Council Regulation (EC) No 1515/2006 of 10 October 2006 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: 2006-10-10
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Australia, India, Indonesia, Thailand, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, import, man-made fibre, originating product

13.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 282/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1515/2006

of 10 October 2006

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,

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’.

Having regard to the Treaty
Community,

establishing the European

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 Community (1)
(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:

A. PROCEDURE

1. Measures in force

(1)

In July 2000,
the Council, by Regulation (EC) No
1522/2000 (2),
imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty
synthetic staple fibres of polyesters
on imports of
(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 inve-
stigation 1’.

(2)

In December 2000, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No
2852/2000 (3),
imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty

(3)

(4)

(5)

imposed

by Regulation

The measures
(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/EC (4). Following an interim review covering
both dumping and injury,
the measures on imports
originating in the Republic of Korea have been amended
and renewed for five years by Council Regulation (EC)
No 428/2005 (5).

2. Requests for reviews

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 Thailand (6) and another regarding the
anti-dumping measures in force on imports of PSF origi-
nating in India (7), 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
the total Community
this case more than 50 %, of
production of PSF. The requests were based on the
grounds that
the measures would be
likely to result in a recurrence of dumping and injury
to the Community industry.

the expiry of

(1) 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).

(2) OJ L 175, 14.7.2000, p. 10.
(3) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 17.

(4) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 116.
(5) 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).

(6) OJ C 261, 23.10.2004, p. 2.
(7) OJ C 130, 27.5.2005, p. 8.

L 282/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.10.2006

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

interim review of
Furthermore, a request for a partial
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/do-
mestic prices and its export prices to a third country
market would lead to a reduction of dumping signifi-
cantly 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.

after

determined,
that

consulting
sufficient evidence existed for

the Advisory
Having
Committee,
the
initiation of two reviews pursuant to Article 11(2) of
limited in scope
the basic Regulation and one review,
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 Union (1).

3. Investigations

India,

Indonesia

and Thailand,

in
The Commission officially advised the producers
Australia,
importers,
users and their associations in the Community known
to be concerned,
the exporting
countries concerned, CIRFS and known Community
producers of
expiry reviews.
initiation of
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.

the representatives of

the

the

(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

(1) OJ C 174, 14.7.2005, p. 15; OJ C 307, 3.12.2005, p. 2; OJ C 323,

20.12.2005, p. 21.

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,
the above parties were requested,
to select a sample,
pursuant
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.

the basic Regulation,

to Article 17(2) of

(12) After examination of

the information submitted and
given the low number of cooperating producers in
India, Indonesia and Thailand which indicated their wil-
lingness to cooperate, it was decided that sampling was
not necessary as regards producers in these countries.

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

(14)

Ten Community producers completed the sampling form
and formally agreed to cooperate further in the investi-
these ten companies, which were
gation. Five out of
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
of
production and sales of PSF in the Community which
could reasonably be
time
available.

investigated within the

representative

volume

largest

the

(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 infor-
mation 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 sam-
in
ple
represented 38 % of production and sales
three
the Community), one producer
producers in India,
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).

four producers in Indonesia,

in Australia,

13.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 282/3

(17)

The Commission sought and verified all the information
it deemed necessary for its analysis and carried out veri-
fication visits at the premises of the following companies:

(a) sampled Community producers

Advansa GmbH, Hamm, Germany

Elana, Branch Office of Boryszew SA, Torun, Poland

La Seda de Barcelona SA, El Prat de Llobregat, Spain

Wellman International Limited, Mullagh, Ireland;

(b) producer 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

PT Global Fiberindo, Tangerang

PT Indo-Rama Synthetics Tbk, Jakarta

PT Panasia Indosyntec Tbk, Bandung

PT
Susilia
Tangerang;

Indah

Synthetic

Fibers

Industries,

(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.

(23)

(18) As regards the expiry reviews, the investigation on the
continuation and/or recurrence of dumping and injury

covered the period from 1 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 1 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.

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 in recitals 1 and 2.

(20)

(21)

(22)

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

India,

It

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

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.

The investigation has shown that all types of the product
concerned as defined in recital 20, 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.

L 282/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.10.2006

2. Like product

2. Likelihood of

recurrence of dumping should

measures be repealed

(24)

The current
the product
reviews have shown that
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 Regu-
lation.

2.1. Australia

P r e l i m i n a r y r e m a r k s

(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.

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.

(31)

(26) During the RIP, exports to the Community of PSF origi-
nating in Australia, India, Indonesia and Thailand (the
concerned) were negligible. According to
countries
Eurostat,
concerned
imports
amounted to only 1 056 tonnes during the RIP (0,1 %
they were more
of Community consumption), whilst
than 69 000 tonnes during the investigation periods of
the original investigations.

from the

countries

R e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e d o m e s t i c p r i c e
l e v e l
t h e
p r i c e
a n d
C o m m u n i t y

l e v e l

t h e

i n

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
than the
compared and found significantly lower
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, the company has no capacity to resume any
significant volume of exports to the Community.

U n u s e d c a p a c i t y a n d s t o c k s

(27) All cooperating 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.

(32) Although the capacity utilisation of

fraction of

the Australian
producer was not very high in the RIP, the available
spare capacity is a small
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
indicator as
regards PSF produced in Australia because the product
is mainly sold on client order basis.

is not a meaningful

(28)

for

recurrence of
Consequently,
dumping analysis account was taken, amongst others,
of prices for exports to other third countries.

likelihood of

the

(29) Given the findings of the expiry reviews set out below, it
was not considered necessary to pursue the interim
review requested by Tuntex.

(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.

13.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 282/5

2.2. India

P r e l i m i n a r y r e m a r k s

Three Indian PSF producers cooperated in the investi-
gation. 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 cooperating
producers had three related companies producing PSF in
India. However, these related producers were not inve-
stigated separately, since only one of them made some —
very limited — direct sales of PSF in the RIP, all on the
domestic market.

for

the prevailing price level

derably higher than the export prices of the cooperating
Indian producers to other third countries in the RIP. This
may indicate that
the
product concerned in the Community market could
make this market attractive for the Indian producers.
On this basis,
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.

it was considered that

(34)

(35)

(36)

the

that

investigation.

there was at

is known that

Indian exports of

It
least one small PSF
producer in India in the RIP, which did not cooperate
non-cooperating
For
the
in
those
the information available from Eurostat
producer(s),
it was
and other sources was analysed. On that basis,
found
to the
Community from other
than the cooperating 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-co-
In this respect, and in
operating company/companies.
the absence of any indication to the contrary,
it was
any non-cooperating
considered
companies would be in line with those established for
cooperating companies.

findings

that

PSF

for

should the measures be repealed,

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
the pricing
cooperating producers on other
behaviour of
export markets
and their production capacity and
stocks were examined. The analysis was based on the
information provided by the cooperating producers
mentioned in recital 17.

the

R e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n e x p o r t p r i c e s
l e v e l
t h i r d c o u n t r i e s
I n d i a

a n d t h e p r i c e

t o
i n

(37) Data from the

three

Indian cooperating 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 like-
lihood of recurrence of dumping on exports to the
Community should measures be repealed.

(39)

U n u s e d c a p a c i t y a n d s t o c k s

during

in India

companies

There were no significant spare capacities in the three
the RIP.
cooperating
two of these major producers were already
However,
implementing significant
into their PSF
investments
production, which will result in an aggregated increase
of
their production capacity by 361 000 tonnes per
annum 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 per annum. It is noted that the above
production capacity increase represents more than 50 %
of the total production capacity of the three cooperating
is also noted that,
Indian producers in the RIP.
there was at
according to the information available,
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,
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 cooperating producers show
that
their domestic sales have been increasing during
they will continue
the period considered and that
increasing in the future. Thus, the new capacities will
meet the rising domestic demand although it cannot be
excluded that
times some excess
capacity.

there might be at

the biggest

It

R e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n e x p o r t p r i c e s
t h i r d c o u n t r i e s
l e v e l
t h e C o m m u n i t y

a n d t h e p r i c e

t o
i n

(38)

It was found that the sales prices of the Community
producers in the Community were on average consi-

(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
indicator in the case of India because the
meaningful
production of one of
is
based on orders from customers and another cooperating
producer manufactures significant quantities of PSF for
captive use.

the cooperating producers

L 282/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.10.2006

(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
is unlikely that such
should measures be repealed,
exports would be made at dumped prices (see recital 38).

it

2.3. Indonesia

P r e l i m i n a r y r e m a r k s

(42)

Four Indonesian PSF producers cooperated in the inve-
stigation. 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.

(46)

(43)

least

there were at

is known that

It
five active PSF
producers in Indonesia during the RIP, which did not
cooperate 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 cooperating 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 cooperating companies. The 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 cooperating producers mentioned in recital 17.

(47)

(44)

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

R e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n e x p o r t p r i c e s
t h i r d c o u n t r i e s
l e v e l
I n d o n e s i a

a n d t h e p r i c e

t o
i n

(45)

For one of the four cooperating Indonesian producers, no
data related to export prices could be found since this
in the RIP. Data
company did not export PSF at all
showed that
concerning the other

three producers

export prices to third countries were in general slightly
lower than domestic prices in Indonesia for two of them.
In fact,
this price
the investigation established that
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.

R e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n e x p o r t p r i c e s
t h i r d c o u n t r i e s
l e v e l
t h e C o m m u n i t y

a n d t h e p r i c e

t o
i n

It was found that the sales prices of the Community
producers in the Community were on average consi-
derably higher than the export prices of the cooperating
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
to the higher priced Community market.
countries
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.

U n u s e d c a p a c i t y a n d s t o c k s

the

their

in order

companies

to expand

cooperating

the non-cooperating

Indonesian producers,

There was no uniform pattern concerning capacity utili-
sation of the cooperating producers in Indonesia during
the RIP. While some of the companies were able to
utilise almost all
installed capacity, others had
significant spare capacities available. However, overall
their total
this spare capacity was less than 20 % of
in
capacity. None of
Indonesia appeared to be planning any significant
investments
PSF production
capacity in the future. Concerning the capacity utilisation
of
an
estimate of the spare capacity was made on the basis
of information provided by the cooperating companies
and the
Indonesian association of PSF producers.
According to this information, the installed capacity of
the cooperating 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 from the cooperating
producers show that overall domestic sales have been
increasing during the period considered and that they
will continue increasing in the future. Therefore,
the
spare capacity in Indonesia would be probably used for
domestic
to the
Community.

than export

rather

sales

sales

13.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 282/7

(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.

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.

(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 that the prices of
such exports would be dumped.

(55)

2.4. Thailand

P r e l i m i n a r y r e m a r k s

There are eight producers of PSF in Thailand known to
the Commission. Four of them cooperated in the current
investigation. Only one of them has exported a minor
quantity of PSF to the Community in the RIP.

The information on stocks and sales to markets other
than the Community refers only to the cooperating
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
the non-cooperating producers
capacity utilisation of
was similar to that of
In
the cooperating producers.
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 cooperating companies.

(56)

(50)

(51)

(52)

In order to establish whether a recurrence of dumping
would be likely should measures be repealed, the pricing
in export
behaviour of
production
markets
capacity
cooperating
producers were examined.

cooperating producers
the Community,
of
stocks
and

other
than
in Thailand

the

(53) According to Eurostat,

import volumes originating in

Thailand were negligible during the RIP.

R e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n e x p o r t p r i c e s
t h i r d c o u n t r i e s
l e v e l
T h a i l a n d

a n d t h e p r i c e

t o
i n

(54) Data from the four cooperating producers showed that
sales to third countries were made at prices below those

R e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n e x p o r t p r i c e s
t h i r d c o u n t r i e s
l e v e l
t h e C o m m u n i t y

a n d t h e p r i c e

t o
i n

The export prices to third countries charged by the co-
operating producers in Thailand were on average signi-
ficantly below the sales prices of
the Community
producers in 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-
in force are repealed. However,
dumping measures
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.

U n u s e d c a p a c i t y a n d s t o c k s

The capacity utilisation of cooperating 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
cooperating producers,
significant
volumes of PSF could end up in the Community market.

is unlikely that

it

(57)

indicator as regards PSF
Stocks are not a meaningful
produced in Thailand. Production is mostly based on
orders from customers and, therefore, stocks are mainly
made up of PSF that is waiting 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
the prices of such
exports would be dumped.

in recital 55 that

(59)

(60)

(61)

(62)

(63)

L 282/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.10.2006

2.5. Conclusion

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.

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.

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
injurious
normal value and,
dumping on exports to the Community was found in
the original
investigation as well as in another investi-
gation on PET, a product closely related to PSF, it should
be concluded that there is likelihood of recurrence of
injurious dumping.

taking into account

that

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 like-
lihood of recurrence of injury and Community interest.
The measures on imports of PSF originating in Australia,
India,
and Thailand should therefore be
repealed and the proceedings terminated.

Indonesia

(66)

D. PARTIAL INTERIM REVIEW CONCERNING
THAILAND

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

the partial

terminated,

the

CIRFS and certain Community producers considered that
an increase of
Indian
capacity of
two major
in 2007 and the
producers by 361 000 tonnes
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
level on the
the prevailing price
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.

E. DISCLOSURE

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 oppor-
tunity to comment. Producers in the countries concerned
in the Community supported the above
and users
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

(67) As regards Indonesia,

that

situation of

they stressed the fact

the
Commission draws conclusions only from the analysis
four cooperating producers when the market and
of
financial
the non-cooperating producers,
which the Commission estimates as having more than
half of the total installed capacity in Indonesia, is signifi-
cantly 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 Indo-
nesian producers, which already have
commercial
sales of polyester
contacts
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.

in the Community for

13.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 282/9

(68)

(69)

to third countries,

CIRFS and certain Community producers noted that
dumping margins of 10 % to 15 % on exports of Thai
cooperating producers
significant
spare capacity and the fact that Thai PSF producers are
to the
already exporting polyester
Community clearly indicate a likelihood of a rapid
recurrence of dumping on imports originating in
Thailand should measures be repealed.

filament

textile

important

They also claimed that countries such as China, India and
Vietnam, which were until recently net importers of PSF
countries
and
export markets
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.

the

for

(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)

the

facts

In an expiry review, the findings on likelihood of conti-
nuation or
recurrence of dumping and injury are
prospective and, therefore, include an element of appre-
ciation. Overall,
concerning capacity and
capacity utilisation in the countries concerned as esta-
blished in the investigation were not challenged. CIRFS
and certain Community producers have simply made a
recurrence of
different
dumped PSF
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.

forecast on the likelihood of

to the Community for

exports

their

investigations

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
the
on
Community is an indication that the price situation in
the markets has changed. Furthermore,
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
is not expected that dumping could
circumstances it

the fact

exports

to

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)

in the RIP.

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 cooperating producers
In
were made on the domestic market
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, 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
fast growing demand for PSF
indication that
the
worldwide would stop in the near
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
significantly the
that
Community market.

could affect

future.

it

(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
important consumers of bottle flakes. However,
most
this consideration is irrelevant to the determination on
the likelihood of resumption of dumped exports from
the countries concerned. It is therefore considered that
comments of CIRFS and certain Community
the
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,

L 282/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.10.2006

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 2

Article 1

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

carded,
originating

in Australia,

spinning

interim review of

The partial
the anti-dumping measures
applicable to imports of synthetic staple fibres of polyesters,
not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning origi-
nating in Thailand is hereby terminated.

Article 3

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

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

Done at Luxembourg, 10 October 2006.

For the Council
The President

H. HEINÄLUOMA