Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and terminating a partial interim review of such imports pursuant to Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96
Date: 2007-10-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: India, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, import, originating product, plastics

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 4.10.2007 
COM(2007) 566 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) 
film originating in India following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council 
Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and terminating a partial interim review of such imports 
pursuant to Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

Context of the proposal 

Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This  proposal  concerns  the  application  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of 
22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members 
of  the  European  Community,  as  last  amended  by  Council  Regulation  (EC) 
No 2117/2005  of  21  December  2005  (‘the  basic  Regulation’)  to  imports  of 
polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India. 

General context 

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

Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

Council Regulation No 1676/2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports 
of  PET  film  originating,  inter  alia,  in  India  as  last  amended  by  Council  Regulation 
(EC) No 1424/2006 (OJ L 270, 29.09.2006 p. 1). 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  367/2006  imposing  a  definitive  countervailing  duty  on 
imports of PET film originating in India as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) 
No 1288/2006 of 25 August 2006 (OJ L 236, 31.8.2006, p. 1).  

Commission  Decision  No  2006/173/EC  (OJ  L  68,  8.3.2006)  repealing  Commission 
Decision No 2001/645/EC accepting undertakings in connection with the anti-dumping 
proceeding concerning imports of PET film originating, inter alia, in India.  

Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

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. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

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

Legal elements of the proposal 

Summary of the proposed action 

The attached proposal consists in an expiry review concerning the anti-dumping measures 
in place since 2001 and in a partial interim review limited to the examination of dumping 
by one particular exporter. 

It is proposed to maintain anti-dumping measures on imports of PET film at the same level 
as compared with previous legislation. 

It  is  therefore  proposed  that  the  Council  adopts  the  attached  proposal  for  a  Regulation 
which should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union. 

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.  

Subsidiarity principle 

The  proposal  falls  under  the  exclusive  competence  of  the  Community.  The  subsidiarity 
principle therefore does not apply. 

Proportionality principle 

The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reasons. 

The  form  of  action  is  described  in  the  above-mentioned  basic  Regulation  and  leaves  no 
scope for national decision. 

Indication  of  how  financial  and  administrative  burden  falling  upon  the  Community, 
national  governments,  regional  and  local  authorities,  economic  operators  and  citizens  is 
minimized and proportionate to the objective of the proposal is not applicable. 

Choice of instruments 

Proposed instruments: Regulation. 

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

Budgetary implication 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) 
film originating in India following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council 
Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and terminating a partial interim review of such imports 
pursuant to Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,  

Having  regard  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22  December  1995  on  protection 
against dumped  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European  Community1 
(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Articles 11(2) and 11(3) thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

A. 

PROCEDURE 

1.  Measures in force 

(1) 

The  Council,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1676/20012  as  last  amended  by  Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1424/20063 imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of 
polyethylene  terephthalate  (PET)  film  originating,  inter  alia,  in  India.  The  measures, 
subject to the present reviews, consisted of an ad valorem anti-dumping duty ranging 
between 0% and 18% imposed on imports from individually named exporters, with a 
residual  duty  rate  of  17.3%  imposed  on  imports  from  all  other  companies.  The 
investigation that led to Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 as modified will be referred to 
as 'the original investigation'. 

(2) 

The  measures  imposed  on  imports  from  India  in  the  original  investigation  were 
extended by Regulation (EC) No 1975/20044 to imports of PET film consigned from 
Brazil and from Israel, whether declared as originating in Brazil or Israel. 

1 

2 
3 
4 

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 227, 13.8.2001, p. 1. 
OJ L 270, 29.09.2006 p. 1. 
OJ L 342, 18.11.2004, p. 1. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

The  Commission,  by  Decision  No  2001/645/EC5  accepted  undertakings  offered  by 
five Indian producers in connection with the original investigation. These undertakings 
were repealed by Decision No 2006/173/EC6. 

The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 as last amended by Council Regulation 
(EC) No 1288/20067 imposed a definitive countervailing duty on imports of PET film 
originating in India. The measures took the form of ad valorem duties ranging between 
7% and 19.1% imposed on imports from individually named exporters, with a residual 
duty  rate  of  19.1%  imposed  on  imports  from  all  other  companies.  The  investigation 
that  led  to  Regulation  (EC)  No  367/2006  as  amended  will  be  referred  to  as  'the 
previous anti-subsidy investigation'.  

2. 

Request for a review 

On 23 May 2006 and 3 July 2006 respectively, a request for an expiry review pursuant 
to  Article  11(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation  and  a  request  for  a  partial  interim  review 
pursuant  to  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  limited  to  the  examination  of 
dumping  by  Jindal  Poly  Films  Limited  ('Jindal'),  were  lodged  by  the  following 
Community  producers:  Du  Pont  Teijin  Films,  Mitsubishi  Polyester  Film  GmbH  and 
Nuroll  SpA  (‘the  applicants’).  The  applicants  represent  a  major  proportion  of  the 
Community production of PET film. 

The applicants alleged and provided sufficient prima facie evidence that: (a) there is a 
likelihood  of  continuation  or  recurrence  of  dumping  and  injury  to  the  Community 
industry,  and  (b)  the  circumstances  with  regard  to  dumping  on  the  basis  of  which 
measures were established for Jindal have changed and these changes are of a lasting 
nature. 

3. 

Investigation 

Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence 
existed  to  justify  the  initiation  of  an  expiry  review  pursuant  to  Article  11(2)  of  the 
basic  Regulation  and  a  partial  interim  review  pursuant  to  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  the  Commission  announced  on  22  August  20068  and  25  August  20069 
respectively, by notices of initiation published in the Official Journal of the European 
Union, the initiation of such reviews. 

The  partial  interim  review  was  limited  in  scope  to  the  examination  of  dumping  in 
respect of Jindal. The review investigation period ('RIP') was set for both reviews from 
1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006. The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment 
of a likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 2003 
to the end of the RIP ('period considered'). 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

OJ L 227, 23.8.2001, p. 56. 
OJ L 68, 8.3.2006, p.37 
OJ L 236, 31.8.2006, p. 1 
OJ C 197, 22.8.2006, p. 2. 
OJ C 202, 25.8.2006, p. 16. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4. 

Parties concerned 

(9) 

The  Commission  officially  advised  the  exporting  producers,  the  representatives  of 
the exporting country, the Community producers, the importers and users known to be 
concerned  of  the  initiation  of  the  expiry  review.  For  both  reviews,  interested  parties 
were  given  the  opportunity  to  make  their  views  known  in  writing  and  to  request  a 
hearing within the time limit set in the notices of initiation. 

(10)  All interested parties who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons 

why they should be heard, were granted a hearing. 

(11)  With respect to the expiry review, in view of the apparently large number of exporting 
producers of PET film in India which were named in the request, the use of sampling 
techniques was envisaged in the notice of initiation in accordance with Article 17 of 
the basic Regulation. In order to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if 
so, to select a sample, all exporting producers were asked to make themselves known 
and  to  provide,  as  specified  in  the  notice  of  initiation,  basic  information  on  their 
activities  related  to  PET  film  during  the  RIP.  Six  exporting  producers  in  India 
indicated  their  willingness  to  cooperate.  From  these  six  exporting  producers,  three 
companies  (Ester  Industries  Limited,  Garware  Polyester  Limited  and  Jindal),  were 
selected for the sample and received a questionnaire. These companies were found to 
constitute the largest representative volume of exports to the Community of PET film 
which could reasonably be investigated within the time available, pursuant to Article 
17(1) of the basic Regulation. 

(12) 

In  addition,  the  Commission  sent  questionnaires  to  all  other  parties  known  to  be 
concerned  or  who  made  themselves  known  within  the  deadlines  set  in  the  notice  of 
initiation. Complete replies were received from four Community producers, the three 
sampled exporting producers, one importer/user and four users. 

(13)  The  Commission  sought  and  verified  all  information  it  deemed  necessary  for  the 
determination  of  dumping  and  injury  as  well  as  to  determine  whether  there  is  a 
likelihood  of  continuation  or  recurrence  of  dumping  and  injury  and  whether 
maintaining the measures would be in the Community interest. Verification visits were 
carried out at the premises of the following interested parties: 

(a)  Community producers 

– 

Dupont Teijin Films (Luxemburg) 

–  Mitsubishi Polyester Film GmbH (Germany) 

– 

– 

Nuroll SpA (Italy) 

Toray Plastics Europe (France) 

(b)  Exporting producers in India 

– 

– 

Ester Industries Limited, New Delhi, 

Garware Polyester Limited, Aurangabad, 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
– 

Jindal Poly Films Limited, New Delhi; 

(c)  Related importer/user in the Community 

– 

Rexor SAS (France) 

(d) 

Importer/user 

– 

Coverne SpA (Italy) 

(e) 

users 

– 

Safta SpA (Italy) 

–  Metalvuoto SpA (Italy) 

B. 

PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

1. 

Product concerned 

(14)  The  product  concerned  is  the  same  as  in  the  original  investigation,  i.e.  polyethylene 
terephthalate  (PET)  film  originating  in  India,  normally  declared  under  CN  codes 
ex 3920 62 19 and ex 3920 62 90. 

2. 

Like product 

(15)  As in the original investigation, it was found that PET film produced and sold on the 
domestic  market  in  India  and  PET  film  exported  to  the  Community  from  India  and 
PET  film  produced  and  sold  by  the  Community  producers  have  the  same  basic 
physical  and  technical  characteristics  and  uses.  Therefore,  they  are  like  products 
within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation. 

C. 

PARTIAL INTERIM REVIEW: DUMPING 

1.  Normal value 

(16) 

In order to establish normal value, it was first verified that the total domestic sales of 
Jindal were representative in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, i.e. 
that they accounted for 5% or more of the total sales volume of the product concerned 
exported to the Community. 

(17) 

It was then ascertained whether total domestic sales of each product type constituted 
5% or more of the sales volume of the same type exported to the Community. 

(18)  For  those  product  types  where  domestic  sales  constituted  5%  or  more  of  the  sales 
volume  of  the same type  exported to the Community, it was then examined whether 
sufficient sales had been made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) 
of  the  basic  Regulation.  For  each  product  type  where  the  volume  of  domestic  sales 
made above the cost of production represented more than 80% of sales, normal value 
was  established  on  the  basis  of  the  weighted  average  price  actually  paid  for  all 
domestic  sales.  For  those  product  types  where  the  volume  of  profitable  transactions 
was equal to or lower than 80%, but not lower than 10% of sales, normal value was 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
based  on  the  weighted  average  price  actually  paid  for  the  profitable  domestic  sales 
only.  For  those  product  types  where  less  than  10%,  by  volume,  was  sold  on  the 
domestic market at a price not below unit cost, it was considered that the product type 
concerned was not sold in the ordinary course of trade and therefore, normal value had 
to be constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation. 

(19)  For  the  product  types  where  domestic  prices  of  the  exporting  producer  could  not  be 
used  to  establish  normal  value  owing  to  insufficient  representativity  or  to  a  lack  of 
sales in the ordinary course of trade, normal value was constructed on the basis of the 
manufacturing  costs  incurred  by  the  exporting  producer  concerned  plus  a  reasonable 
amount for selling, general and administrative costs ("SG&A costs") and for profits, in 
accordance with Article 2(3) and (6) of the basic Regulation. 

(20)  The  SG&A  costs  were  based  on  such  costs  incurred  by  the  exporting  producer  with 
regard  to its  domestic  sales  of  the  product  concerned,  which  were  found  to  be 
representative. The profit margin was calculated on the basis of the weighted average 
profit margin of the company for those product types sold on the domestic market in 
sufficient quantities in the ordinary course of trade. 

2. 

Export price 

(21)  The vast majority of export sales of the product concerned to the Community during 
the  RIP  have  been  made  to  independent  customers.  Therefore,  the  export  price  was 
established  in  accordance  with  Article  2(8)  of  the  basic  Regulation  on  the  basis  of 
export price actually paid or payable. 

(22)  Some of the export sales have been made to a related company in the Community. The 
related company did not resell the goods directly but substantially transformed them, 
to the extent that constructing the export price of the exported product on the basis of 
the  resale  price  of  the  transformed  product  pursuant  to  Article  2(9)  of  the  basic 
Regulation was found to be unworkable. The prices charged by Jindal to this related 
company were compared to the prices made by Jindal to its unrelated customers in the 
Community for the same product types during the RIP. Since it was found that these 
two sets of prices were in line for each product type, it was concluded that the prices 
charged  by  Jindal  to  its  related  party  in  the  Community  were  reliable  and  could  be 
used for calculating the export price. 

3. 

Comparison 

(23)  The  normal  value  and  export  price  were  compared  on  an  ex-works  basis.  For  the 
purpose of ensuring a fair comparison, due allowance in the form of adjustments was 
made for differences affecting price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of 
the  basic  Regulation.  Accordingly,  adjustments  were  made  for  differences  in 
discounts, rebates, transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing, 
credit and commissions, where applicable and supported by verified evidence. 

(24) 

Jindal  claimed  an  adjustment  to  the  normal  value  for  the  import  duty  not  collected 
under  the  Advance  Licence  Scheme  (ALS)  on  imports  of  raw  material  used  in  the 
manufacture  of  goods  for  export.  The  ALS  permits  the  importation  of  raw  materials 
free of duty, provided that the company exports a corresponding quantity and value of 
finished  product  determined  in  accordance  with  officially  set  standard  input-output 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
norms. Imports under the ALS can either be used for the production of export goods or 
for  the  replenishment  of  domestic  inputs  used  to  produce  such  goods.  The  company 
claimed  that  exports  of  the  product  concerned  to  the  EC  were  used  to  satisfy  the 
requirements under the ALS in respect of raw materials imported. No conclusion was 
made as to whether or not an adjustment was warranted for this claim, given that the 
company  was,  in  any  event,  found  not  to  be  dumping  in  the  RIP  it  would  have  no 
impact on the final outcome of the review investigation.  

4.  Dumping margin 

(25)  The  dumping  margin  was  established  on  the  basis  of  a  comparison  of  a  weighted 
average normal value with a weighted average export price, in accordance with Article 
2(11) of the basic Regulation. 

(26)  This comparison showed a negative dumping margin. 

5. 

Lasting nature of changed circumstances  

(27) 

(28) 

In accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation it was also examined whether 
the findings established in the course of this investigation could reasonably be said to 
be of a lasting nature. 

In  this  respect,  it  is  recalled  that  Jindal  was  found  not  to  be  dumping  in  two 
consecutive investigations concluded by Council Regulation (EC) No 1676/200110 and 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  63/200511.  These  findings  of  no  dumping  have  been 
confirmed by the current investigation, and there are no elements indicating that this 
situation of no dumping would not be of a lasting nature. 

(29) 

It is therefore considered that the current measures in respect of Jindal are achieving 
the intended results and should remain unchanged. 

D 

EXPIRY REVIEW 

D.1 

LIKELIHOOD OF A CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF DUMPING 

1. 

Preliminary remarks 

(30)  According  to  Eurostat,  the  volume  of  the  product  concerned  imported  in  the 
Community from India amounted to 23 472 tonnes during the RIP. From this quantity, 
the three sampled exporting producers accounted for around 97% during the RIP and 
Jindal alone accounted for around 90% of the total export volume from India to the EC 
during the RIP. 

(31)  During the investigation period (IP) of the  original investigation (1 April 1999 to 31 
March 2000), the volume of imports from India was 50 590 tonnes. During the IP of 
the  previous  anti-subsidy  investigation  (1  October  2003  to  30  September  2004),  the 
volume of imports from India was 12 679 tonnes. 

10 
11 

OJ L 227, 13.8.2001, p. 1 
OJ L 63, 10.3.2005, p. 1 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.  Dumping of imports during the RIP 

2.1  Preliminary remark 

(32)  As  mentioned  in  recital  (11)  above,  three  exporting  producers  were  sampled.  For 

Jindal, the findings presented in recitals (16) to (26) apply. 

2.2  Normal value 

(33) 

In order to establish normal value for Garware and Ester, it was first verified that the 
reported domestic sales of each exporting producer were representative in accordance 
with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, i.e. that they accounted for 5% or more of 
the reported sales volume of the product concerned exported to the Community. 

(34) 

It was then ascertained whether total domestic sales of each product type constituted 
5% or more of the sales volume of the same type exported to the Community. 

(35)  For  those  product  types  where  domestic  sales  constituted  5%  or  more  of  the  sales 
volume  of  the same  type  exported to the Community, it was then examined whether 
sufficient sales had been made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) 
of  the  basic  Regulation.  For  each  product  type  where  the  volume  of  domestic  sales 
made above the cost of production represented more than 80% of sales, normal value 
was  established  on  the  basis  of  the  weighted  average  price  actually  paid  for  all 
domestic  sales.  For  those  product  types  where  the  volume  of  profitable  transactions 
was equal to or lower than 80%, but not lower than 10% of sales, normal value was 
based  on  the  weighted  average  price  actually  paid  for  the  profitable  domestic  sales 
only.  For  those  product  types  where  less  than  10%,  by  volume,  was  sold  on  the 
domestic market at a price not below unit cost, it was considered that the product type 
concerned was not sold in the ordinary course of trade and therefore, normal value had 
to be constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation 

(36)  For  the  product  types  where  domestic  prices  of  the  exporting  producer  could  not  be 
used  to  establish  normal  value  owing  to  insufficient  representativity  or  to  a  lack  of 
sales in the ordinary course of trade, normal value was constructed on the basis of the 
manufacturing  costs  incurred  by  the  exporting  producer  concerned  plus  a  reasonable 
amount for selling, general and administrative costs ("SG&A costs") and for profits, in 
accordance with Article 2(3) and (6) of the basic Regulation. 

(37)  The  SG&A  costs  were  based  on  such  costs  incurred  by  the  exporting  producer  with 
regard  to its  domestic  sales  of  the  product  concerned,  which  were  found  to  be 
representative. The profit margin was calculated on the basis of the weighted average 
profit margin of the company for those product types sold on the domestic market in 
sufficient quantities in the ordinary course of trade. 

2.3  Export price 

(38)  As  regards  the  determination  of  export  prices,  it  should  be  recalled  that  the  present 
investigation  seeks  to  establish  whether,  should  protective  measures  be  repealed, 
dumping  would  continue  or  recur.  In  that  context,  the  determination  of  the  export 
prices  used  in  the  dumping  calculation  cannot  be  limited  to  an  examination  of 
exporters’  past  behaviour,  but  has  to  examine  also  the  likely  development  of  export 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
prices in the future. In other words, it has to be determined whether past export prices 
are reliable as an indication of future likely export prices.  

(39)  Given the existence of price undertakings during part of the RIP, it was examined in 
particular  whether  the  existence  of  such  undertakings  has  influenced  the  past  export 
prices, so as to make them unreliable for the establishment of future export behaviour. 
It  is  further  noted  that  the  price  undertakings  of  Garware  and  Ester  have  been 
withdrawn  on  9  March  2006,  whilst  the  RIP  covers  the  period  from  1  July  2005  to 
30 June 2006. For both Garware and Ester, it was found that export transactions that 
took place during the RIP when the price undertaking was in place were made at prices 
sufficiently  close  to  the  MIP  to  cast  a  doubt  as  to  whether  these  prices  could  be 
regarded  as  of  a  lasting  nature  and  set  independently  from  the  MIP.  A  similar 
reasoning  has  already  been  described  under  recital  (28)  of  Council  Regulation  (EC) 
No 366/200612. 

(40)  As far as Garware is concerned, transactions made during the RIP after the withdrawal 
of  the  undertakings  cover  around  20%  of  the total  volume  of  exports  and  have  been 
made with continuity after the withdrawal of the undertaking. In view of the volumes 
exported  after  the  undertaking  expired  on  8  March  2006,  the  prices  made  for  these 
transactions are considered as a meaningful representation of what the pricing policy 
of  Garware  would  have  been  in  the  absence  of  the  undertakings.  Accordingly,  the 
prices  made  for  these  transactions  were  used  in  calculating  the  export  price  for  all 
quantities exported by Garware during the whole RIP. 

(41)  As far as Ester is concerned, transactions made during the period after the withdrawal 
of  the  undertakings  only  cover  5%  of  the  total  volumes  and  were  limited  to  a  very 
short period immediately following the withdrawal of the undertaking. Therefore, the 
prices of these transactions cannot be considered as representative of the export prices 
that the company would have practiced in the absence of the undertaking. As already 
indicated  under  recital  (39)  above,  the  export  prices  to  the  Community  practiced  by 
Ester before the withdrawal of the undertaking were very close to the MIPs. Moreover, 
it  was  also  found  that  the  export  prices  of  Ester  to  other  third  countries  were,  both 
when  considered  on  a  weighted  average  basis  and  on  a  type  by  type  basis, 
considerably  below  the  prices  to  the  Community,  thus  making  it  likely  that,  in  the 
absence of undertakings such prices to the Community would be aligned to the prices 
made  for the same  types to other third countries. It was therefore concluded that the 
export prices of Ester to the Community when the undertaking was in force could not 
be used to establish reliable export prices in the meaning of Article 2(8) of the basic 
Regulation, in the context of the present expiry review. Given that Ester was selling 
the product concerned in substantial quantities during the RIP on the world market, it 
was decided to establish the export price on the basis of prices actually paid or payable 
to  all  third  countries  for  those  models  sold  to  the  Community  during  the  part  of  the 
RIP when the undertaking was in force. For the part of the RIP after the withdrawal of 
the undertaking, the export price was established on the basis of prices actually paid or 
payable to the Community. 

12 

OJ L 68, 8.3.2006 p.6. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.4  Comparison 

(42)  The  normal  value  and  export  price  were  compared  on  an  ex-works  basis.  For  the 
purpose of ensuring a fair comparison, due allowance in the form of adjustments was 
made for differences affecting price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of 
the basic Regulation. Accordingly, adjustments were made for differences in transport, 
insurance,  handling,  loading  and  ancillary  costs,  commissions,  packing  and  credit, 
where applicable and supported by verified evidence. 

(43)  The  exporting  producers  claimed,  for  a  limited  number  of  exports,  an  adjustment  on 
the  export  price  pursuant  to  Article  2(10)(k)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  based  on  the 
amount of the benefits received on exportation under the Duty Entitlement Passbook 
Scheme  ("DEPB")  on  a  post-export  basis.  Under  this  scheme,  the  credits  received 
when exporting the product concerned could be used to offset customs duties due on 
imports of any goods or could be freely sold to other companies. In addition, there is 
no  constraint  that  the  imported  goods  should  only  be  used  in  the  production  of  the 
exported product. The producers did not demonstrate that the benefit under the DEPB 
scheme on a post-export basis affected price comparability and, in particular, that the 
customers  consistently  paid  different  prices  on  the  domestic  market  because  of  the 
DEPB benefits. Therefore, the claim was rejected. 

2.5  Dumping margin 

(44)  The  dumping  margin  was  established  on  the  basis  of  a  comparison  of  a  weighted 
average normal value with a weighted average export price, in accordance with Article 
2(11)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  Where  export  prices  were  based  on  prices  to  third 
countries, appropriate CIF values were calculated by increasing the ex-works price to 
third countries by the weighted average difference, by product type, between the ex-
works and CIF level prices to the Community. 

(45)  This  comparison  showed  a  dumping  margin  in  the  range  of  15%  to  25%.  It  is 
reminded that a negative dumping margin had been found for Jindal (see recital (26) 
above). 

3.  Development of imports should measures be repealed 

Effect of the removal of the existing measures on the dumped imports 

3.1  Unused capacities 

(46)  During  the  RIP,  the  spare  capacity  of  all  known  Indian  exporters  was  estimated  at 
32 000 tonnes. However, it should be noted that from this total, about 25 000 tonnes 
are attributed to Indian exporters with a 0% anti-dumping duty. The eventual repeal of 
anti-dumping  measures  is  likely  to  have  little  impact  on  the  export  policy  of  these 
companies. Therefore, only around 7 000 tonnes are attributed to Indian exporters with 
an anti-dumping duty different from 0%. The latter spare capacity, which represented 
during  the  RIP  approximately  30%  of  the  total  import  volume  of  the  product 
concerned from India into the Community and 3% of Community consumption, could 
be directed to the Community should measures be repealed. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
3.2 

Incentives to redirect sales volumes to the Community 

(47)  Based on a model to model comparison, the export prices to third countries of sampled 
Indian exporters with a dumping margin different from 0% were, during the RIP, 20% 
to  30%  lower  than  the  export  prices  to  the  Community  of  the  same  exporting 
producers. The sales of these two exporters to third countries were made in significant 
quantities,  accounting  for  80%-90%  of  their  total  export  sales.  Therefore,  it  was 
considered  that  the  export  price  level  to  other  third  countries  can  be  seen  as  an 
indicator  as  to  the  likely  price  level  for  export  sales  to  the  Community  should 
measures be repealed. 

(48)  Some  of  the  largest  export  markets  for  PET  film  in  the  world  are  protected  by  high 
tariffs. In particular, imports of PET film from India into the USA are subject to anti-
dumping duties ranging between 2.32% and 24.11% and countervailing duties ranging 
between 9% and 25.27% depending on the Indian exporter concerned. 

3.3  Conclusion 

(49) 

It  is  therefore  concluded  that,  given  the  relative  levels  of  prices,  the  spare  capacities 
and  the  incentives  observed  above,  there  is  a  likelihood:  (i)  of  a  continuation  of 
dumping, (ii) of an increase of the quantities exported to the Community, should anti-
dumping measures in force be lifted. 

D.2  DEFINITION OF THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY 

(50)  Four  community  producers  (Dupont  Teijin  Films,  Mitsubishi  Polyester  Film  GmbH, 
Nuroll SpA and Toray Plastics Europe) fully co-operated in the investigation. During 
the  RIP  they  represented  around  95%  of  the  Community  production.  Thereby  they 
constitute the Community industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) 
of the basic Regulation. 

(51) 

It is noted that the situation regarding Community production of PET film has changed 
since the original investigation. Indeed, Kodak Industrie (France) no longer produces 
PET film in the Community and 3M has transferred its activity to I.T.P. SpA, (Italy) 
which  is  reconverting  its  site  into  new  and  different  productions.  It  also  has  to  be 
pointed out that, since the Czech Republic is, as from 1st of May 2004 a member of 
the European Union, company Fatra a.s. (established in the Czech Republic) is part of 
the Community production.  

D.3 

SITUATION ON THE COMMUNITY MARKET 

1. 

Consumption in the Community market 

(52)  The determination of total Community consumption was based on the import statistics 
from Eurostat, the sales to the Community by the Community industry and the sales of 
other Community producers.  

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
Community 
consumption 

2003 

2004 

2005 

RIP(1/7/05 
30/6/06) 

– 

Table 1 

Volume 
(Tonnes) 

Index 
(2003=100) 

253 890 

250 231 

251 612 

257 177 

100 

99 

99 

101 

(53)  Compared to the year 2003, consumption during the RIP increased by 1% (more than 

3 000 Tonnes). 

2. 

Imports from India, Brazil and Israel: volume, market share and import prices 

(54)  The  volume  of  imports  into  the  Community  from  India,  increased  by  86%  between 
2003 and the RIP and the market share rose from 5% to 9% whereas prices decreased 
by 12%. The data are based on Eurostat statistics.  

Table 2 

Imports from India 

2003 

2004 

2005 

RIP(1/7/05 
30/6/06) 

– 

Volume (Tonnes) 

12 597 

15 972 

23 912 

23 472 

Index (2003=100) 

Market share 

100 

5% 

Prices EUR/Tonne 

2 005 

Index (2003=100) 

100 

127 

6% 

1 890 

94 

190 

10% 

1 866 

93 

186 

9% 

1 755 

88 

(55) 

Imports from Brazil and Israel which were found to be circumventing as mentioned in 
recital  (2)  above  sharply  decreased  following  the  extension  to  these  imports  of  the 
anti-dumping measures imposed on imports from India. Prices of PET film originating 
in  these  countries  increased  by  219%  after  the  anti-circumvention  measures  were 
imposed.  

Table 3 

Imports  from  Brazil 
and Israel 

2003 

2004 

2005 

RIP(1/7/05– 
30/6/06) 

Volume (Tonnes) 

6 855 

5 527 

Index (2003=100) 

Market share 

100 

2% 

Prices  EUR/  Tonne 
Eurostat figures) 

1 581 

Index (2003=100) 

100 

91 

2% 

1 741 

110 

271 

5 

0% 

4 170 

264 

419 

6 

0% 

3 461 

219 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
(56)  However,  account  should  be  taken  of  the  fact  that  it  was  found  that  Jindal  was  not 
dumping  in  the  present  investigation,  and  that  other  companies  (notably  Flex 
Industries  Limited  and  Polyplex  Corporation  Limited)  had  not  been  found  to  be 
dumping  in  earlier  investigations.  Accordingly,  for  the  present  investigation  only 
dumped imports from India and imports which were found to be circumventing will be 
taken  into  consideration.  Dumped  imports  from  India  and  imports  subject  to  anti-
circumvention duties have decreased by 70% between 2003 and the RIP – see Table 4 
below. The sharp decline of these imports is, to a large extent, due to the imposition of 
anti-circumvention measures on imports from Brazil and Israel.  

Table 4 (Source Eurostat and companies' data) 

from 
Imports 
India+Brazil+Israel  

2003 

2004 

2005 

RIP  (1/7/05  – 
30/6/06) 

Volume (Tonnes) 

10 383 

8 881 

3 618 

2 766 

Index (2003= 100) 

100 

Market share 

4% 

86 

4% 

35 

1% 

27 

1% 

Prices EUR/Tonne 

1 855 

1 852 

1 891 

1 785 

3. Imports from other third countries 

(57) 

Imports  from  other  third  countries  rose  by  24%  during  the  period  considered  (from 
around  62  000  Tonnes  in  2003  to  around  77  000  Tonnes  during  the  RIP)  and  the 
market  share  in  the  Community  corresponding  to  these  imports  increased  by  5 
percentage  points  (from  25%  to  30%.).  The  main  imports  were  made  from  South 
Korea,  the  USA,  Thailand  and  the  UA  Emirates.  The  average  price  per  Tonne 
decreased by 11% between 2003 and the RIP. The figures are based on Eurostat data. 

Table 5 

Country 

2003 

2004 

2005 

(1/7/05 

RIP 
– 30/6/06 

South Korea 

Import volume 

(Tonnes) 

25 895 

23 983 

22 225 

23 878 

Index (2003= 100)  100 

93 

Market share 

10% 

10% 

86 

9% 

92 

9% 

Prices EUR/Tonne  2 137 

2 146 

2 239 

2 098 

USA 

Import volume 

14 611 

18 636 

20 544 

13 432 

Index 
100) 

(2003  = 

100 

128 

141 

92 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Market share 

6% 

7% 

8% 

5% 

Prices EUR/Tonne  7 575 

6 067 

4 974 

6 690 

Thailand 

Import volume 

2 858 

6 511 

8 647 

8 647 

Index (2003=100)  100 

Market share 

1% 

228 

3% 

303 

3% 

303 

3% 

Prices EUR/Tonne  1 742 

1 764 

1 811 

1 758 

UA Emirates 

Import volume 

(Tonnes) 

1 

Index (2004 =100) 

Market share 

26 

100 

0% 

2 478 

9 422 

1% 

5 898 

22 427 

2% 

Prices EUR/Tonne 

2 872 

1 854 

1 790 

Total 

Import volume 

(Tonnes) 

South  Korea, 
USA, 
Thailand  and 
UA Emirates 

43 366 

49 157 

53 894 

51 855 

Index (2003=100)  100 

80 

Market share 

17% 

20% 

100 

21% 

110 

20% 

Import volume 

(Tonnes) 

Total 
countries 
other 
than 
India,  Brazil 
and Israel.  

62 300 

65 683 

74 191 

77 054 

Index (2003=100)  100 

105 

Market share 

25% 

26% 

119 

30% 

124 

30% 

price  

Weighted  average 
price EUR/Tonne  

3 848 

3 756 

3 431 

3 428 

100 

98 

90 

89 

Index 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4. 

Economic situation of the Community industry 

(58)  Pursuant  to  Article  3(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  Commission  examined  all 
relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Community 
industry. 

4.1  Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation 

(59)  Over  the  period  considered  capacity  remained  stable  (around  190  000  tonnes)  and 

production and capacity utilisation decreased by 4%. 

Table 6 

2003 

2004 

2005 

(1/7/05  – 

RIP 
30/6/06) 

Production in Tonnes 

176 682 

175 465 

165 348 

168 875 

Index (2003=100) 

100 

99 

94 

96 

Capacity in Tonnes 

190 694 

185 863 

186 721 

189 832 

Index (2003=100) 

100 

Capacity utilisation 

93% 

Index (2003=100) 

100 

97 

94% 

101 

98 

89% 

96 

100 

89% 

96 

4.2  Stocks 

(60)  Stocks  of  the  product  concerned  decreased  between  2003  and  2004  from  23  929 
tonnes  to  22  241  tonnes,  slightly  increased  in  2005  and  decreased  to  21  272  tonnes 
during the RIP. The decrease was mainly due to a reduction in production. 

Table 7 

Inventories 

2003 

2004 

2005 

(1/7/05  – 

RIP 
30/6/06) 

Tonnes 

23 929 

22 241 

23 209 

21 272 

Index (2003=100) 

100 

93 

97 

89 

4.3  Sales volume to unrelated customers in the Community and market share.  

(61)  The volume sold by the Community industry to unrelated customers in the Community 
market  decreased  by  5%  between  2003  and  2005  from  142  755  Tonnes  to  135  956 
Tonnes,  it  increased  slightly  between  2005  and  the  RIP  but  just  reached  98%  of  the 
level  of  sales  in  2003.  Sales  to  related  companies  were  negligible  (they  ranged 
between 200 and 300 Tons each year of the period considered). Moreover, the market 
share of the Community industry decreased by 2 percentage points between 2003 and 
the RIP.  

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
Table 8 

2003 

2004 

2005 

(1/7/05  – 

RIP 
30/6/06) 

volume 

142 755 

144 282 

135 956 

139 212 

Sales 
Tonnes 

100 

Index (2003=100) 

Market  share 
in 
total consumption 

56% 

101 

58% 

95 

98 

54% 

54% 

4.4  Sales prices and costs  

(62)  The  unit  sales  prices  decreased  by  2%  during  the  period  considered  (from  2  891 
EUR/Tonne in 2003 to 2 819 EUR/Tonne during the RIP) as well as the average cost 
per Tonne which went from 3 216 EUR/Tonne in 2003 to 3 137 EUR/Tonne during 
the RIP. This decrease in costs took place in spite of the fact that the average cost of 
most of the raw materials (due to the surge of oil prices) increased substantially. These 
figures  show  that,  in  order  to  avoid  losing  too  much  market  share,  the  Community 
industry was not in a position to fully cover its cost of production with its sales prices. 

Table 9 

2003 

2004 

2005 

(1/7/05  – 

RIP 
30/6/06) 

2 891 

2 865 

2 929 

2 819 

100 

3 216 

99 

3 112 

101 

3 152 

98 

3 137 

Weighted 
average 
(EUR/Tonne) 

price 

Index 

Weighted 
average 
(EUR/Tonne) 

cost 

Index(2003=100) 

100 

97 

98 

98 

4.5  Growth 

(63)  The  Community  industry  lost  market  share  in  a  slightly  growing  market  over  the 

period considered 

4.6  Employment, productivity and wages 

(64)  The level of employment by the Community industry decreased by 13% between 2003 
and  the  RIP.  Although  the  average  wage  per  employee  increased  by  5%,  a 
rationalisation effort was carried out and productivity per employee increased by 9%. 
Thus the level of the labour costs per Tonne produced decreased by 4%.  

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 10 

2003 

2004 

2005 

RIP(1/7/05 - 
30/6/06) 

Employment 

2 263 

2 112 

2 027 

1 978 

Index(2003=100) 

100 

Productivity 
Tonnes 
employee 

per 

78 

100 

Index (2003=100) 

93 

83 

106 

90 

82 

104 

87 

85 

109 

Wages in 000 € 

138 876 

132 916 

129 098 

127 375 

Index(2003=100) 

100 

96 

93 

Average  wage  per 
employee  

Index (2003=100) 

Wages  per  Tonne 
produced 

Index (2003=100) 

61 362 

62 922 

63 669 

100 

786 

100 

103 

758 

96 

104 

781 

99 

4.7  Profitability and Return on Investments 

92 

64 407 

105 

754 

96 

(65)  Profitability  on  sales  represents  the  profit  generated  by  the  sales  of  the  product 
concerned in the Community. Return on investment has been calculated on the basis of 
return on total assets.  

(66)  The  profitability  and  return  on  investment  on  sales  of  the  product  concerned  to 
unrelated customers in the Community has, despite small improvements in 2004 and 
2005,  remained  negative  during  the  whole  period  considered.  During  the  RIP,  both 
profitability  and  return  on  investment  were  particularly  low  (profitability  -11%  and 
return on investment -3.1%) having again fallen after 2005.  

Table 11 

2003 

2004 

2005 

RIP(1/7/05 
30/6/06) 

– 

Profitability 

- 11.2% 

- 8.6% 

Index (2003=100) 

- 100 

Return 
investment 

on 

-2.6% 

- 100 

Index (2003=100) 

EN 

- 77 

-2.1% 

-81 

19 

- 7.6% 

-68 

-1.9% 

-75 

-11.3% 

-101 

-3.1% 

-118 

   EN 

 
 
 
4.8  Cash flow 

(67)  The trend for cash flow deteriorated in particular during the RIP.  

Table 12 

2003 

2004 

2005 

(1/7/05  – 

RIP 
30/6/06) 

Cash  flow  in  000 
EUR 

Index (2003=100) 

35 305  

34 690 

21 980 

15 128 

100 

98 

62 

43 

4.9 

Investments and ability to raise capital 

Table 13 

2003 

2004 

2005 

(1/7/05  – 

RIP 
30/6/06) 

Investments 
000 EUR 

in 

21 745 

18 131 

16 772 

17 724 

100 

83 

77 

82 

Index (2003=100) 

(68)  Between 2003 and the RIP, investments for the production of PET film diminished by 
18%. During the RIP, the value of the investments increased by 6% compared to the 
situation  in  2005  but  in  comparison  to  2003,  they  remained  at  a  lower  level.  During 
the  investigation  it  was  found  that  investments  were  mainly  made  to  improve  the 
quality of the product and to maintain the production capacity. 

(69)  The low level of investments is explained to a large extent by the fact that the parent 
companies  of  the  Community  industry  did  not  seem  interested  in  investing  or 
providing  guarantees  for  investments  in  non  profitable  activities  such  as  the 
production of PET film in Europe. 

4.10  Magnitude  of  dumping  margin  and  recovery  from  the  effects  of  past 

dumping 

(70)  The analysis with regard to the magnitude of dumping takes into account the fact that 
there  are  measures  in  force  in  order  to  eliminate  injurious  dumping.  As  indicated 
above, the information available indicates that one of the sampled exporting producers 
continues to sell to the Community at dumped prices. Although the margin of dumping 
found is significant, its impact on the situation of the Community industry during the 
RIP has not been significant given that the market share of dumped imports from India 
and imports which were found to be circumventing constituted 1% of total Community 
consumption.  Jindal  certainly  contributed  to  the  aggravation  of  the  situation  of  the 
Community  industry.  However,  it  should  also  be  taken  into  account  that,  even  if 
imports  from  Jindal  are  excluded  from  the  analysis,  the  Community  industry  would 
not have been able to recover from past dumping after the imposition of anti-dumping 
measures  in  2001  because  of  circumvention  (against  which  measures  were  adopted 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
 
only by the end of 2004) and inappropriateness of the undertakings which were only 
repealed  last  year.  It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  before  the  imposition  of  anti-
circumvention  duties  and  the  repeal  of  the  undertakings  the  level  of  imports  from 
Indian companies found to be dumping was more than three times higher than during 
the RIP.  

5. 

Conclusion on the situation on the Community market 

(71)  The volume of PET film consumed in the Community market expanded by 1%, while 

the volume of sales by the Community industry decreased by 2%.  

(72)  The  economic  situation  in  the  Community  industry  worsened  with  respect  of  most 
injury  factors:  production,  production  capacity  and  capacity  utilisation  (-4%),  sales 
volume  (-2%)  and  value  (-5%),  market  share  (-2  percentage  points),  cash  flow  and 
profitability, investment activity and return on investment. 

(73)  The  restructuring  efforts  made  by  the  Community  industry  in  terms  of  employment, 
cost  cutting  and  the  increase  of  productivity  per  employee  could  not  counterbalance 
the impact of the increase of raw material prices over the period considered. The cost 
of production was higher than the sales price. This coincided with the low price level 
of  dumped  imports  from  India  and  other  countries  found  to  be  circumventing. 
However,  it  is  noted  that  the  price  pressure  on  the  Community  industry  was  partly 
caused by imports from Jindal, which was found not to be dumping in the RIP, which 
accounted for around 90% of total imports of PET film from India. 

(74)  Having regard to the above, the situation of the Community industry is still precarious 

and any increase of dumped imports would in all likelihood aggravate this situation.  

D.4 

likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury 

(75)  As stated before, the situation of the Community industry is still precarious. There will 
be  a  significant  increase  of  dumped  imports  if  anti-dumping  measures  were  to  be 
removed.  As  previously  indicated  in  recital  (46),  Indian  exporters  subject  to  an  anti-
dumping  duty  have  the  potential  to  increase  their  export  volumes  to  a  significant 
extent and, as indicated in recital (48) some of the largest export markets for PET film 
in the world are protected by high tariffs, in particular, the market for PET film in the 
USA.  

(76) 

In  the  absence  of  anti-dumping  duties,  Indian  dumped  imports  could  exercise  a 
significant  price  pressure  on  the  Community  market.  Therefore,  there  is  a  clear 
indication for a likelihood of a recurrence of injury. 

(77)  Having  regard  to  the  above,  if  the  Community  industry  was  exposed  to  increased 
volumes  of  imports  from  India  at  dumped  prices,  this  would  cause  a  further 
deterioration of its financial situation. On this basis, it is therefore concluded that the 
repeal of the measures against India would, in all likelihood, result in a recurrence of 
injury to the Community industry.  

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
D.5  COMMUNITY INTEREST 

(78) 

In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was considered whether the 
maintenance  of  the  existing  anti-dumping  measures  would  be  against  the  interest  of 
the Community as a whole  

(79)  According  to  Article  21  of  the  basic  Regulation,  it  was  examined  whether  the 
determination  of  the  Community  interest  was  based  on  an  appreciation  of  all  the 
various interests involved, i.e. those of the Community industry, the importers and the 
users of the product concerned. 

(80) 

It should be recalled that, in the original investigation, the adoption of measures was 
considered not to be contrary to the interest of the Community. Furthermore, the fact 
that the present investigation is a review, thus an analysis of a situation in which anti-
dumping  measures  have  already  been  in  place,  allows  the  assessment  of  any  undue 
negative impact on the parties concerned by the current anti-dumping measures. 

(81)  On  this  basis,  it  was  examined  whether,  despite  the  conclusions  on  the  likelihood  of 
recurrence of injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed which would lead to the 
conclusion  that  it  is  not  in  the  Community  interest  to  maintain  measures  in  this 
particular case.  

(82) 

In  order  to  assess  the  likely  impact  of the  imposition  or  non-imposition  of  measures 
information was requested from all interested parties which were either known to be 
concerned  or  which  made  themselves  known.  On  this  basis,  the  Commission  sent 
questionnaires  to  the  Community  industry,  nine  unrelated  importers  and  23  users.  In 
addition, the Commission contacted also all other known Community producers which 
did not provide the information requested to co-operate in the investigation in order to 
obtain basic information on their production and sales. 

1. 

Impact on Community industry 

(83) 

It is recalled that the Community industry is still in a vulnerable situation as set out in 
recitals (58) to (74). 

(84)  The  continuation  of  measures  is  expected  to  alleviate  a  distortion  of  the  market  and 
suppression  of  prices.  Measures  would  enable  the  Community  industry  to  at  least 
maintain its sales and benefit from economies of scale.  

(85)  Otherwise, should anti-dumping measures be terminated, it is likely that the negative 
trend of the financial situation of the Community industry will continue if not worsen. 
The Community industry is particularly marked by a loss of revenue due to depressed 
prices and falling market share.  

(86)  Accordingly,  the  continuation  of  anti-dumping  measures  would  be  in  the  interest  of 

the Community industry. 

2. 

Impact on importers and users 

(87)  Only  one  importer/user  and  four  users  have  co-operated  in  the  investigation  and 
supplied complete answers. They represent 16.3% of total Community consumption of 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
PET film and they have indicated that, the prolongation of anti-dumping duties would 
have no major impact on their companies. 

3. 

Conclusion on Community interest 

(88)  Taking  into  account  all  of  the  above  factors,  it  is  concluded  that  the  imposition  of 
measures would not have a significantly negative effect, if any at all, on the situation 
of the users and importers of the product concerned.  

(89)  On this basis, it is concluded that there are no compelling reasons not to continue the 

anti-dumping measures on grounds of Community interest. 

E. 

ANTI DUMPING MEASURES 

(90)  All  parties  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the  basis  of 
which  it  is  intended  to  recommend  that  the  existing  measures  be  maintained.  They 
were also granted a period to make representations subsequent to this disclosure. 

(91)  On the basis of the above facts and considerations, it is concluded that, in accordance 
with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, the partial interim review limited to Jindal 
should  be  terminated  and  the  anti-dumping  duty  of  0%  imposed  in  the  original 
investigation  on  imports  of  PET  film  produced  and  exported  to  the  European 
Community by Jindal should be maintained. 

(92)  With  respect  to  the  expiry  review,  as  provided  for  by  Article  11(2)  of  the  basic 
Regulation  and  on  the  basis  of  the  above  findings,  the  anti-dumping  measures 
applicable to imports of PET film from India should be maintained. 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

The  partial  interim  review  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  applicable  to  imports  of 
polyethylene terephthalate  (PET)  film  originating,  inter  alia,  in  India,  normally  declared 
under CN codes  ex  3920  62  19  and  ex  3920  62  90,  insofar  as  these  measures  concern  the 
Indian exporting producer Jindal Poly Films Limited, is hereby terminated.  

Article 2 

1. 

A  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  is  hereby  imposed  on  imports  of  polyethylene 
terephthalate (PET) film falling within CN codes ex 3920 62 19 ( TARIC codes 3920 
62 19 03, 3920 62 19 06, 3920 62 19 09, 3920 62 19 13, 3920 62 19 16, 3920 62 19 
19, 3920 62 19 23, 3920 62 19 26, 3920 62 19 29, 3920 62 19 33, 3920 62 19 36, 
3920 62 19 39, 3920 62 19 43, 3920 62 19 46, 3920 62 19 49, 3920 62 19 53, 3920 
62 19 56, 3920 62 19 59, 3920 62 19 63, 3920 62 19 69, 3920 62 19 76, 3920 62 19 
78 and 3920 62 19 94) and ex 3920 62 90 (TARIC codes 3920 62 90 33 and 3920 62 
90 94), originating in India. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
2. 

The  rate  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  the  net,  free-at-
Community-frontier  price,  before  duty,  of  the  products  manufactured  by  the 
companies listed below shall be as follows : 

Company 

Definitive Duty 

(%) 

Ester Industries Limited 

17,3 

Nagar, 
Amrit 
75-76, 
Behind  South  Extension  Part-1, 
New Delhi - 110 003, 

India 

TARIC 

Additional 

Code 

A026 

Flex Industries Limited  

0,0 

A027 

Sector 
A-1, 
Noida 201 301, (U.P.), 

60, 

India  

Garware Polyester Limited 

6,8 

A028 

House, 
Garware 
50-A,  Swami  Nityanand  Marg, 
Vile 
(East), 
Parle 
Mumbai 400 057, 

India 

Jindal 
56 
New 
India  

Poly 

Films 

Hanuman 
Delhi 

110 

Limited
Road,
001,

MTZ Polyfilms Limited  

0,0 

18,0 

A030 

A031 

India  Centre,  5th 

New 
17 
Mumbai 400 039, 

Co-operage 

floor, 
Road, 

India 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
Polyplex Corporation Limited  

0,0 

A032 

Sector-1, 
B-37, 
Noida 
301, 
201 
Dist.  Gautam  Budh  Nagar,  Uttar 
Pradesh, 

India 

SRF Limited  

Express Building 9-10 Bahadur Shah 
Zaraf Marg 

New Delhi 110-02 

India 

3,5 

A753 

All other companies 

17,3 

A999 

3. 

Where any party provides sufficient evidence to the Commission 

- that it did not export the goods described in Paragraph 1 during the periods from 
1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000 and from 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006. 

- that it is not related to any exporter or producer subject to the measures imposed by 
Regulation (EC) No 366/2006 and  

-  that  it  has  exported  the  goods  concerned  after  the  period  from  1  July  2005  to 
30 June  2006,  or  that  it  has  entered  into  an  irrevocable  contractual  obligation  to 
export a significant quantity to the Community,  

then  the  Council,  acting  by  simple  majority  on  a  proposal  submitted  by  the 
Commission  after  consulting  the  Advisory  Committee,  may  amend  Paragraph  2  by 
adding  that  party  to  the  list  of  companies  subject  to  anti-dumping  measures  as 
appears  in  the  table  in  Paragraph  2,  the  definitive  duty  being  the  weighted  average 
duty rate of 3,5%. 

4. 

The definitive residual anti-dumping duty applicable to imports from India, as set out 
in paragraph 2, is hereby extended to imports of the same polyethylene terephthalate 
film  consigned  from  Brazil  and  consigned  from  Israel  (whether  declared  as 
originating in Brazil or Israel or not) (TARIC codes 

3920 62 19 01, 3920 62 19 04, 3920 62 19 07, 

3920 62 19 11, 3920 62 19 14, 3920 62 19 17, 

3920 62 19 21, 3920 62 19 24, 3920 62 19 27, 

3920 62 19 31, 3920 62 19 34, 3920 62 19 37, 

3920 62 19 41, 3920 62 19 44, 3920 62 19 47, 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
3920 62 19 51, 3920 62 19 54, 3920 62 19 57, 

3920 62 19 61, 3920 62 19 67, 3920 62 19 74, 3920 62 19 77,  

3920 62 19 92, 3920 62 90 31, 3920 62 90 92)  

with the exception of those produced by: 

Terphane  Ltda  BR  101,  km  101,  City  of  Cabo  de  Santo  Agostinho,  State  of 
Pernambuco, Brazil (TARIC additional code A569); 

Jolybar Filmtechnic Converting Ltd (1987), Hacharutsim str. 7, Ind. Park Siim 2000, 
Natania South, 42504, POB 8380, Israel (TARIC additional code A570); 

Hanita  Coatings  Rural  Cooperative  Association  Ltd.,  Kibbutz  Hanita,  22885,  Israel 
(TARIC additional code A691). 

5. 

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

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

Article 3 

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

26 

   EN