Proposal for a Council Regulation terminating the new exporter review of Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2005 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of synthetic staple fibres of polyesters originating, inter alia, in the People’s Republic of China
Date: 2006-10-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, import, man-made fibre, originating product

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 10.10.2006 
COM(2006)585 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

terminating the new exporter review of Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2005 imposing 
definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of synthetic staple fibres of polyesters 
originating, inter alia, in the People’s Republic of China 

(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, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 
of 21 December 2005 ("the basic Regulation") in the proceeding concerning imports of 
synthetic  staple  fibres  of  polyesters  ('PSF')  originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of 
China,  following  an  interim  review  pursuant  to  Article  11(4)  of  Council  Regulation 
(EC) No 384/96. 

• 

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. 

• 

Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

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

• 

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 
Regulation. 

• 

Collection and use of expertise 

There was no need for external expertise. 

• 

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 

• 

Summary of the proposed action 

In March 2005, by Regulation (EC) No 428/2005, the Council imposed definitive anti-
dumping  duties  on  imports  of  PSF  originating  inter  alia,  in  the  People’s  Republic  of 
China. The residual duty was established at 49.7%. 

In February 2006, following a proper documented request from a Chinese producer of 
PSF,  Huvis  Sichuan  ('the  applicant'),  the  Commission  initiated  through  Regulation 
342/2006  a  'new  exporter'  review  of  the  measures  in  force.  This  Regulation  repealed 
the duty with regard to imports from the applicant and made those imports subject to 
registration. 

The  investigation  revealed  that  the  applicant  started  its  production  operations  in 
October 2004, i.e. after the original investigation period and did not export the product 
concerned to the Community during this period. 

However,  it  was  also  found  that  the  applicant  was  related  to  a  partly  state-owned 
Chinese  producer  which  was  producing  PSF  during  the  original  investigation  period, 
but  which  did  not  co-operate  in  the  proceeding  at  that  time.  In  addition,  this  related 
producer  of  PSF  failed  to  cooperate  in  the  present  investigation  by  not  completing  a 
separate market economy treatment ('MET') claim form. 

Therefore, the Commission could not establish whether the economic entity constituted 
by the applicant and the related producer did fulfil as a whole the requirements to be 
considered as operating under market economy conditions, and MET had to be refused. 

For the same reasons, i.e. non cooperation of the partly state owned related company, 
individual  treatment  ('IT')  had  also  to  be  refused  to  the  applicant.  Indeed,  the 
Commission  services  could  not  conclude  whether  state  interference  was  such  as  to 
permit circumvention.  

Consequently, it had to be concluded that the applicant could not provide evidence that 
its individual dumping margin was actually different from the residual dumping margin 
established in the original investigation.  

Given  the  above,  the  request  made  by  the  applicant  should  be  rejected,  and  the  new 
exporter  review  terminated  with  regard  to  Huvis  Sichuan.  The  company  should 
therefore  remain  subject  to  the  currently  applicable  residual  duty  established  in  the 
original  investigation,  i.e.  49.7%.  This  duty  should  be  collected  retroactively  on 
imports made since the initiation of the current review and which have been subject to 
registration. 

• 

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. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
• 

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: 

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 

Proposed instruments: regulation. 

Other means would not be adequate for the following reason: 

Other  means  would  not  be  adequate  because  the  basic  Regulation  does  not  foresee 
alternative options. 

4)  BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal will not have any budgetary implication. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

terminating the new exporter review of Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2005 imposing 
definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of synthetic staple fibres of polyesters 
originating, inter alia, in the People’s Republic of China 

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 Article 11(4) thereof,  

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

Whereas: 

1. MEASURES IN FORCE 

(1) 

The  measures  currently  in  force  on  imports  into  the  Community  of  polyester  staple 
fibres  (‘PSF’)  originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of  China  (‘PRC’)  are  definitive 
anti-dumping duties imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 428/20052.  

2. CURRENT INVESTIGATION 

2.1  Request for a review 

After the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of PSF originating in 
the  PRC,  the  Commission  received  a  request  to  initiate  a  ‘new  exporter’  review  of 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  428/2005,  pursuant  to  Article  11(4)  of  the  basic 
Regulation, from the Chinese company Huvis Sichuan (‘the applicant’).  

The  applicant  claimed  that  it  had  not  exported  the  product  concerned  to  the 
Community  during  the  period  of  investigation  on  which  the  anti-dumping  measures 
were  based,  i.e.  the  period  from  1  January  2003  to  31  December  2003  (‘the  original 

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  71,  17.3.2005,  p.  1.  Regulation  as  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1333/2005  (OJ  L  211, 
13.8.2005, p. 1). 

(2) 

(3) 

1 

2 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
  
                                                 
investigation period’) and that it was not related to any of the exporting producers of 
PSF in the PRC subject to the anti-dumping measures in force. Furthermore, it claimed 
that  it  had  started  to  export  PSF  to  the  Community  after  the  end  of  the  original 
investigation period. 

2.2 

Initiation of a ‘new exporter’ review 

The  Commission  examined  the  prima  facie  evidence  submitted  by  the  applicant  and 
considered it sufficient to justify the initiation of a review in accordance with Article 
11(4) of the basic Regulation. After consultation of the Advisory Committee and after 
the  Community  industry  concerned  had  been  given  the  opportunity  to  comment,  the 
Commission  initiated,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  342/20063,  a  review  of  Council 
Regulation  (EC)  No  428/2005  with  regard  to  the  applicant  and  commenced  its 
investigation. 

Pursuant to Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 342/2006, an anti-dumping 
duty of 49,7 % imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2005 on imports of PSF 
produced,  inter  alia,  by  the  applicant  was  repealed.  Simultaneously,  pursuant  to 
Article  14(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  customs  authorities  were  directed  to  take 
appropriate steps to register the imports of PSF produced by the applicant. 

2.3  Product concerned 

The product concerned by the current review  is the same as  that  in  the investigation 
that  led  to  the  imposition  of  the  measures in force on imports  of PSF originating in, 
inter alia, the PRC (‘original investigation’), i.e. synthetic staple fibres of polyesters, 
not  carded,  combed  or  otherwise  processed  for  spinning  originating  in  the  People’s 
Republic of China, currently classifiable within CN code 5503 20 00.  

2.4  Parties concerned 

The  Commission  officially  advised  the  Community  industry,  the  applicant  and  the 
representatives  of  the  exporting  country  of  the  initiation  of  the  review.  Interested 
parties  were  given  the  opportunity  to  make  their  views  known  in  writing  and  to  be 
heard. 

The Commission services also sent a market economy treatment (‘MET’) claim form 
and a questionnaire to the applicant and received the replies within the deadlines set 
for that purpose.  

2.5 

Investigation period 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

The  investigation  of  dumping  covered  the  period  from  1  October  2004  to  31 
December 2005 (‘the investigation period’ or ‘IP’). 

3 

OJ L 55, 25.2.2006, p. 14. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION 

3.1 

‘New exporter’ qualification 

(10)  The  investigation  revealed  that  the  applicant  started  its  production  operations  in 
October 2004, i.e. after the original investigation period and did not export the product 
concerned during that period. It was therefore concluded that the applicant fulfilled the 
requirement of the first sentence of Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation. 

(11)  However,  it  was  also  found  that  the  applicant  was  related  to  a  partly  State-owned 
Chinese  producer  which  was  producing  the  product  concerned  during  the  original 
investigation  period,  but  which  did  not  co-operate  at  that  time.  Considering  that  the 
related  Chinese  producer  was  subject  to  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  in  force,  it 
was  found  that  the  criterion  of  the  second  sentence  of  Article  11(4)  of  the  basic 
Regulation, which sets out that a new exporter or producer should show that it is not 
related to any of the exporters or producers in the exporting country which are subject 
to the anti-dumping measures on the product, is not fulfilled. 

(12)  The applicant argued that the related producer did not export the product concerned to 
the Community during the original investigation period. In support of this argument, 
the applicant provided the related producer’s audited accounts for the period between 
2002  and  2004  which,  according  to  the  applicant,  contained  no  indication  of  any 
export sales having been made during the original IP.  

(13)  The  evidence  submitted  by  the  applicant  did,  however,  not  show  that  the  related 
producer did indeed not export the product concerned during the original investigation 
period.  In  fact,  the  audited  accounts  merely  indicated  that  there  were  no  exports  of 
commodity products, without defining the exact meaning of commodity products, i.e. 
in  particular  whether  the  product  concerned  was  considered  as  a  “commodity 
product”.  In  this  regard,  it  is  noted  that  the  related  producer  is  also  manufacturing 
products other than the product concerned. In addition, it should be noted that, apart 
from submitting its audited accounts, the related producer did not cooperate during the 
current  investigation  and  that  therefore,  the  information  submitted  by  this  company 
could not be verified. Thus, no evidence was available showing that all sales made to 
domestic customers, for example traders, during the original IP were indeed destined 
for  the  domestic  market,  and  not  in  reality  intended  for  export  to  the  Community. 
Consequently, it could not be determined whether or not export sales had taken place 
during the original IP.  

(14)  After  disclosure,  the  applicant  claimed  that  clarifications  concerning  the  audited 
accounts should have been requested earlier and in any case prior to disclosure. In this 
regard,  it  is  noted  that  the  Chinese  related  producer  was  requested  to  provide  the 
information,  made  aware  of  the  deficiency  and  asked  to  co-operate  in  the  present 
proceeding,  which  it  refused  to  do.  Therefore,  findings  with  regard  to  this  company 
were based on facts available in accordance with Article  18 of the  basic Regulation. 
Under  these  circumstances,  any  requests  for  further  information  after  the  deadlines 
applicable was considered inappropriate and discriminatory with regard to the normal 
practice  of  the  Community  institutions  in  relation  to  non  co-operating  parties.  It  is 
noted that findings were in any case disclosed to the applicant which was given ample 
opportunity to comment on these findings.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
(15) 

In  any  event,  the  argument  that  the  related  producer  did  or  did  not  export  to  the 
Community is irrelevant, because as mentioned above in recital (13) and as outlined in 
recitals (18) to (31) below, the related producer did not cooperate in this review and, 
therefore, the Commission could not establish whether the economic group composed 
of the applicant and the related producer did fulfil the requirements to be considered as 
operating under market economy conditions.  

3.2  Market Economy Treatment (‘MET’) 

(16)  Pursuant  to  Article  2(7)(b)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  in  anti-dumping  investigations 
concerning  imports  originating  in  the  PRC,  normal  value  shall  be  determined  in 
accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the said Article for those producers which were 
found  to  meet  the  criteria  laid  down  in  Article  2(7)(c)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  i.e. 
where  it  is  shown  that  market  economy  conditions  prevail  in  respect  of  the 
manufacture  and  sale  of  the  like  product.  These  criteria  are  set  out  in  a  summarised 
form below: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

business  decisions  are  made  in  response  to  market  signals,  without 
significant State interference, and costs reflect market values; 

firms  have  one  clear  set  of  basic  accounting  records  which  are 
independently  audited  in  line  with  international  accounting  standards 
(‘IAS’) and are applied for all purposes; 

no distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system; 

bankruptcy and property laws guarantee stability and legal certainty; 

exchange rate conversions are carried out at market rates. 

(17)  The applicant requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation and 

was invited to complete a MET claim form.  

(18)  As  mentioned  above  in  recital  (11),  the investigation revealed that  the applicant was 
related  to  another  producer  of  the  product  concerned  located  in  China.  Although 
invited to do so, the related producer did not fill in a separate MET claim form. 

(19) 

It has to be noted that it is the Commission’s consistent practice to examine whether a 
group of related companies, as a whole, fulfils the conditions for MET. This is deemed 
to be necessary to avoid that sales of a group of companies are channelled via one of 
the related companies in the group, should measures be imposed. Therefore, in cases 
where a  subsidiary or any other related company is a producer and/or a seller of the 
product concerned, all such related companies have to provide a MET claim form in 
order  that  an  examination  can  be  made  as  to  whether  they  also  meet  the  criteria  in 
Article  2(7)(c)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  Consequently,  failure  in  that  respect  leads  to 
the  result  that  it  cannot  be  established  that  the  group,  as  a  whole,  fulfils  all  the 
conditions for MET. 

(20)  The Commission informed the applicant forthwith that in the absence of a reply by the 
related  producer,  it  could  not  examine  whether  that  company  operates  under  market 
economy conditions.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
(21)  The applicant argued that both companies are competitors on the domestic market and 
are not in “good terms”. In addition, it was argued that the related company refused to 
submit  any  confidential  information  for  the  purpose  of  this  investigation,  which  it 
feared  would  result  in  improving  the  market  position  of  its  competitor,  i.e.  the 
applicant.  

(22) 

It  is  noted  that  in  accordance  with  Article  19  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  related 
producer  could  have  requested  confidential  treatment  of  information  required  to  be 
submitted  to  allay  any  concerns  about  disclosure  of  confidential  business  data  to 
competitors. However, it chose not to submit the required information without having 
made any request for confidential treatment. Therefore, the applicant’s argument had 
to be rejected. 

(23)  The  applicant  also  argued  that  its  business  decisions  cannot  be  influenced  by  the 
related producer. Besides the fact that this argument has not been substantiated by any 
evidence, it is also irrelevant since, as explained above, MET treatment should in any 
event  be  refused  to  the  applicant  if  its  related  company  does  not  complete  the  MET 
form and fulfils the MET conditions. Furthermore, even if the substance of the claim 
were to be examined, it is noted that the facts available in the present case indicated, in 
contrast to the applicant’s claim, that the related producer, having one member on the 
board  of  directors  of  the  applicant,  had  an  influence  in  the  decision  making  of  the 
applicant.  Indeed,  the  related  producer  can  block  company  decisions  concerning 
amendments to the articles of association, dissolution of the joint venture, changes of 
registered  capital  or  merger  or  split  of  the  company  with  other  organizations,  which 
require unanimity. Furthermore, the purpose of the joint venture between the applicant 
and the related producer was, as laid down by chapter 5 of the joint venture agreement, 
to  achieve  “a  competitive  position  in  quality  and  price  for  the  world  market”,  to 
“produce and sell polyester staple fibre” and to “import and export products and raw 
materials  in  connection  with  polyester  staple  fibre”  which  indicates  that  both 
companies  would  indeed  co-operate  and  at  least  adjust  their  decisions  in  order  to 
maximise  their  world  market  position.  The  applicant’s  argument  had  therefore  to  be 
rejected.  

(24)  Subsequent  to  disclosure,  the  applicant  re-iterated  that  the  related  Chinese  producer 
had only minor or peripheral influence on its business decisions, as its consent is only 
required for decisions regarding the company's existence as such, i.e. decisions linked 
to the related Chinese producer investments, while business decisions are made in line 
with  the  global  strategy  of  its  main  shareholder,  where  the  Chinese  producer  had  no 
influence.  Furthermore,  the  related  Chinese  producer  would  not  be  involved  in  the 
company's management. 

(25)  The applicant further argued that the decision to reject the applicant's claim for MET 
on the mere grounds of the non-cooperation of the related Chinese producer would be 
unjustified because this relationship only constituted a technical requirement without 
any practical relevance for the applicant. It was also argued that the company was not 
related to any of the Chinese exporting producers of PSF subject to the anti-dumping 
measures in force, since the related company did not export to the Community during 
the  original  investigation  period,  and  could  therefore  not  have  co-operated  in  the 
original investigation and request an individual duty.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
(26)  As outlined above under recital (23), the possibility that the related Chinese company 
could exert significant influence on the business operations of the applicant could not 
be considered as minor or peripheral. On the contrary, such influence relate to crucial 
aspects  as  described  under  the  said  recital.  Likewise,  since  the  related  Chinese 
company  did  not  co-operate  in  this  investigation,  it  was  not  possible  for  the 
Commission  to  determine  whether  this  company  did  not  export  to  the  Community 
during  the  original  investigation  period,  as  claimed.  The  comments  provided  by  the 
applicant contained no basis on which the conclusions made under recital (13) could 
be  revised.  In  any  event,  the  fact  that  the  related  company  could  not  have  asked  for 
MET  or  IT  during  the  original  investigation  does  not  invalidate  the  fact  that  it  is 
subject to the measures in force, i.e. the residual duty.  

(27)  Finally, on a more general basis, it was submitted that the main elements on the basis 
of which it was decided to reject the applicant's request for MET (i.e. the relationship 
to  the  Chinese  related  producer)  were  already  known  to  the  Commission  before  the 
investigation was initiated.  

(28) 

In this regard, it is noted that the main reason to reject the applicant's claim for MET 
as  set  out  in  recitals  (13),  (23)  above  and  (31)  below,  was  not  the  existence  of  the 
related Chinese producer as such but its non co-operation and, as a consequence, the 
impossibility  to  determine,  amongst  others,  in  how  far  the  State  had  indeed  an 
influence  on  the  applicant's  business  decisions  and  whether  the  related  producer  did 
not export during the original IP as claimed. 

(29)  The claims of the applicant were therefore rejected.  

(30) 

In addition, no determination could be made with regard to possible distortions carried 
over  from  the  former  non-market  economy  system.  Indeed,  the  partly  State-owned 
related producer contributed the land use rights to the applicant’s registered capital. In 
the absence of co-operation from the related producer, it was not possible to conclude 
that no such distortions existed.  

(31) 

In view of the above, and in the absence of a duly substantiated MET claim form from 
the  applicant’s  related  producer,  the  Commission  could  not  conclude  whether  the 
group of companies, i.e. the applicant and its related producer, fulfil the MET criteria. 

3.3 

Individual Treatment (‘IT’) 

(32)  Further  to  Article  2(7)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  a  country-wide  duty,  if  any,  is 
established  for  countries  falling  under  that  article,  except  in  those  cases  where 
companies are able to demonstrate that they meet all criteria for individual treatment 
set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation. 

(33)  The applicant, as well as requesting MET, also claimed IT in the event of not being 
granted  MET.  As  described  in  recital  (11),  a  partly  State-owned  producer  of  PSF  is 
related to the applicant. Since the related producer did not cooperate with the present 
investigation, the Commission services could not conclude whether State interference 
was such as to permit circumvention. Therefore, it was concluded that IT could not be 
granted to the applicant.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
(34)  The applicant submitted that in the current case, circumvention would not be likely to 
occur since both companies would be on competitive terms, and therefore the related 
producer would never intend to channel any of its production through the applicant for 
export to the Community.  

(35) 

It should be noted that since both companies are related the behaviour of the related 
producer  is  difficult  to  predict.  Furthermore,  and  as  mentioned  above  in  recital  (23), 
the  joint  venture  between  the  two  companies  had  as  an  objective  to  maximise  both 
companies’  world  market  position.  The  risk  of  circumvention  resulting  from  one 
company  benefiting  from  a  lower  dumping  margin  than  the  other  company  was 
therefore  considered  imminent.  The  applicant  did  not  submit  any  information  which 
showed that such risk of circumvention could be sufficiently excluded. 

(36)  The  applicant  contested  the  decision  to  reject  its  IT  claim,  submitting  that  possible 
circumvention  should  be  addressed  through  the  initiation  of  an  investigation  in 
accordance with Article 13 of the basic Regulation, and that nothing in Article 2(7)(c) 
of the basic Regulation places the companies located in China any burden with respect 
to the demonstration that they would not circumvent any anti-dumping measures.  

(37) 

In  this  regard,  it  is  noted  that  the  second  paragraph  of  Article  9(5)  of  the  basic 
Regulation is clear on the conditions applicable for the establishment of an individual 
duty when Article 2(7)(a) applies, which is applicable in the present case since it could 
not be concluded that the applicant fulfilled the criteria of Article 2(7)(c). In particular, 
Article 9(5)(e) of the basic Regulation sets out that the State interference should not be 
such  as  to  permit  circumvention.  As  outlined  already  above  in  recital  (35),  in  the 
absence  of  co-operation  from  one  of  the  related  companies,  it  was  impossible  to 
conclude that the conditions for IT were fulfilled.  

(38) 

It was therefore concluded that IT should not be granted to the applicant.  

4. CONCLUSION 

(39)  The purpose of the present review was to determine the individual margin of dumping 
of  the  applicant,  which  was  allegedly  different  from  the  current  residual  margin 
applicable to imports of the product concerned from the PRC. The request was mainly 
based on the allegation that the applicant fulfilled the criteria for MET. 

(40)  As  the  investigation  concludes  that,  in  the  absence  of  co-operation  from  its  related 
producer,  the  applicant  was  granted  neither  MET  nor  IT,  the  Commission  could  not 
establish that the applicant’s individual dumping margin was indeed different from the 
residual  dumping  margin  established  in  the  original  investigation.  Therefore,  the 
request  made  by  the  applicant  should  be  rejected  and  the  new  exporter  review 
terminated. The residual anti-dumping duty found during the original investigation, i.e. 
49,7% should consequently be maintained. 

5. RETROACTIVE LEVYING OF THE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY 

(41) 

In  the  light  of  the  above  findings,  the  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  the  applicant 
shall  be  levied  retroactively  on  imports  of  the  product  concerned,  which  have  been 
made subject to registration pursuant to Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 
342/2006. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
6. DISCLOSURE  

(42)  All parties concerned were informed of the essential facts and considerations leading 
to the above conclusions and were invited to comment in accordance with Article 20 
of the basic Regulation. Comments of the parties were taken into consideration when 
appropriate. 

(43)  This  review  does  not  affect  the  date  on  which  the  measures  imposed  by  Council 
Regulation  (EC)  No  428/2005,  as  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1333/2005,  will 
expire pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

The new exporter review initiated by Commission Regulation (EC) No 342/2006 is 
hereby terminated.  

The anti-dumping duty applicable according to Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) 
No  428/2005  to  “all  other  companies”  in  the People’s  Republic  of  China  is  hereby 
levied  retroactively  on  imports  of  synthetic  staple  fibres  of  polyesters  which  have 
been registered pursuant to Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 342/2006. 

The customs authorities are hereby directed to cease the registration of imports of the 
product concerned originating in the People’s Republic of China, produced by Huvis 
Sichuan and sold for export to the Community. 

Unless  otherwise  specified,  the  provisions  in  force  concerning  customs  duties  shall 
apply. 

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 

12 

   EN