Council Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 of 30 October 2007 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 Regulation (EC) No 384/96
Date: 2007-10-30
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: India, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, plastics, thin sheet

6.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 288/1

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

I

REGULATIONS

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1292/2007

of 30 October 2007

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 Regulation (EC) No 384/96

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 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

(2)

(3)

(4)

(1)

The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 (2) as last
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1424/2006 (3)
imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
inter
alia,
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

in India. The measures, subject

film originating,

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’.

The measures imposed on imports from India in the
original
investigation were extended by Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 1975/2004 (4) to imports of PET film
consigned
from Israel, whether
and
declared as originating in Brazil or Israel.

from Brazil

The Commission, by Decision 2001/645/EC (5) accepted
in
undertakings offered by
connection with the original investigation. These under-
takings were repealed by Decision 2006/173/EC (6).

Indian producers

five

The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 as last
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1124/2007 (7)
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
from all other companies. The investi-
on imports
led to Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 as
gation that
‘the previous anti-
amended will be referred to as
subsidy investigation’.

(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 227, 23.8.2001, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 270, 29.9.2006, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 342, 18.11.2004, p. 1.
(5) OJ L 227, 23.8.2001, p. 56.
(6) OJ L 68, 8.3.2006, p. 37.
(7) OJ L 255, 29.9.2007, p. 1.

L 288/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.11.2007

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

2. Request for a review

for a partial

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
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 estab-
lished for Jindal have changed and these changes are of
a lasting nature.

3. Investigation

after

determined,

the Advisory
consulting
Having
Committee,
that sufficient evidence existed to justify
the initiation of an expiry review pursuant to Article
11(2) of
interim
the basic Regulation and a partial
review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation,
the Commission announced on 22 August 2006 (1) and
25 August 2006 (2) 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).

4. Parties concerned

the

advised

officially

The Commission
exporting
producers, the representatives of the exporting country,
the importers and users
the Community producers,
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.

(11) With respect

in view of

to the expiry review,

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
the basic
initiation in accordance with Article 17 of
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
initiation, basic
provide, as specified in the notice of
related to PET film
information on their activities
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)

(13)

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

set

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 like-
lihood 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),

(10) All interested parties who so requested and showed that
there were particular reasons why they should be heard,
were granted a hearing.

(1) OJ C 197, 22.8.2006, p. 2.
(2) OJ C 202, 25.8.2006, p. 16.

(b) Exporting producers in India

— Ester Industries Limited, New Delhi,

— Garware Polyester Limited, Aurangabad,

— Jindal Poly Films Limited, New Delhi,

6.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 288/3

(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,
film
originating in India, normally declared under CN codes
ex 3920 62 19 and ex 3920 62 90.

i.e. polyethylene terephthalate (PET)

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
like
characteristics
are
and uses. Therefore,
the
products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of
basic Regulation.

they

sented more than 80 % of sales, normal value was estab-
lished 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 10 % of sales,
lower than 80 %, but not
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
type
unit cost,
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.

it was considered that

the product

(19)

types where domestic prices of

For the product
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 manu-
facturing 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 Regu-
lation.

(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 repre-
sentative. 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.

C. PARTIAL INTERIM REVIEW: DUMPING

(21)

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.

2. Export price

sales of

the product
The vast majority of export
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.

(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
the same type
the sales volume of
5 % or more of
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 repre-

(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 calcu-
lating the export price.

L 288/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.11.2007

(23)

(24)

3. Comparison

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
handling,
transport,
discounts,
and
costs,
and
loading
commissions, where
supported by
applicable
verified evidence.

insurance,
packing,
and

ancillary

rebates,

credit

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 offi-
cially set standard input-output norms. Imports under the
ALS can either be used for the production of export
goods or
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.

for

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.

by Council Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 and Council
Regulation (EC) No 390/2005 (1). These findings of no
dumping have been confirmed by the current investi-
gation, 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,
producers
sampled
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.

exporting

three

the

(31) During the investigation period (IP) of the original inves-
tigation (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.

2. Dumping of imports during the RIP

2.1. Preliminary remark

(32) As mentioned in recital

(11) above,

producers were
presented in recitals (16) to (26) apply.

sampled.

For

Jindal,

three exporting
findings

the

5. Lasting nature of changed circumstances

(27)

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.

(33)

2.2. Normal value

exporting

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

they accounted for 5 % or more of

the product

(28)

In this respect, it is recalled that Jindal was found not to
be dumping in two consecutive investigations concluded

(1) OJ L 63, 10.3.2005, p. 1.

6.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 288/5

(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.

In other words,
export prices are reliable as an indication of
likely export prices.

it has to be determined whether past
future

(35)

For those product types where domestic sales constituted
5 % or more of
the same type
the sales volume of
it was then examined
exported to the Community,
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 repre-
sented more than 80 % of sales, normal value was estab-
lished 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 10 % of sales,
lower than 80 %, but not
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
type
unit cost,
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.

it was considered that

the product

(36)

types where domestic prices of

For the product
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 manu-
facturing 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 repre-
sentative. 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

investigation seeks
should protective measures

(38) As regards the determination of export prices, it should
to
the present
be recalled that
be
establish whether,
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 exam-
ination of exporters’ past behaviour, but has to examine
also the likely development of export prices in the future.

it was examined in particular whether

(39) Given the existence of price undertakings during part of
the RIP,
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 trans-
actions 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 366/2006 (1).

(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,
these transactions
were used in calculating the export price for all quantities
exported by Garware during the whole RIP.

the prices made for

(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, 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
the
third countries.
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

It was therefore concluded that

(1) OJ L 68, 8.3.2006, p. 6.

L 288/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.11.2007

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.

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).

(42)

(43)

2.4. Comparison

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,
loading and ancillary
costs, commissions, packing and credit, where applicable
and supported by verified evidence.

insurance, handling,

the

this

scheme,

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
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,
the imported
goods should only be used in the production of the
exported product. The producers did not demonstrate
the benefit under the DEPB scheme on a post-
that
export basis
in
particular, that the customers consistently paid different
prices on the domestic market because of
the DEPB
benefits. Therefore, the claim was rejected.

there is no constraint

affected price

comparability

and,

that

3. Development of

imports should measures be

repealed

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

3.1. Unused capacities

eventual

duty. The

(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
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
the product
30 % of
concerned from India into the Community and 3 % of
Community consumption, could be directed to the
Community should measures be repealed.

import volume of

repeal of

the total

3.2. Incentives to redirect sales volumes to the Community

(47)

to model comparison,

to the Community of

Based on a model
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
exporting
producers. The sales of
these two exporters to third
countries were made in significant quantities, accounting
for 80 to 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.

same

the

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

(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.

6.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 288/7

3.3. Conclusion

(49)

there is a likelihood:

It is therefore concluded that, given the relative levels of
prices, the spare capacities and the incentives observed
above,
(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.

(51)

D.2. DEFINITION OF THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY

(50)

community producers

Four
(Dupont Teijin Films,
Mitsubishi Polyester Film GmbH, Nuroll SpA and Toray
Plastics Europe)
fully cooperated 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.

is noted that

It
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 trans-
ferred its activity to I.T.P. SpA, (Italy) which is recon-
verting its site into new and different productions.
It
since the Czech
also has
Republic is, as from 1 May 2004 a member of
the
European Union, company Fatra a.s. (established in the
Czech Republic) is part of the Community production.

to be pointed out

that,

D.3. SITUATION ON THE COMMUNITY MARKET

1. Consumption in the Community market

(52)

The determination of
Eurostat,
Community producers.

total Community consumption was based on the import statistics from
the sales to the Community by the Community industry and the sales of other

Table 1

Community consumption

2003

2004

2005

RIP (1.7.2005-
30.6.2006)

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 (1.7.2005-
30.6.2006)

Volume (tonnes)

Index (2003 = 100)

Market share

Prices EUR/tonne

Index (2003 = 100)

12 597

15 972

23 912

23 472

100

5 %

2 005

100

127

6 %

1 890

94

190

10 %

1 866

93

186

9 %

1 755

88

L 288/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.11.2007

(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

Volume (tonnes)

Index (2003 = 100)

Market share

Prices EUR/tonne Eurostat figures

Index (2003 = 100)

6 855

5 527

100

2 %

1 581

100

91

2 %

1 741

110

271

5

0 %

4 170

264

RIP (1.7.2005-
30.6.2006)

419

6

0 %

3 461

219

(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

Imports from India + Brazil + Israel

2003

2004

2005

RIP (1.7.2005-
30.6.2006)

Volume (tonnes)

10 383

8 881

3 618

2 766

Index (2003 = 100)

Market share

100

4 %

86

4 %

35

1 %

27

1 %

Prices EUR/tonne

1 855

1 852

1 891

1 785

Source: Eurostat and companies’ data.

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 five 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.

6.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 288/9

Table 5

Country

2003

2004

2005

RIP (1.7.2005-
30.6.2006)

South Korea

Import volume
(tonnes)

25 895

23 983

22 225

23 878

Index (2003 = 100)

Market share

100

10 %

93

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 (2003 = 100)

Market share

Prices EUR/tonne

Thailand

Import volume

Index (2003 = 100)

Market share

100

6 %

7 575

2 858

100

1 %

128

7 %

6 067

6 511

228

3 %

Prices EUR/tonne

1 742

1 764

UA Emirates

Import volume
(tonnes)

1

Index (2004 = 100)

Market share

26

100

0 %

141

8 %

4 974

8 647

303

3 %

1 811

2 478

92

5 %

6 690

8 647

303

3 %

1 758

5 898

9 422

22 427

1 %

2 %

Prices EUR/tonne

2 872

1 854

1 790

Total South Korea,
USA, Thailand and UA
Emirates

Import volume
(Tonnes)

Index (2003 = 100)

Market share

Import volume
(tonnes)

Index (2003 = 100)

Market share

Weighted average
price EUR/tonne

Total countries other
than India, Brazil and
Israel.

Price

43 366

49 157

53 894

51 855

100

17 %

80

20 %

100

21 %

110

20 %

62 300

65 683

74 191

77 054

100

25 %

105

26 %

119

30 %

124

30 %

3 848

3 756

3 431

3 428

Index

100

98

90

89

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.

L 288/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.11.2007

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

RIP (1.7.2005-
30.6.2006)

176 682

175 465

165 348

168 875

100

99

94

96

190 694

185 863

186 721

189 832

100

93 %

100

97

94 %

101

98

89 %

96

100

89 %

96

Production in tonnes

Index (2003 = 100)

Capacity in tonnes

Index (2003 = 100)

Capacity utilisation

Index (2003 = 100)

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

RIP (1.7.2005-
30.6.2006)

Tonnes

Index (2003 = 100)

23 929

100

22 241

93

23 209

97

21 272

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 tonnes each year of the period
considered). Moreover, the market share of the Community industry decreased by 2 percentage points
between 2003 and the RIP.

Table 8

2003

2004

2005

RIP (1.7.2005-
30.6.2006)

Sales volume tonnes

Index (2003 = 100)

Market share in total consumption

142 755

144 282

135 956

139 212

100

56 %

101

58 %

95

54 %

98

54 %

6.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 288/11

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,
the
Community industry was not in a position to fully cover its cost of production with its sales prices.

in order to avoid losing too much market share,

Table 9

2003

2004

2005

RIP (1.7.2005-
30.6.2006)

2 891

100

3 216

100

2 865

99

3 112

97

2 929

101

3 152

98

2 819

98

3 137

98

Weighted average price
(EUR/tonne)

Index

Weighted average cost
(EUR/tonne)

Index (2003 = 100)

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 %.

Employment

Index (2003 = 100)

Productivity tonnes per employee

Index (2003 = 100)

Wages in 000 EUR

Index (2003 = 100)

Table 10

2003

2 263

100

78

100

2004

2 112

93

83

106

2005

2 027

90

82

104

RIP (1.7.2005-
30.6.2006)

1 978

87

85

109

138 876

132 916

129 098

127 375

100

96

93

92

Average wage per employee

61 362

62 922

63 669

64 407

Index (2003 = 100)

Wages per tonne produced

Index (2003 = 100)

100

786

100

103

758

96

104

781

99

105

754

96

L 288/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.11.2007

4.7. Profitability and return on investments

(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 partic-
ularly low (profitability – 11 % and return on investment – 3,1 %) having again fallen after 2005.

Table 11

2003

2004

2005

– 11,2 %
– 100

– 2,6 %
– 100

– 8,6 %
– 77

– 2,1 %
– 81

– 7,6 %
– 68

– 1,9 %
– 75

RIP (1.7.2005-
30.6.2006)

– 11,3 %
– 101

– 3,1 %
– 118

Profitability

Index (2003 = 100)

Return on investment

Index (2003 = 100)

4.8. Cash flow

(67)

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

Table 12

2003

2004

2005

RIP (1.7.2005-
30.6.2006)

Cash flow in EUR thousand

Index (2003 = 100)

35 305

100

34 690

98

21 980

62

15 128

43

4.9. Investments and ability to raise capital

Table 13

2003

2004

2005

RIP (1.7.2005-
30.6.2006)

Investments in 000 EUR

Index (2003 = 100)

21 745

100

18 131

83

16 772

77

17 724

82

(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.

6.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 288/13

(70)

4.10. Magnitude of dumping margin and recovery from the

effects of past dumping

The analysis with regard to the magnitude of dumping
takes into account the fact that there are measures in
to eliminate injurious dumping. As
force in order
indicated above, the information available indicates that
one of the sampled exporting producers continues to sell
to the Community at dumped prices. Although the
its impact on
margin of dumping found is significant,
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
Jindal certainly contributed
Community consumption.
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 circum-
vention (against which measures were adopted only by
the end of 2004) and inappropriateness of the under-
takings which were only repealed last year. It must not
be forgotten that before the imposition of anti-circum-
vention duties and the repeal of the undertakings the
imports from Indian companies found to be
level of
dumping was more
than
during the RIP.

times higher

than three

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
Community industry is still precarious and any increase
of dumped imports would in all likelihood aggravate this
situation.

the situation of

D.4. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF
INJURY

(75) As

stated before,

the Community
the situation of
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.

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 %.

(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.

(72)

(73)

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

the repeal of
likelihood,

India would,

in all

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
profitability,
investment activity and return on investment.

flow and

points),

cash

The restructuring efforts made by the Community
industry in terms of employment, cost cutting and the
increase of productivity per employee could not counter-
balance 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,
is
the price pressure on the Community
noted that
from Jindal,
industry was partly caused by imports

it

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.

L 288/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.11.2007

(80)

in the original

investigation,
It should be recalled that,
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.

(88)

represent 16,3 % of total Community consumption of
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

the above factors,

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

it

(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
to the
the Commission sent questionnaires
basis,
Community industry, nine unrelated importers and 23
users.
the Commission contacted also all
other known Community producers which did not
provide the information requested to cooperate in the
investigation in order to obtain basic information on
their production and sales.

In addition,

1. Impact on Community industry

(83)

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

in a

(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.

is likely that

(85) Otherwise, should anti-dumping measures be terminated,
the financial
it
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.

the negative trend of

(89) On this basis,

there are no
compelling reasons not to continue the anti-dumping
measures on grounds of Community interest.

is concluded that

it

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
interim review limited to
basic Regulation, the partial
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
anti-dumping measures
the
applicable to imports of PET film from India should be
maintained,

findings,

above

the

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

(86) Accordingly, the continuation of anti-dumping measures

would be in the interest of the Community industry.

Article 1

2. Impact on importers and users

(87) Only one importer/user and four users have cooperated
in the investigation and supplied complete answers. They

interim review of

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

inter alia,

6.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 288/15

Article 2

1.
A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on
imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film falling within
ex 3920 62 19 (TARIC codes 3920 62 19 03,
CN codes
3920 62 19 13,
3920 62 19 06,
3920 62 19 23,
3920 62 19 16,
3920 62 19 33,
3920 62 19 26,
3920 62 19 43,
3920 62 19 36,
3920 62 19 53,
3920 62 19 46,
3920 62 19 63,
3920 62 19 56,
and
3920 62 19 69,
3920 62 19 94)
codes
3920 62 90 33 and 3920 62 90 94), originating in India.

3920 62 19 09,
3920 62 19 19,
3920 62 19 29,
3920 62 19 39,
3920 62 19 49,
3920 62 19 59,

3920 62 19 76,
and

3920 62 19 78

ex 3920 62 90

(TARIC

3. Where any party provides
Commission:

sufficient evidence to the

— 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,

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:

— 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,

Company

Ester Industries Limited
75-76, Amrit Nagar,
Behind South Extension Part-1,
New Delhi — 110 003,
India

Flex Industries Limited
A-1, Sector 60,
Noida 201 301, (U.P.),
Índia

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

Jindal Poly Films Limited
56 Hanuman Road,
New Delhi 110 001,
India

MTZ Polyfilms Limited
New India Centre, 5th floor,
17 Co-operage Road,
Mumbai 400 039,
India

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

SRF Limited
Express Building 9-10 Bahadur Shah Zaraf
Marg
New Delhi 110 002
India

Definitive
Duty
(%)

TARIC
Additional
Code

17,3

A026

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
to anti-dumping measures as
the list of companies subject
appears in the table in paragraph 2, the definitive duty being
the weighted average duty rate of 3,5 %.

0,0

A027

6,8

A028

0,0

A030

18,0

A031

codes

3920 62 19 01,

The definitive residual anti-dumping duty applicable to
4.
in paragraph 2,
is hereby
imports from India, as set out
the same polyethylene terephthalate
extended to imports of
and consigned from Israel
film consigned from Brazil
(whether declared as originating in Brazil or Israel or not)
3920 62 19 04,
(TARIC
3920 62 19 11,
3920 62 19 14,
3920 62 19 07,
3920 62 19 21,
3920 62 19 24,
3920 62 19 17,
3920 62 19 31,
3920 62 19 34,
3920 62 19 27,
3920 62 19 41,
3920 62 19 44,
3920 62 19 37,
3920 62 19 51,
3920 62 19 54,
3920 62 19 47,
3920 62 19 67,
3920 62 19 61,
3920 62 19 57,
3920 62 19 74,
3920 62 19 92,
3920 62 19 77,
3920 62 90 31, 3920 62 90 92) with the exception of those
produced by:

0,0

A032

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

3,5

A753

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

All other companies

17,3

A999

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

L 288/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.11.2007

5.

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

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following 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 Luxembourg, 30 October 2007.

For the Council
The President

F. NUNES CORREIA