Council Regulation (EC) No 383/2007 of 4 April 2007 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: 2007-04-04
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Belarus, China, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, anti-dumping legislation, import, man-made fibre, originating product

11.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 96/1

(Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory)

I

REGULATIONS

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 383/2007

of 4 April 2007

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
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 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)

By Regulation (EC) No 1522/2000 (2),
the Council
imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
synthetic staple fibres of polyesters (PSF) originating in
Australia, Indonesia and Thailand.

(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.

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

By Regulation (EC) No 2852/2000 (3),
the Council
imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
PSF originating in the Republic of Korea and India.

By Regulation (EC) No 1799/2002 (4),
the Council
imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
PSF originating in Belarus.

By Regulation (EC) No 428/2005, the Council imposed a
definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of PSF orig-
inating 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.

referred to as ‘the original

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
investigations’.
hereinafter
Following the expiry reviews of the measures concerning
imports of PSF originating in Australia, India, Indonesia
and Thailand (5),
the Council, by Regulation (EC) No
1515/2006 (6),
in
respect of such imports.

repealed the anti-dumping duties

is noted that

It
a new anti-dumping proceeding
concerning imports of PSF originating in Malaysia and
Taiwan was initiated on 12 April 2006 (7) and pro-
visional measures were imposed by Regulation (EC) No
2005/2006 (8).

(3) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 17. Regulation as amended by Regulation

(EC) No 428/2005 (OJ L 71, 17.3.2005, p. 1).

(4) OJ L 274, 11.10.2002, p. 1.
(5) OJ C 174, 14.7.2005, p. 15; OJ C 323, 20.12.2005, p. 21.
(6) OJ L 282, 13.10.2006, p. 1.
(7) OJ C 89, 12.4.2006, p. 2.
(8) OJ L 379, 28.12.2006, p. 65.

L 96/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.4.2007

(7)

(8)

(9)

1.2. Grounds for the review

The basis for initiating this review was the information
submitted by the Korean exporting producer Saehan
Industries Inc., which indicated that low-melt polyester
(20) below,
staple fibres (LMP), as defined in recital
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
In particular, unlike other PSF types, LMP
of PSF.
appeared to have inherent binding properties.

1.3. Initiation

after

Journal of

determined,

the European Union (1)

the Advisory
consulting
Having
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
the
in the Official
initiation of a partial interim review in accordance with
Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, limited in scope to
the anti-
the examination of
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.

the product scope of

1.4. Review investigation

in the

Saudi Arabia,

all other parties

and
i.e. producers/exporters

The Commission officially advised the authorities of the
PRC,
Indonesia,
Belarus, Australia,
the Republic of Korea and India (countries
Thailand,
known to be
concerned),
concerned,
countries
concerned and their associations, users and importers
in the Community and their associations and producers
in the Community and their association, of the 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
interested parties who so
there were particular
requested and showed that
reasons why they should be heard, were granted a
hearing.

initiation. All

(10)

The Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known
to be concerned, and all other parties which made them-
selves 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 infor-
mation received in the questionnaires covered the period

(1) OJ C 325, 22.12.2005, p. 20.

concerning

information

from 1998 to 2005 (period considered). For the period
considered,
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, interchangeability etc.

(12)

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

(15)

(16)

It is noted that, since in October 2006, following parallel
expiry reviews, the measures on imports of PSF orig-
inating 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

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.
is commonly referred to as
polyester staple fibres or PSF.

It

3. RESULTS OF THE REVIEW INVESTIGATION

3.1. Methodology

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

interchangeability

the

11.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 96/3

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 appli-
cations such as filling, i.e. stuffing or padding of certain
textile goods such as cushions, car seats and jackets.

(18)

(19)

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
fibres for spinning and non-woven appli-
other (e.g.
fibres with
cations, mono- and bi-component
flame
specific
the
retardant fibres, etc.). However, as the original
investi-
gations established, the physical and chemical character-
istics 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
interchangeability and overlapping use between
partial
different product
them being clearly
separated from at least certain others.

fibres,
such as

types, none of

characteristics

thermal

It should be noted that LMP is not a new product.
However, LMP, as one of the PSF types, was not sep-
arately examined within the original investigations, since
none of the parties concerned pointed out its allegedly
different physical
characteristics. This
and technical
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,
the Republic of Korea,
i.e.
imports of
investigations.
during the original
PSF including LMP from the Republic of Korea were
found to be dumped and to have caused injury to the
Community industry.

In fact,

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
composition
having
sub-types
resulting, for instance, in different melting temperatures.

different

LMP,

of

(21)

(22)

two different polyester polymers.

LMP is based on the same raw material and has the same
it
look as other types of PSF. However, by definition,
In this
contains
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 consti-
tuting a single product for the purposes of anti-dumping
proceedings.

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.

relevant

(23) One exporting producer also argued that the factor ‘look’
is not
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.

3.2.2. Physical and technical characteristics of LMP

(24)

(20)

LMP is one of the bi-component PSF types. It is a low
melting polyester fibre with a core/sheath structure; it is

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

characteristics

than other

types,

PSF

L 96/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.4.2007

3.2.3. Production process

(25)

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

regenerated

and

(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
in operation in the Community and
elsewhere for more than 20 years. The bi-component
fibres' production is more sophisticated than that of
difference
mono-component
between the two systems is not such as to be considered
substantial.

however,

fibres;

the

are

(27)

same

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
and switching to LMP
PSF is basically the
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
In
Community if the market conditions would allow.
this respect, the following should be noted. Firstly, the
conclusion that no substantial difference exists between
production of LMP and other PSF types was not chal-
lenged. Secondly, the cost-effectiveness of switching to
the production of LMP or vice versa may vary signifi-
cantly 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
concerned.
exporting countries
Therefore,
this argument cannot alter the conclusions
in respect of the production process.

the

(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 appli-
cations. The main end-uses are in the following groups of
products: household (furniture, mattresses, pillows), auto-
motive (carpets, filters), hygienic personal care (nappies,
absorbents), apparel
its applications,
LMP is mixed and melted with other PSF fibres and it
usually represents around 15 % of the volume in such
blends.

(insulation). In all

(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
insulation wadding, LMP represents less than
apparel
15 % in the blend. The review investigation has shown
that the LMP's relative volume in its different end appli-
cations 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 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.
there is no
substantial difference in distribution channels of LMP
and other
is recalled that LMP is
It
types of PSF.
always used mixed with other PSF types.

It was also found that

11.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 96/5

(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
considered as being one
types
single
should be
product; however,
it shows that no differences exist
between LMP and other PSF types as far as their distri-
bution 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, 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.

(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.

thus, LMP is in
certain interchangeability exists and,
competition with resin bonded PSF and with PSF
bonded with other than core/sheath bonding fibres for
certain applications. Thus,
generally
concluded that no substitutes to LMP exist and that it
is not interchangeable with certain other PSF types.

cannot be

it

(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 environ-
mental
its
and
Member States. This argument is therefore rejected.

in the Community

requirements

3.2.5. Interchangeability

(37)

it has certain distinct properties. However,

(34) As shown above, although LMP has no different basic
physical and chemical characteristics than other PSF
in
types,
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 substan-
tially interchangeable with other PSF types.

3.2.6. Distinction between LMP and other types of PSF

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
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.

is not possible. Therefore,

(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
in different properties of certain end-products
result
and, for this reason, in certain applications such substi-
tution is not possible. These arguments were further
examined. The investigation has shown that although
different bonding technologies are not always inter-
in all end-applications,
changeable with each other

(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 con-
siderably lower than the melting point of other PSF
is noted
types, which is allegedly around 255 °C.
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 cannot
be amended.

It

L 96/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.4.2007

(39) One exporting producer argued that the mere fact that
to other PSF types cannot
LMP is visually similar
for non-excluding LMP from the
constitute a basis
scope of
the measures. As explained in recital 23,
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).
The fact that different product types cannot be easily
distinguished from each other cannot be ignored. The
argument is therefore rejected.

(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
representations
subsequent to this disclosure.

could make

they

(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,

4. CONCLUSIONS ON THE PRODUCT SCOPE

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

(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 appli-
cations, 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
existing anti-dumping measures
should be terminated.

the

Sole Article

the product scope of

The partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regu-
the anti-
lation (EC) No 384/96 of
dumping measures applicable to imports of synthetic staple
fibres of polyesters, falling within CN code 5503 20 00, origi-
nating 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, 4 April 2007.

For the Council
The President

F.-W. STEINMEIER