  fact  that  the  Commission  draws  conclusions 
only from the analysis of four co-operating producers when the market and financial 
situation of the non-cooperating producers, which the Commission estimates as having 
more than half of the total installed capacity in Indonesia, is significantly worse. They 
also considered that there are over 140 000 tonnes of spare capacity, i.e. 50 000 tonnes 
more  than  the  Commission's  estimate,  and  that  excess  capacity  will  still  be  over 
100 000  tonnes  in  several  years'  time.  Even  the  90  000  tonnes  of  spare  capacity 
estimated by the Commission make it likely that Indonesian producers, which already 
have  commercial  contacts  in  the  Community  for  sales  of  polyester  filament,  will 
significantly increase their exports to the Community once the measures are repealed. 
As their margins on exports to third countries are still above de minimis levels, imports 
originating in Indonesia would be made at injurious dumped prices. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
(68)  CIRFS  and  certain  Community  producers  noted  that  dumping  margins  of  10  %  to 
15 %  on  exports  of  Thai  co-operating  producers  to  third  countries,  significant  spare 
capacity  and  the  fact that  Thai  PSF  producers  are  already  exporting  polyester  textile 
filament  to  the  Community  clearly  indicate  a  likelihood  of  a  rapid  recurrence  of 
dumping on imports originating in Thailand should measures be repealed. 

(69)  They also claimed that countries such as China, India and Vietnam, which were until 
recently  net  importers  of  PSF  and  important  export  markets  for  the  countries 
concerned, have built up capacity to an extent that they will be soon net exporters, thus 
putting  further  pressure  on  the  countries  concerned  to  resume  exports  of  significant 
quantities to the Community at injurious dumped prices. 

(70)  Finally,  a  Community  producer  stressed  the  strategic  importance  of  upstream 
recycling  industries,  which  could  be  negatively  affected  by  the  downsizing  or  even 
closure of Community producers of PSF. 

(71) 

(72) 

In  an  expiry  review,  the  findings  on  likelihood  of  continuation  or  recurrence  of 
dumping and injury are prospective and, therefore, include an element of appreciation. 
Overall,  the  facts  concerning  capacity  and  capacity  utilisation  in  the  countries 
concerned as established in the investigation were not challenged. CIRFS and certain 
Community  producers  have  simply  made  a  different  forecast  on  the  likelihood  of 
recurrence of dumped PSF exports to the Community for the countries concerned. It 
has tried to support its forecast by references to products other than PSF. However, the 
fact that certain producers in the countries concerned may export other products to the 
Community  does  not  show  by  itself  that  there  is  a  likelihood  of  resumption  of 
significant quantities of dumped exports of PSF to the Community should measures be 
repealed. 

In  the  current  case,  the  fact  that  the  price  difference  between  exports  from  India, 
Indonesia  and  Thailand  to  third  countries  and  their  domestic  sales  in  the  RIP  was 
found  significantly  lower  than  that  established  in  the  original  investigations  on  their 
exports to the Community is an indication that the price situation in the markets has 
changed. Furthermore, the fact that prices in the Community are significantly higher 
than prices for sales to third countries indicates that such price differences may even 
be  lower,  if  not  negative,  if  significant  exports  to  the  Community  from  these  three 
countries were to resume. Thus, under the current circumstances it is not expected that 
dumping  could  take  place  on  exports  to  the  Community  from  these  countries.  It  is 
recalled  that  there  were  no  exports  from  Australia  whatsoever  in  the  RIP  and,  thus, 
such assertions cannot be made for this country. 

(73)  Furthermore,  the  capacity  utilisation  in  India,  Indonesia  and  Thailand  was  generally 
high and their domestic markets important and in some cases growing fast. In India, 
90 % of the sales of the co-operating producers were made on the domestic market in 
the  RIP.  In  Indonesia,  the  same  ratio  was  80  %.  In  Thailand,  where  this  ratio  was 
around  40  %,  the  estimated  spare  capacity  was  rather  low  and  in  any  event 
significantly lower than that in India and Indonesia. No evidence was submitted that 
the situation of non-cooperating producers in these countries was different. As far as 
Australia  is  concerned,  there  are  no  indications  that  the  old  capacity  of  the  sole 
producer  could  be  easily  reinstalled  and  used  to  resume  exports  to  the  Community 
should measures be repealed. As already indicated, the existing capacity in Australia, 
even  if  it  is  to  be  used  completely  for  exports  to  the  Community,  could  not  reach  a 
share  above  the  de  minimis  threshold  of  1  %  of  the  Community  market.  It  is,  thus, 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
considered that there are no indications that spare capacities could be used to resume 
significant exports to the Community should measures be repealed. 

(74)  With regard to the argument that certain third countries have built new capacities and 
may reduce or even stop imports in the future, thus allowing more spare capacities for 
exports to the Community, it is noted that there is no indication that the fast growing 
demand  for  PSF  worldwide  would  stop  in  the  near  future.  In  this  respect,  it  is  also 
noted that the existing capacity in the Community could cover maximum 60 % of the 
growing Community demand in the RIP. Consequently, it is not expected that a world 
wide  overcapacity  situation  is  imminent  or  that  it  could  affect  significantly  the 
Community market. 

(75)  Finally, it is true that upstream recycling industries could be negatively affected by the 
downsizing or even closure of Community producers of PSF, as the latter are the most 
important consumers of bottle flakes. However, this consideration is irrelevant to the 
determination on the  likelihood  of  resumption of dumped exports from  the countries 
concerned.  It  is  therefore  considered  that  the  comments  of  CIRFS  and  certain 
Community  producers  cannot  change  the  conclusion  that  there  is  no  likelihood  of 
resumption  of  significant  quantities  of  dumped  exports  to  the  Community  from  the 
countries  concerned  and,  thus,  the  measures  should  be  repealed  and  the  proceedings 
terminated, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

The  anti-dumping  measures  on  imports  of  synthetic  staple  fibres  of  polyesters,  not  carded, 
combed  or  otherwise  processed  for  spinning  originating  in  Australia,  India,  Indonesia  and 
Thailand imposed by Council Regulations (EC) No 1522/2000 and No 2852/2000 are hereby 
repealed and the proceedings concerning these imports are terminated. 

Article 2 

The  partial  interim  review  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  applicable  to  imports  of  synthetic 
staple fibres of polyesters, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning originating 
in Thailand 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 3 

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

Done at Brussels,  

EN 

For the Council 
The President 

18 

   EN