Proposal for a Council Regulation terminating the partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures concerning imports of synthetic staple fibres of polyesters originating in the People's Republic of China, Saudi Arabia, Belarus and the Republic of Korea
Date: 2007-03-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Belarus, China, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, man-made fibre

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 9.3.2007 
COM(2007) 88 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

terminating the partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures concerning 
imports of synthetic staple fibres of polyesters originating in the People's Republic of 
China, Saudi Arabia, Belarus and the Republic of Korea 

(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 proceeding concerning imports of 
synthetic  staple  fibres  of  polyesters  originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China, 
Saudi Arabia, Belarus and the Republic of Korea. 

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 

141 

219 

229 

230 

•  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. 

3)  LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

305 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

On  22  December  2005,  the  Commission  initiated  ex  officio  a  partial  interim  review, 
limited in scope to the examination of the product scope of the anti-dumping measures 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
applicable  to  imports  of  synthetic  staple  fibres  of  polyesters  (PSF)  originating  in  the 
People's  Republic  of  China  (PRC),  Saudi  Arabia,  Belarus,  Australia,  Indonesia, 
Thailand, the Republic of Korea and India.  

The  basis  for  initiating  this  review  was  the  information  submitted  by  one  Korean 
exporting producer, which indicated that low melt polyester staple fibres (LMP) should 
be excluded from the product scope, as they appeared to have different basic physical 
and chemical characteristics and end-uses in comparison to other types of PSF. 

The investigation however revealed that LMP and other PSF types share the same basic 
physical and chemical characteristics and have the same basic end-uses. In particular, 
LMP  and  other  PSF  types  are  based  on  the  same  raw  materials,  their  production 
process is basically the same, they share the same typical end-uses, they are distributed 
via  the  same  channels  and,  finally,  they  are  to  a  certain  extend  interchangeable. 
Therefore,  it  is  concluded  that  LMP  and  other  types  of  PSF  should  be  considered  as 
one single product for the application of the existing anti-dumping measures. 

It is therefore proposed to terminate this partial interim review without amending the 
product  scope  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  applicable  to  imports  of  PSF  from  the 
PRC,  Saudi  Arabia,  Belarus  and  the  Republic  of  Korea.  It  is  noted  that  the  anti-
dumping measures concerning imports of PSF originating in Australia, India, Indonesia 
and Thailand were repealed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1515/2006 of 13 October 
2006 and, thus, such imports are no longer subject to this partial interim review. 

Member States were consulted and supported this proposal unanimously. 

It  is  proposed  that  the  Council  adopt  the  attached  proposal  for  a  Regulation  which 
should be published in the Official Journal as soon as possible. 

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. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
341 

342 

•  Choice of instruments 

Proposed instruments: Regulation. 

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

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

4)  BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget. 

409 

E-3416 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

terminating the partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures concerning 
imports of synthetic staple fibres of polyesters originating in the People's Republic of 
China, Saudi Arabia, Belarus and the Republic of Korea 

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(3) thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

1. 

PROCEDURE 

1.1.  Existing measures 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

1 

2 
3 

4 

By  Regulation  (EC)  No  1522/20002,  the  Council  imposed  a  definitive  anti-dumping 
duty on imports of synthetic staple fibres of polyesters ('PSF') originating in Australia, 
Indonesia and Thailand.  

By  Regulation  (EC)  No  2852/20003,  the  Council  imposed  a  definitive  anti-dumping 
duty on imports of PSF originating in the Republic of Korea and India.  

By  Regulation  (EC)  No  1799/20024,  the  Council  imposed  a  definitive  anti-dumping 
duty on imports of PSF originating in Belarus.  

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. Regulation as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2005 (OJ L 
71, 17.3.2005, p. 1). 
OJ L 274, 11.10.2002, p. 1. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

  
                                                 
(4) 

(5) 

By  Regulation  (EC)  No  428/20055,  the  Council  imposed  a  definitive  anti-dumping 
duty  on  imports  of  PSF  originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China  ('PRC')  and 
Saudi  Arabia  and  amended  and  renewed  for  five  years  the  measures  concerning  the 
Republic of Korea.  

All these Regulations will be hereinafter referred to as 'the original Regulations'. The 
investigations  that  led  to  the  measure  imposed  by  the  original  Regulations  will  be 
hereinafter referred to as 'the original investigations'.Following the expiry reviews of 
the measures concerning imports of PSF originating in Australia, India, Indonesia and 
Thailand6, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1515/20067, repealed the anti-dumping 
duties in respect of such imports.  

(6) 

It is noted that a new anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of PSF originating 
in  Malaysia  and  Taiwan  was  initiated  on  12  April  20068  and  provisional  measures 
were imposed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2005/20069. 

1.2.  Grounds for the review 

(7) 

The  basis  for  initiating  this  review  was  the  information  submitted  by  the  Korean 
exporting  producer  Saehan  Industries  Inc.,  which  indicated  that  low  melt  polyester 
staple  fibres  ('LMP'),  as  defined  in  recital  (20)  below,  should  be  excluded  from  the 
product  scope,  as  they  appeared  to  have  different  basic  physical  and  chemical 
characteristics and end-uses in comparison to other types of PSF. In particular, unlike 
other PSF types, LMP appeared to have inherent binding properties. 

1.3. 

Initiation 

(8) 

Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence 
existed to justify the initiation of a partial interim review, the Commission announced 
by a notice ('the notice of initiation') published in the Official Journal of the European 
Union10  the  initiation  of  a  partial  interim  review  in  accordance  with  Article  11(3)  of 
the basic Regulation, limited in scope to the examination of the product scope of the 
anti-dumping  measures  on  imports  of  PSF  originating  in  the  PRC,  Saudi  Arabia, 
Belarus,  Australia,  Indonesia,  Thailand,  the  Republic  of  Korea  and  India.  It  is  noted 
that this review was initiated on the Commission's own initiative. 

1.4.  Review investigation 

(9) 

The Commission officially advised the authorities of the PRC, Saudi Arabia, Belarus, 
Australia,  Indonesia,  Thailand,  the  Republic  of  Korea  and  India  ('countries 
concerned'),  and  all  other  parties  known  to  be  concerned,  i.e.  producers/exporters  in 
the countries concerned and their associations, users and importers in the Community 
and  their  associations  and  producers  in  the  Community  and  their  association,  of  the 

5 

6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

OJ L 71, 17.3.2005, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1333/2005 (OJ L 211, 
13.8.2005, p. 1). 
OJ C 174, 14.7.2005, p. 15; OJ C 323, 20.12.2005, p. 21. 
OJ L 282, 13.10.2006, p. 1. 
OJ C 89, 12.4.2006, p. 2. 
OJ L 379, 28.12.2006, p. 65. 
OJ C 325, 22.12.2005, p. 20. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
initiation of the review investigation. Interested parties were given the opportunity to 
make their views known in writing and request a hearing within the time limit set in 
the notice of initiation. All interested parties who so requested and showed that there 
were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing. 

(10)  The  Commission  sent  questionnaires  to  all  parties  known  to  be  concerned,  and  all 
other parties which made themselves known within the deadlines set out in the notice 
of initiation.  

(11) 

In view of the scope of the review, no investigation period was set for the purpose of 
this  review.  The  information  received  in  the  questionnaires  covered  the  period  from 
1998 to 2005 ('period considered'). For the period considered, information concerning 
sales/purchases volume and value, production volume and capacity for all PSF types 
and LMP was requested. In addition, the parties concerned were asked to comment on 
any  differences  or  similarities  between  LMP  and  other  types  of  PSF  with  respect  to 
their production process, technical characteristics, end-uses, interchange-ability etc. 

(12)  Sufficiently complete questionnaire replies were received from one Thai, two Korean 
and one Saudi-Arabian exporting producer of PSF, four Community producers of PSF, 
five  users  and  two  importers  of  PSF  in  the  Community.  Several  other  parties, 
including the association of users and the association of Community producers of PSF, 
submitted their comments. 

(13)  The  Commission  sought  and  verified  all  information  deemed  necessary  for  the 
purpose of the assessment as to whether there is a need for amendment of the scope of 
the existing measures. 

(14) 

It is noted that, since in October 2006, following parallel expiry reviews, the measures 
on  imports  of  PSF  originating  in  Australia,  India,  Indonesia  and  Thailand  were 
repealed (see recital (5)), the present review has become obsolete with respect to these 
countries, and its findings concern only the measures on PSF originating in the PRC, 
Saudi Arabia, Belarus and the Republic of Korea. 

2. 

PRODUCT CONCERNED 

(15)  The product concerned is, as uniformly defined in all original Regulations, synthetic 
staple  fibres  of  polyesters,  not  carded,  combed  or  otherwise  processed  for  spinning 
originating  in  the  PRC,  Saudi  Arabia,  Belarus,  Australia,  Indonesia,  Thailand,  the 
Republic  of  Korea  and  India  (‘the  product  concerned’)  and  is  currently  classifiable 
within  CN  code  5503  20  00.  It  is  commonly  referred  to  as  polyester  staple  fibres  or 
PSF. 

3. 

RESULTS OF THE REVIEW INVESTIGATION 

3.1.  Methodology 

(16) 

In order to assess whether LMP and other types of PSF should be considered as one 
single  product  or  two  different  products,  it  was  examined  whether  LMP  and  other 
types  of  PSF  shared  the  same  basic  physical  and  technical  characteristics  and  end-
uses. In this regard, the production process, the interchangeability and the distinction 
between LMP and other types of PSF were also assessed. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

3.2. 

Findings 

3.2.1.  General remarks 

(17)  PSF is a basic material used in 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. 

(18)  PSF is sold in different product types for use in spinning or non-woven applications, 
which have a mono- or bi- component composition and different specifications such as 
denier/decitex, tenacity, lustre, quality grade, etc. These product types are not always 
interchangeable with each other (e.g. fibres for spinning and non-woven applications, 
mono and bi-component fibres, fibres with specific thermal characteristics such as the 
flame  retardant  fibres,  etc.).  However,  as  the  original  investigations  established,  the 
physical and chemical characteristics and the end-uses of these types are basically the 
same.  Moreover,  while  not  every  product  type  may  be  interchangeable  with  every 
other  type,  there  is  at  least  a  partial  interchangeability  and  overlapping  use  between 
different  product  types,  none  of  them  being  clearly  separated  from  at  least  certain 
others. 

(19) 

It should be noted that LMP is not a new product. However, LMP, as one of the PSF 
types,  was  not  separately  examined  within  the  original  investigations,  since  none  of 
the  parties  concerned  pointed  out  its  allegedly  different  physical  and  technical 
characteristics.  This  review  confirmed  that  LMP,  which  was  firstly  produced  in  the 
1980's and traded since then in countries like Japan, Taiwan and the Community, was 
already  produced  and  traded  in  substantial  quantities  by  at  least  three  Community 
producers  and  in  at  least  one  of  the  countries  concerned,  i.e.  the  Republic  of  Korea, 
during  the  original  investigations.  In  fact,  imports  of  PSF  including  LMP  from  the 
Republic  of  Korea  were  found  to  be  dumped  and  to  have  caused  injury  to  the 
Community industry. 

3.2.2.  Physical and technical characteristics of LMP 

(20)  LMP is one of the bi-component PSF types. It is a low melting polyester fibre with a 
core-sheath  structure;  it  is  composed  of  a  polyester  core  and  a  sheath  of  copolymer 
polyester. When heated, the outer copolymer sheath melts at a lower temperature than 
the polyester core, and the melted sheath acts as glue. There are several sub-types of 
LMP,  having  different  composition  resulting,  for  instance,  in  different  melting 
temperatures.  

(21)  LMP is based on the same raw material and has the same look as other types of PSF. 
However, by definition, it contains two different polyester polymers. In this context, it 
should  be  noted  that  LMP  is  not  the  only  bi-component  PSF;  numerous  other  bi-
component  PSF  types  exist,  which  have  been  always  considered  as  constituting  a 
single product for the purposes of anti-dumping proceedings. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

(22)  Some Community users and one exporting producer argued that LMP and other types 
of  PSF,  whether  mono-  or  bi-  component,  are  based  on  different  raw  materials.  The 
association of Community producers and certain Community producers argued that the 
basic raw materials of all PSF types, including LMP, are the same. In this respect, it 
should  be  noted  that  all  PSF  types,  including  LMP,  are  based  on  terephthalic  acid 
(TPA)  and  ethylene  glycol  (MEG).  These  raw  materials  constitute  the  basic 
component,  to  which  additives  or  additional  components  can  be  added  in  order  to 
ensure certain specific properties of the fibre, such as low melting temperature in the 
case  of  LMP.  The  claim  that  LMP  is  based  on  different  raw  materials  is  therefore 
rejected. 

(23)  One exporting producer also argued that the factor "look" is not relevant in analysing 
physical  and  technical  characteristics  of  different  products  or  product  types.  In  this 
respect, it is noted that the look by itself would normally not constitute sufficient basis 
for  defining  the  product  concerned,  in  particular  when  chemical  products  are 
concerned.  However,  this  does  not  imply  that  such  factor  should  be  completely 
disregarded. In this particular case, the same look constitutes an additional element for 
finding  that  LMP  and  other  types  of  PSF  cannot  be  easily  distinguished  from  each 
other. The claim is therefore rejected. 

(24) 

In  view  of  the  above,  it  is  concluded  that  LMP  cannot  be  considered  as  having 
different basic physical and chemical characteristics than other PSF types, in particular 
those with bi-component composition.  

3.2.3.  Production process 

(25) 

It is recalled that the original investigations established that, from a production point 
of view, a general distinction can be made between virgin PSF, produced from virgin 
raw materials, and regenerated PSF, produced from recycled polyester.  

(26)  As  regards  LMP,  this  review  investigation  revealed  that  no  significant  difference  in 
production  of  LMP  and  other  bi-component  PSF  types  exists.  It  was  found  that  any 
producer  of  other  bi-component  PSF  types  could  easily  switch  to  the  production  of 
LMP.  Bi-component  spinning  systems  are  in  operation  in  the  Community  and 
elsewhere  for  more  than  20  years.  The  bi-component  fibres'  production  is  more 
sophisticated  than  that  of  mono-component  fibres;  however,  the  difference  between 
the two systems is not such as to be considered substantial. 

(27)  Some  Community  users  argued  that  it  would  not  be  cost  effective  to  switch  to  the 
production  of  LMP.  It  was  argued  that  although  the  production  lines  for  LMP  and 
other  bi-component  PSF  types  are  basically  the  same,  a  switch  to  the  production  of 
LMP would require certain modifications, in particular the change of spinnerets, and 
would  cause  considerable  downtimes.  Thus,  although  switching  to  the  production  of 
LMP or vice versa is technically feasible, it may not be efficient and this may affect 
the  available  capacity  for  LMP.  The  association  of  Community  producers  and  one 
Community producer argued that the production process for all bi-component PSF is 
basically  the  same  and  switching  to  LMP  production  has  no  technical  shortcomings, 
but that it purely depends on market forces such as demand and prices. Furthermore, 
they argued that there is sufficient overall capacity to satisfy demand for LMP in the 
Community if the market conditions would allow. In this respect, the following should 
be  noted.  Firstly,  the  conclusion  that  no  substantial  difference  exists  between 

EN 

9 

   EN 

production  of  LMP  and  other  PSF  types  was  not  challenged.  Secondly,  the  cost 
effectiveness  of  switching  to  the  production  of  LMP  or  vice  versa  may  vary 
significantly from one producer to the other but it is in fact done by some Community 
producers.  Finally,  whether  a  producer  would  switch  to  the  production  of  LMP 
depends  largely  on  the  sales  prices  it  can  obtain  for  the  different  PSF  types  in  the 
market. In this respect, it is also noted that there are no exclusive producers of LMP in 
the Community or the exporting countries concerned. Therefore, this argument cannot 
alter the conclusions in respect of the production process. 

(28)  The production process, which is as such not decisive for the definition of a product, 
can thus in any event not be considered as a factor differentiating LMP from other PSF 
types. 

3.2.4.  Typical end-uses of LMP 

(29)  LMP  is  because  of  its  low  melting  temperature  typically  used  as  a  component  in 
thermally  bonded  technical  non-woven  applications  and  in  thermally  bonded  filling 
applications.  The  main  end-uses  are  in  the  following  groups  of  products:  household 
(furniture,  mattresses,  pillows),  automotive  (carpets,  filters),  hygienic  personal  care 
(nappies,  absorbents),  apparel  (insulation).  In  all  its  applications,  LMP  is  mixed  and 
melted with other PSF fibres and it usually represents around 15 % of the volume in 
such blends. 

(30)  Some  Community  users  argued  that  only  in  normal  thermally  bonded  wadding  for 
furniture and bedding end-uses LMP represents around 15 % in the blend. In certain 
other applications, such as acquisition distribution layers, the blend ratio varies from 
35 % to 50 % of LMP and in air filtration applications LMP represents up to 70 % in 
the blend. In this respect, it should be added that in some other applications, such as 
for instance apparel insulation wadding, LMP represents less than 15 % in the blend. 
The review investigation has shown that the LMP's relative volume in its different end 
applications  indeed  varies,  but  it  is  in  the  vast  majority  of  applications  a  minority 
component (overall on average around 15 %) as compared to other PSF types blended 
in these products. The assessment made in recital (29) above is therefore confirmed. 

(31)  The  main  users  of  LMP  in  the  Community  are  non-woven  application  industries. 
These companies typically use a whole range of other PSF types belonging to the non-
woven  family.  There  are  no  specific  users  of  LMP  in  the  Community.  It  was  also 
found that there is no substantial difference in distribution channels of LMP and other 
types of PSF. It is recalled that LMP is always used mixed with other PSF types.  

(32)  One  exporting  producer  argued  that  the  fact  that  the  same  users  use  LMP  and  other 
types  of  PSF  and  that  the  distribution  channels  of  LMP  and  other  types  of  PSF  are 
basically the same does not entail that LMP and other types of PSF are "like products". 
Indeed,  this  fact  by  itself  does  not  entail  that  LMP  and  other  PSF  types  should  be 
considered  as  being  one  single  product;  however,  it  shows  that  no  differences  exist 
between  LMP  and  other  PSF  types  as  far  as  their  distribution  is  concerned.  In  other 
words, from a distribution point of view, no grounds exist for the exclusion of LMP 
from  the  scope  of  the  measures.  In  addition,  as  it  was  demonstrated  in  recital  (29) 
above,  LMP  has  the  same  end-uses  as  other  PSF  types,  since  it  can  only  be  used  in 
blend with these fibres. The argument is therefore rejected.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

(33) 

In  view  of  the  above,  it  is  concluded  that  LMP  and  other  PSF  types  have  the  same 
basic end-uses and they are distributed via the same channels.  

3.2.5.  Interchangeability 

(34)  As  shown  above,  although  LMP  has  no  different  basic  physical  and  chemical 
characteristics  than  other  PSF  types,  it  has  certain  distinct  properties.  However,  in 
numerous applications LMP can be substituted by other types of PSF using different 
bonding  technologies,  such  as  resin  bonding  of  PSF  or  thermo  bonding  of  PSF  with 
the use of other melt bonding fibres. It is thus substantially interchangeable with other 
PSF types.  

(35)  Some parties challenged the aforesaid conclusion in respect of the interchangeability 
of LMP with other PSF types. One exporting producer argued that since resin bonding 
and bonding with the use of other melt bonding fibres requires substitution of LMP by 
resin  and  bonding  fibres  not  made  of  polyesters  respectively,  there  is  no 
interchangeability of LMP with other PSF types. Some Community users argued that 
the  use  of  other  bonding  technologies  referred  to  above  would  result  in  different 
properties  of  certain  end  products  and,  for  this  reason,  in  certain  applications  such 
substitution is not possible. These arguments were further examined. The investigation 
has shown that although different bonding technologies are not always interchangeable 
with  each  other  in  all  end-applications,  certain  interchangeability  exists  and,  thus, 
LMP is in competition with resin bonded PSF and with PSF bonded with other than 
core/sheath  bonding  fibres  for  certain  applications.  Thus,  it  cannot  be  generally 
concluded  that  no  substitutes  to  LMP  exist  and  that  it  is  not  interchangeable  with 
certain other PSF types. 

(36)  One  exporting  producer  also  noted  that  its  argument  concerning  the  threat  to  the 
environment  and  to  the  health  of  workers  posed  by  certain  chemical  resins  was  not 
properly examined. In this respect, it is noted that such argument is not relevant in this 
particular  case,  since  in  certain  applications  resin  bonding  cannot  be  substituted  by 
other  bonding  technologies  and,  in  any  event,  resin  bonding  must  comply  with  any 
environmental requirements in the Community and its Member States. This argument 
is therefore rejected. 

3.2.6.  Distinction between LMP and other types of PSF 

(37)  There  is  no  visual  and  tangible  difference  between  LMP  and  other  PSF  types.  The 
cross-section of LMP is different from that of mono-component fibres; however, it is 
not  always  different  from  the  cross-section  of  other  bi-component  PSF  types.  It  is 
recalled that LMP exists in numerous variants having, for instance, different melting 
temperatures.  Thus,  a  clear  distinction  on  the  basis  of  melting  temperature  is  not 
possible. Therefore, it appears that LMP cannot be easily distinguished from other PSF 
types and that any reliable identification of this product type would require the use of 
sophisticated equipment. 

(38)  Some  Community  users  disagreed  with  the  above  conclusion  that  LMP  cannot  be 
easily  distinguished  from  other  PSF  types,  in  particular  as  far  as  its  melting 
temperature is concerned. It was argued that the melting point of the sheath component 
of LMP, although varying between 110°C and 190°C, would always be considerably 
lower than the melting point of other PSF types, which is allegedly around 255°C. It is 

EN 

11 

   EN 

noted  that  the  above  range  of  melting  temperatures  confirms  that  LMP,  as  well  as 
other PSF types, exist in numerous variants and that their identification is not always 
easily feasible. Thus, the conclusions drawn in recital (37) above cannot be amended.  

(39)  One exporting producer argued that the mere fact that LMP is visually similar to other 
PSF  types  cannot  constitute  a  basis  for  non-excluding  LMP  from  the  scope  of  the 
measures. As explained in recital (23) above, although the "look" by itself is normally 
not decisive for answering the question whether or not different product types should 
fall into a "single product", it constitutes an additional element in the analysis (see also 
recital (16) above). The fact that different product types cannot be easily distinguished 
from each other cannot be ignored. The argument is therefore rejected. 

4. CONCLUSIONS ON THE PRODUCT SCOPE 

(40)  The above findings show that LMP and other PSF types share the same basic physical 
and  technical  characteristics  and  have  the  same  basic  end-uses.  In  numerous 
applications,  LMP  directly  or  indirectly  competes  with  other  types  of  PSF  on  the 
Community  market.  On  this  basis,  it  is  concluded  that  LMP  and  other  types  of  PSF 
should  be  considered  as  one  single  product  and  that  the  partial  interim  review 
concerning  the  product  scope  for  the  application  of  the  existing  anti-dumping 
measures should be terminated.  

(41)  All  interested  parties  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the 
basis  of  which  the  above  conclusions  were  reached.  Parties  were  granted  a  period 
within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure. 

(42)  The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were considered, but have not 
changed the conclusions not to amend the product scope of the anti-dumping measures 
on imports of PSF in force, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Sole Article 

The  partial  interim  review  pursuant  to  Article  11(3)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  the 
product scope of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of synthetic staple fibres of 
polyesters, falling within CN code 5503 20 00, originating in the People's Republic of China, 
Saudi Arabia, Belarus and the Republic of Korea is hereby terminated without amending the 
anti-dumping measures in force. 

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