Council Regulation (EC) No 1353/2008 of 18 December 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 74/2004 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of cotton-type bedlinen originating in India
Date: 2008-12-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: India, anti-subsidy proceeding, import, originating product, textile product

30.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 350/1

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

I

REGULATIONS

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1353/2008

of 18 December 2008

amending Regulation (EC) No 74/2004 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of
cotton-type bedlinen originating in India

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

(3)

Having regard to the Treaty
Community,

establishing the European

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of
6 October 1997 on protection against subsidised imports
from countries not members of the European Community (1)
(the ‘basic Regulation’), and in particular Articles 15 and 19
thereof,

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

Whereas:

1. PROCEDURE

1.1. Previous investigation and measures in force

bedlinen

The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 74/2004 (2),
imposed a definitive countervailing duty on imports of
CN codes
cotton-type
ex 6302 21 00,
and
ex 6302 32 90 and originating in India. The rate of the
duty ranges between 4,4 % and 10,4 % for individual
sampled
cooperating
company rate of 7,6 % and a residual duty of 10,4 %.

companies, with an average

falling within

ex 6302 22 90,

ex 6302 31 00

(1)

(2)

sufficient

The Commission examined the evidence submitted by
the GOI and considered it
to justify the
initiation of a review in accordance with the provisions
of Article 19 of the basic Regulation. After consultation
of the Advisory Committee, the Commission initiated an
ex officio partial interim review of the measures in force
by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European
Union (3).

(4)

The purpose of this partial interim review investigation is
to assess the need for the continuation, removal or
in respect of
the existing measures
amendment of
those companies which benefited from one or both the
sufficient
allegedly changed subsidy schemes where
evidence was provided in line with the
relevant
requirements of the notice of initiation. Depending on
its findings, the investigation will also assess the need to
revise the measures applicable to other companies that
cooperated in the original
the
investigation and/or
residual measure applicable for all other companies.

1.3. Review investigation period

(5)

The investigation covered the period from 1 October
2006 to 30 September 2007 (‘the review investigation
period’ or ‘RIP’).

1.2. Ex officio initiation of the partial interim review

Following the imposition of the definitive countervailing
duty the Government of India (GOI) made submissions
that
the circumstances with regard to two subsidy
schemes (the Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme and
the Income Tax Exemption under Section 80 HHC of
the Income Tax Act) had changed and that
these
changes were of a lasting nature. They argued that the
therefore likely to have
level of
decreased and thus measures that had been established
partly on these schemes should be revised.

subsidisation was

(6)

1.4. Parties concerned by the investigation

along with

The Commission officially informed the Government of
India (GOI) of the initiation of the partial interim review
investigation,
exporting
producers who cooperated in the previous investigation
and that were found to benefit from one or both of the
two allegedly changed subsidy schemes and who were
listed in the notice of initiation of the partial
interim
review, as well as the representatives of the Community

Indian

those

(1) OJ L 288, 21.10.1997, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 12, 17.1.2004, p. 1.

(3) OJ C 230, 2.10.2007, p. 5.

L 350/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2008

(7)

(8)

industry. Interested parties had the opportunity to make
their views known in writing and to request a hearing.
The written and oral comments submitted by the parties
were considered and, where appropriate,
taken into
account.

In view of the apparent number of parties involved in
this review, the use of sampling for the investigation of
subsidisation was proposed in accordance with Article 27
of the basic Regulation.

to Article 27(2) of

In order to enable the Commission to select a sample,
pursuant
the basic Regulation,
exporters and representatives acting on their behalf
were requested to make themselves known within three
weeks of the initiation of the proceeding and to provide
basic information on their export and domestic turnover,
on some particular subsidy schemes, and the names and
activities of all related companies. The authorities of India
were also informed.

(9)

More than 80 companies made themselves known and
provided the information requested for the sampling.
These companies represented 95 % of the total exports
of India to the Community during the sampling period.

(10) Given the large number of companies, a sample of 11
exporting companies and groups with the largest export
volumes to the Community was chosen, in consultation
with the Community industry, the Indian textiles associ­
ation Texprocil and the GOI.

(11)

(12)

The sample represented 64 % of the total exports to the
EU of the product concerned from India in the sampling
period (1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007). In accordance
with Article 27 of
the selected
representative
sample
volume of exports that could reasonably be investigated
within the time available.

the basic Regulation,
largest possible

covered the

Requests for the determination of an individual subsidy
margin in accordance with Article 27(3) of the basic
Regulation were submitted by four companies not
selected in the sample. However,
in view of the large
number of requests and the large number of companies
selected in the sample, it was considered that such indi­
vidual examinations would be unduly burdensome within
the meaning of Article 27(3) and would have prevented
completion of the investigation in good time. The claims
for the determination of individual margins by the four
non-sampled companies were therefore rejected.

(13) During the investigation it was identified that two related
companies of two sampled exporting companies did not
produce,
the product
concerned produced during the RIP. They did not
It has
express any intention to do so in the future.
related
therefore

sell domestically

been decided

to exclude

export or

those

companies from the sample and calculation of individual
subsidy margins.

(14)

Companies not selected for the sample were informed
that any anti-subsidy duty on their exports would be
calculated in accordance with Article 15(3) of the basic
Regulation,
i.e. without exceeding the weighted average
amount of countervailable subsidies established for the
companies in the sample.

(15)

The companies that did not make themselves known
within the deadline set in the notice of initiation were
not considered as interested parties.

(16) Questionnaire replies were received from all sampled

exporting producers in India.

(17)

information it
The Commission sought and verified all
deemed necessary for the determination of subsidisation.
Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the
following interested parties:

Government of India (GOI)

— Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi

Exporting producers in India

— Anunay Fab. Limited, Ahmedabad

— Brijmohan Purusottamdas, Mumbai

and Incotex

Impex Pvt Limited, Mumbai

— Divya Global Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

— Intex Exports, Pattex Exports and Sunny Made-ups,

Mumbai

— Jindal Worldwide Ltd, Progressive Enterprise and
Texcellence Overseas, Ahmedabad and Mumbai

— Madhu Industries Limited and Madhu International,

Ahmedabad

— Mahalaxmi Exports and Mahalaxmi Fabric Mills Pvt

Ltd, Ahmedabad

— Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt, Ltd, Mumbai

— Prem Textiles, Indore

— The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd, N W
Exports Limited and Nowrosjee Wadia & Sons
Limited, Mumbai

— Vigneshwara Exports Limited, Mumbai

30.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 350/3

1.5. Disclosure and comments on procedure

(21)

(18)

(19)

The GOI and the other interested parties were informed
of the essential facts and considerations upon which it
was
intended to propose to amend the duty rates
existing
applicable
measures. They were also given a reasonable time to
comment. All submissions and comments were taken
duly into consideration as set out below.

application

continue

and

of

2. PRODUCT CONCERNED

The product under review is bedlinen of cotton fibres,
pure or mixed with man-made fibres or flax (flax not
being the dominant
fibre), bleached, dyed or printed,
originating in India (the product concerned), currently
classifiable
ex 6302 21 00,
ex 6302 22 90, ex 6302 31 00 and ex 6302 32 90, and
as defined in the original investigation.

within

codes

CN

The schemes 1 to 5 above are based on the Foreign
Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992 (No 22
of 1992) which entered into force on 7 August 1992
(Foreign Trade Act). The Foreign Trade Act authorises the
to issue notifications regarding the export and
GOI
import policy. These are summarised in ‘Export and
Import Policy’ documents, which are issued by the
Ministry of Commerce every five years and updated
regularly. One Export and Import Policy document is
i.e. the five-year plan
relevant to the RIP of this case;
relating to the period 1 September 2004 to 31 March
2009 (EXIM policy 04-09). In addition, the GOI also sets
out the procedures governing the EXIM policy 04-09 in a
‘Handbook of Procedures — 1 September 2004 to
(HOP I 04-09). The
31 March 2009, Volume
Handbook of Procedures is also updated on a regular
basis.

I’

3. SUBSIDIES

3.1. Introduction

(22)

The Income Tax Exemptions Scheme is based on the
Income Tax Act of 1961, which is amended yearly by
the Finance Act.

(20) On the basis of the information available and the replies
following

to the Commission’s
schemes allegedly granting subsidies were investigated:

questionnaire,

the

Subsidy schemes investigated in the original investigation:

1. Duty Entitlement Passbook (DEPB) scheme

2. Duty Free Replenishment Certificate (DFRC) sche­
me/Duty Free Imports Authorisation (DFIA) scheme

3. Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) scheme

4. Advance Licence Scheme (ALS)/Advance Authoris­

ation Scheme (AAS)

5. Export

Processing Zones/Export Oriented Units

(EPZs/EOUs)

6. Income Tax Exemptions scheme (ITES)

Subsidy schemes not investigated in the original investi­
gation:

7. Duty Drawback Scheme (DDS)

8. Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (TUFS)

9. Export Credit
shipment) (ECS)

Scheme

(pre-shipment

and post-

(23)

The Duty Drawback Scheme is based on Section 75 of
the Customs Act 1962, Section 37(2)(xvi) of the Excise
Act 1944 and Sections 93A and 94 of the Finance Act
1994. This is a new scheme that has not been previously
investigated.

(24)

The Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme is based on a
Resolution of the Ministry of Textiles, Government of
India, published in the Official Gazette of India Extraor­
dinary Part I Section I on 31 March 1999. This is a new
scheme that has not been previously investigated.

(25)

The Export Credit Scheme is based on sections 21 and
35A of the Banking Regulation Act 1949, which allow
the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to direct commercial
banks in the field of export credits.

(26)

In accordance with Article 11(10) of the basic Regu­
lation, the Commission invited the GOI for additional
consultations with respect to changed and unchanged
schemes, as well as those not previously investigated,
situation as
with the aim of clarifying the factual
regards the alleged schemes and arriving at a mutually
agreed solution. Following these consultations, and in the
absence of a mutually agreed solution in relation to these
schemes, the Commission included all of them in the
investigation of subsidisation.

L 350/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2008

3.2. Specific schemes

3.2.1. Duty Entitlement Passbook (DEPB) scheme

3.2.1.1. L e g a l b a s i s

(27)

The detailed description of the DEPB scheme is contained
in paragraph 4.3 of
the EXIM policy 04-09 and in
chapter 4 of the HOP I 04-09.

3.2.1.2. E l i g i b i l i t y

(28) Any manufacturer-exporter or merchant-exporter

is

eligible for this scheme.

3.2.1.3. P r a c t i c a l

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n

(29) An eligible exporter can apply for DEPB credits which are
the value of products
calculated as a percentage of
exported under
this scheme. Such DEPB rates have
been established by the Indian authorities for most
including the product concerned. They are
products,
determined on the basis of
standard input-output
norms (SIONs), taking into account a presumed import
content of inputs in the export product and the customs
duty incidence on such presumed imports, regardless of
whether import duties have actually been paid or not.

(30)

To be eligible for benefits under this scheme, a company
must export. The exporter must declare that the export is
taking place under DEPB to the Indian authorities at the
time of export. In order for the goods to be exported, the
Indian customs authorities issue an export shipping bill
during the dispatch procedure. This document declares
the amount of DEPB credit which is to be granted for
that export and therefore the exporter knows the benefit
it will receive at that time.

(32) DEPB credits are freely transferable and valid for 12
months from the date of issue. They can be used for
payment of customs duties on subsequent imports of
any goods without
restriction, except capital
goods. Goods imported against such credits can be sold
on the domestic market
tax) or
otherwise used.

to sales

(subject

import

(33) Applications for DEPB credits are electronically filed and
can cover an unlimited amount of export transactions.
to apply for DEPB
De facto no strict deadlines exist
credits. The electronic system used to manage the
DEPB scheme does not automatically exclude export
transactions outside the deadline submission periods
mentioned in chapter 4.47 HOP I 04-09. Furthermore,
as clearly provided in chapter 9.3 HOP I 04-09, appli­
cations received after the expiry of submission deadlines
can always be considered with a minor penalty fee (10 %
on the entitlement).

(34) While the DEPB rates

for exports of
the original

the product
investigation
concerned during the IP of
was 8 %, at
the RIP it was only
3,7 %, which was revised during the RIP to 6,7 % (on
12 July 2007), which was unusually backdated to exports
since 1 April 2007.

the beginning of

3.2.1.4. D i s c l o s u r e c o m m e n t s

(35) GOI and Texprocil alleged that no excess remissions
occurred in the application of the DEPB scheme and
argued that therefore the scheme was not countervailable.
This argument is rejected in the light of the conclusion in
this scheme cannot be considered a
recital 38 that
substitution
system or
permissible duty drawback
of
drawback
the
Article 2(1)(a)(ii) and Annexes I(i),
to the
basic Regulation. Consequently,
the whole amount of
duties foregone is countervailable.

II and III

meaning

system

within

is that which applied at

(31) Once the customs authorities issue an export shipping
bill, the GOI has no discretion over the granting of a
DEPB credit. The relevant DEPB rate to calculate the
the time the export
benefit
declaration is made. An unusual retroactive increase of
the DEPB rates took place during the RIP, increasing the
DEPB benefit for exports from 1 April 2007 to 12 July
2008. However, it is not possible to assume that a retro­
active decrease of DEPB rates could be implemented
under the principle of legal certainty as a negative admin­
istrative decision. Therefore it can be concluded that the
ability of the GOI to retroactively amend the level of the
benefit is limited.

3.2.1.5. C o n c l u s i o n

(36)

The DEPB scheme provides subsidies within the meaning
of Article 2(1)(a)(ii) and Article 2(2) of the basic Regu­
lation. A DEPB credit is a financial contribution by the
GOI, since the credit will eventually be used to offset
import duties, thus decreasing the GOI’s duty revenue
which would be otherwise due. In addition, the DEPB
credit confers a benefit upon the exporter, because it
improves their liquidity.

30.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 350/5

(37)

in law upon export
The DEPB scheme is contingent
performance, and therefore deemed to be specific and
countervailable under Article 3(4)(a) of the basic Regu­
lation.

(38)

(39)

inputs used. Moreover,

This scheme cannot be considered a permissible duty
substitution drawback system
drawback system or
within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(ii) of
the basic
Regulation. It does not conform to the strict rules laid
down in Annex I item (i), Annex II (definition and rules
for drawback) and Annex III
(definition and rules for
to the basic Regulation. An
substitution drawback)
exporter is under no obligation to actually consume
the goods imported free of duty in the production
process and the amount of credit is not calculated in
there is no
relation to actual
system or procedure in place to confirm which inputs
are consumed in the production process of the exported
product or whether an excess payment of import duties
occurred within the meaning of item (i) of Annex I and
Annexes II and III to the basic Regulation. Lastly, an
exporter is eligible for the DEPB benefits regardless of
whether it imports any inputs at all. In order to obtain
the benefit,
for an exporter to simply
export goods without demonstrating that any input
imported. Thus, even exporters which
material was
procure all of their inputs locally and do not import
any goods which can be used as inputs are still entitled
to benefit from the DEPB scheme.

is sufficient

it

3.2.1.6. C a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e s u b s i d y a m o u n t

regard,

it was

the benefit

considered that

In accordance with Articles 2(2) and 5 of the basic Regu­
the amount of countervailable subsidies was
lation,
calculated in terms of
the benefit conferred on the
recipient which was found to exist during the RIP. In
is
this
conferred on the recipient when an export transaction
is made under this scheme. At this moment, the GOI
is liable to forgo the customs duties, which constitutes
of
a
Article 2(1)(a)(ii) of
the basic Regulation. Once the
customs authorities issue an export shipping bill which
shows, inter alia, the amount of DEPB credit which is to
be granted for that export transaction, the GOI has no
discretion as to whether or not to grant the subsidy.
Furthermore,
producers
booked the DEPB credits on an accrual basis as income
at the time of the export transaction.

contribution within

the meaning

cooperating

exporting

financial

the

(41) Where

justified claims were made,

fees necessarily
incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted from the
credits so established to arrive at the subsidy amount as
numerator, pursuant to Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regu­
lation. In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regu­
lation this subsidy amount has been allocated over the
turnover during the review investigation
total export
period as
the appropriate denominator, because the
subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it
was not granted by reference to the quantities manu­
factured, produced, exported or transported.

(42)

Several comments concerning certain details of calcu­
the DEPB were submitted.
lation of benefit under
Where it was found to be justified,
the calculations
were adjusted as a result.

(43)

Contrary to the submission of some exporting producers,
even DEPBS credit generated by exporting products other
than the product concerned had to be considered when
establishing the amount of countervailable DEPBS credit.
Under the DEPBS no obligation exists which limits the
use of the credits to the importation of duty-free input
material
linked to a specific product. On the contrary,
DEPBS credits are freely transferable, can even be sold
and used for imports of any unrestrictedly importable
goods (the input materials of
the product concerned
belong to this category), except capital goods. Conse­
quently,
from all
the product concerned can benefit
DEPBS credits generated.

(44)

Five companies in the sample benefited from the DEPB
scheme during the RIP with subsidy margins ranging
from 0,15 % to 3,96 %.

3.2.2. Duty Free Imports Authorisation (DFIA) scheme/Duty
Free Replenishment Certificate (DFRC) scheme

3.2.2.1. L e g a l b a s i s

(45)

the DFIA is contained in
The detailed description of
chapter 4 of the EXIM policy 04-09 and in chapter 4
of the HOP I 04-09. The scheme was introduced in
1 May 2006 and replaced the DFRC scheme, which
was countervailed by the original Regulation.

(40)

In order to take account of the impact of the backdated
increase in rates, the value of the DEPB credit booked for
exports made between 1 April to 12 July 2007 was
increased where necessary, as the actual benefit
the
companies will be entitled to on receipt of the credit
from the GOI
is higher than formally claimed at the
time of exportation.

3.2.2.2. E l i g i b i l i t y

(46)

The DFIA is issued to any merchant-exporter or manu­
facturer-exporter for the imports of inputs used in the
manufacture of goods for exports free of basic customs
duty, additional customs duty, education cess, anti-
dumping duty and safeguard duty, if any.

L 350/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2008

(47)

(48)

(49)

3.2.2.3. P r a c t i c a l

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n

The DFIA is a post- and pre-export scheme which allows
imports of goods determined according to SION norms,
but which, in case of transferable DFIA, do not have to
be necessarily used in the manufacture of the exported
product.

The DFIA only covers the import of inputs as prescribed
in the SION. The import entitlement is limited to the
quantity and value mentioned in the SION, but can be
revised by regional authorities on request.

The export obligation is subject to the minimum value
addition requirement of 20 %. The exports may be
in
performed in anticipation of a DFIA authorisation,
which case the import entitlement is set in proportion
of the provisional exports.

(50) Once the export obligation is fulfilled, the exporter can
request
the DFIA authorisation,
which in practice means a permission to sell the duty-
free import licence on the market.

the transferability of

3.2.2.4. D i s c l o s u r e c o m m e n t s

(51)

substitution drawback scheme,

the DFRC is a
The GOI and Texprocil alleged that
the
since
legitimate
scheme provides for replenishment of
inputs used in
the exported product and was considered reasonable,
effective and based on the generally accepted commercial
practices in India. Because the quantity, quality and
technical characteristics and specifications match with
inputs used in the export product, the scheme would
be in the view of the GOI and Texprocil permissible
under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures (ASCM). The GOI and Texprocil also argued
that, when assessing whether it is a legitimate substi­
tution drawback scheme,
the relevant condition is to
look at what
is being imported and not who is
importing. It was further argued that in so far as the
Government
is
granted.
It was argued that the scheme was therefore
not countervailable No new evidence was provided to
support these arguments and therefore these arguments
are rejected in the light of the findings under recitals 52
to 55 that neither of the sub-schemes be considered as
substitution
permissible duty drawback systems or
of
drawback
systems
to the
Article 2(1)(a)(ii) and Annexes I(i),
basic Regulation. Consequently,
the whole amount of
benefit is countervailable.

concerned, no additional benefit

II and III

meaning

within

the

is

(53)

(54)

(55)

(56)

the DFRC scheme,
considered as a continuation of
because it takes over the main elements of the DFRC.

Both DFRC and DFIA are subsidies within the meaning
of Article 2(1)(a)(i) and (ii) and Article 2(2) of the basic
Regulation,
i.e. a financial contribution in form of a
grant. They involve a direct transfer of funds, as they
can be sold and converted into cash, or used to offset
the import duties, causing the GOI to forego revenue
which is otherwise due.
the DFRC and
DFIA confer a benefit upon the exporter, because they
improve their liquidity.

In addition,

Both DFRC and DFIA are contingent in law upon export
performance, and therefore deemed to be specific and
countervailable under Article 3(4)(a) of the basic Regu­
lation.

III

for

system

meaning

system or
the

Furthermore, neither of the schemes can be considered a
substitution
permissible duty drawback
drawback
of
within
Article 2(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. They do not
conform to the strict rules laid down in Annex I item
(definition and rules for drawback) and
(i), Annex II
Annex
substitution
rules
and
(definition
drawback) to the basic Regulation. In particular: (i) they
allow for ex post refund or drawback of import charges
on inputs which are consumed in the production process
of another product; (ii) there is no verification system or
procedure in place to confirm whether and which inputs
are consumed in the production of process of
the
exported product or whether excess benefit occurred
within the meaning of point
(i) of Annex I and
Annexes II and III to the basic Regulation; and (iii) the
transferability of certificates/authorisations implies that
an exporter granted a DFRC or DFIA is under no obli­
gation actually to use the certificate to import the inputs.

3.2.2.6. C a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e s u b s i d y a m o u n t

the

the benefit

establishment of

For
it has been
considered that, unlike in DEPB, the DFRC and DFIA
licences have no notional value or credit rates. The
the permitted
licence indicates the total quantity of
inputs to be imported and the maximum total CIF
value of such imports. Consequently, the benefit is not
known at the time of exports, and it can be determined
and booked into accounts only when the licence is used
for importation or sold.

3.2.2.5. C o n c l u s i o n

(52)

Though there are some differences in the application of
the new DFIA scheme, as compared with the formerly
countervailed DFRC scheme, the new DFIA has to be

(57)

in cases where the licences were used for
Therefore,
imports, the benefit for the companies was calculated
on the basis of
the import duties
the amount of
In cases where the licences were transferred
forgone.
(sold),
the benefit was calculated on the basis of
revenue on such sales during the RIP.

30.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 350/7

(58)

investigation established

companies
The
exporting under the DFRC and/or DFIA sold their auth­
orisations/certificates to third parties.

that

five

import
and export quantities under
licence were not exhausted and that

(59) One exporting producer argued that it had used one of
its DFI authorisations as a substitution drawback and that
it did not have excess remissions of duties on imports
under the particular licence. The investigation established
that
that
the
particular
the
licence was not yet closed and verified according to the
rules prescribed by the EXIM policy. Therefore, and
taking into account
it
was concluded that the company could not prove that
no excess remission was incurred under that particular
licence. The whole amount of duties saved on the
imports made under that licence are therefore deemed
a subsidy, and the claim was therefore rejected.

the findings under recital 55,

(60) Where

justified claims were made,

fees necessarily
incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted from the
benefits so established to arrive at the subsidy amount as
numerator pursuant to Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regu­
lation. In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regu­
lation this subsidy amount has been allocated over the
total export
turnover during the review investigation
period as appropriate denominator, because the subsidy
is contingent upon export performance and it was not
granted by reference to the quantities manufactured,
produced, exported or transported.

3.2.3. Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) scheme

3.2.3.1. L e g a l b a s i s

(64)

The detailed description of the EPCG scheme is contained
in chapter 5 of the EXIM policy 04-09 and in chapter 5
of the HOP I 04-09.

3.2.3.2. E l i g i b i l i t y

(65) Manufacturer-exporters, merchant-exporters

to’
supporting manufacturers and service providers are
eligible for this scheme.

‘tied

3.2.3.3. P r a c t i c a l

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n

(66) Under the condition of an export obligation, the GOI
will
issue upon application and payment of a fee an
EPCG licence. This licence allows a company to import
capital goods (new and — since April 2003 — second-
hand capital goods up to 10 years old) at a reduced rate
of duty. Until 31 March 2000, an effective duty rate of
11 % (including a 10 % surcharge) and, in case of high
value imports, a zero duty rate was applicable. From
April 2000, the scheme provided for a reduced import
duty rate of 5 % applicable to all capital goods imported
under the scheme. In order to meet the export obligation,
the imported capital goods must be used to produce a
certain amount of export goods during a certain period.
On 9 May 2008, i.e. outside the RIP, the GOI announced
that
the duty payable on import under EPCG was
lowered to 3 %.

(61)

Several comments concerning certain details of calcu­
lation of benefit under the DFRC/DFIA were submitted.
Where it was found to be justified, the calculations were
adjusted as a result.

(67)

(62)

Contrary to the submission of some exporting producers,
even DFRC/DFIA credit generated by exporting products
other than the product concerned had to be considered
when establishing the amount of countervailable benefit.
No obligation exists under DFRC/DFIA which limits the
use of the credits to the importation of duty-free input
material
linked to a specific product. On the contrary,
DFRC/DFIA credits are freely transferable, can even be
sold and be used for
imports of any unrestrictedly
importable goods (the input materials of the product
concerned belong to this
capital
goods. Consequently, the product concerned can benefit
from all DFRC/DFIA benefit generated.

category),

except

(63)

Four companies in the sample were found to benefit
from these
schemes during the RIP with subsidy
margins ranging from 0,09 % to 2,03 %.

The EPCG licence holder can also source the capital
goods indigenously.
In such a case, the EPCG licence
holder applies for invalidation of its EPCG licence. The
indigenous manufacturer of capital goods specified in the
invalidation letter becomes eligible for deemed export
benefit and is entitled for
the benefit of duty-free
import of components required to manufacture such
capital goods. However, the excise duty payable on a
domestic purchase of
the capital good by the EPCG
licence holder can be refunded or is exempted. The
EPCG licence holder stays liable to fulfil the export obli­
gation, which is set with reference to the notional
customs duties saved on FOB value of the import goods.

3.2.3.4. D i s c l o s u r e c o m m e n t s

(68)

The GOI argued that no benefit occurred in cases where
EPCG licence holder applies for invalidation of its EPCG
licence and purchases the capital goods indigenously, as
issued
no corresponding government
granting exemption from payment of excise duties for
such purchases. However, it was also confirmed by the
GOI that under certain circumstances, the EPCG licence
holder could purchase capital goods without payment of
excise duty, i.e. in cases where this duty would not been

regulation was

L 350/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2008

the Indian Central Value Added Tax
set off under
(Cenvat) credit system. Moreover, the domestic supplier
of capital goods is eligible in such cases for fiscal benefits
which will be reflected in the price of the capital goods
supplied. As this is a benefit that could be obtained on
condition of export, as there are no changes in the
export obligation of the EPCG licence holder in case of
invalidation,
it has been considered that the argument
has to be rejected and the findings remain unchanged.

3.2.3.5. C o n c l u s i o n

The EPCG scheme provides subsidies within the meaning
of Article 2(1)(a)(ii) and Article 2(2) of the basic Regu­
in case of domestic
lation. The duty reduction, or
sourcing,
exemption
taxes or
the
therefrom, constitute a financial contribution by the
GOI, since this concession decreases the GOI’s revenue,
which would be otherwise due.

refund of

the

In addition, the duty reduction confers a benefit upon the
exporter, because the duties saved upon importation
improve its liquidity. In case of excise duty refund/ex­
the refund or exemption from excise duty
emption,
to the exporter, because the duties
confers a benefit
the capital goods improve its
saved on purchase of
liquidity.

to reflect the full value of the benefit over time. The
commercial interest rate during the review investigation
period in India was considered appropriate for
this
purpose. Fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy
were deducted in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of the
basic Regulation from this sum to arrive at the subsidy
amount as numerator. In accordance with Article 7(2)
and 7(3) of the basic Regulation, this subsidy amount
has been allocated over the export turnover during the
RIP as appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is
contingent upon export performance and it was not
granted by reference to the quantities manufactured,
produced, exported or transported.

Several comments concerning certain details of calcu­
the EPCG were submitted.
lation of benefit under
Where it was found to be justified,
the calculations
were adjusted as a result.

Contrary to the submission of some exporting producers,
even EPCG benefit generated by exporting products other
than the product concerned had to be considered when
establishing the amount of countervailable benefit. No
obligation exists under EPCGS which limits the use of
the benefit to the importation of duty-free input material
linked to a specific product. Consequently, the product
concerned can benefit from all EPCG benefit generated.

(74)

(75)

Furthermore, the EPCG scheme is contingent in law upon
export performance, since such licences can not be
obtained without a commitment to export. Therefore, it
is deemed to be specific and countervailable under
Article 3(4)(a) of the basic Regulation.

(76)

Four companies
in the sample benefited from this
scheme during the RIP with subsidy margins ranging
up to 1,45 %, for one company the benefit was found
negligible.

This scheme cannot be considered a permissible system
for remission of prior-stage cumulative indirect taxes or a
permissible duty drawback or
substitution drawback
system within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(ii) of the
basic Regulation. Capital goods are not covered by the
scope of such permissible systems, as set out in Annex I,
items (h) and (i), to the basic Regulation, because they are
not
exported
products. In case of remission of prior-stage cumulative
indirect
the exporters
it should be noted that
would not be entitled to the same remission if they
were not bound by the export obligation.

consumed in the production of

taxes,

the

3.2.4. Advance Licence Scheme (ALS)/Advance Authorisation

Scheme (AAS)

3.2.4.1. L e g a l b a s i s

(77)

The detailed description of the scheme is contained in
paragraphs 4.1.1 to 4.1.14 of the EXIM policy 04-09 and
chapters 4.1 to 4.30 of the HOP I 04-09. This scheme
was called ‘Advance Licence Scheme’ during the previous
review investigation that led to the imposition of the
definitive countervailing duty currently in force.

3.2.3.6. C a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e s u b s i d y a m o u n t

(78)

The subsidy amount was calculated, in accordance with
Article 7(3) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the
unpaid customs duty on imported capital goods or
unpaid/refunded excise duty on domestically purchased
goods, as applicable, spread across a period which reflects
the normal depreciation period of such capital goods. In
accordance with the established practice, the amount so
calculated, which is attributable to the RIP, has been
adjusted by adding interest during this period in order

3.2.4.2. E l i g i b i l i t y

The AAS consists of six sub-schemes, as described in
in recital 79. Those sub-schemes differ,
more detail
inter alia,
in the scope of eligibility. Manufacturer-
exporters and merchant-exporters ‘tied to’ supporting
manufacturers are eligible for the AAS physical exports
and for the AAS for annual requirement. Manufacturer-
exporters supplying the ultimate exporter are eligible for
AAS for intermediate supplies. Main contractors which
supply to the ‘deemed export’ categories mentioned in
paragraph 8.2 of
such as
suppliers of an export oriented unit (EOU), are eligible

the EXIM policy 04-09,

(69)

(70)

(71)

(72)

(73)

30.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 350/9

for AAS deemed export. Finally, intermediate suppliers to
manufacturer-exporters are eligible for ‘deemed export’
benefits under the sub-schemes Advance Release Order
(ARO) and back-to-back inland letter of credit.

3.2.4.3. P r a c t i c a l

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n

(79) Advance authorisations can be issued for:

physical exports: this is the main sub-scheme. It allows for
duty-free import of input materials for the production of
a specific resultant export product.
in this
context means that
the export product has to leave
Indian territory. Import allowance and export obligation,
including the type of export product are specified in the
licence;

‘Physical’

annual requirement: such an authorisation is not linked to
a specific export product, but to a wider product group
(e.g. chemical and allied products). The licence holder can
— up to a certain value threshold set by its past export
performance — import duty-free any input to be used in
manufacturing any of
the items falling under such a
It can choose to export any resultant
product group.
product
falling under the product group using such
duty-exempt material;

intermediate supplies: this sub-scheme covers cases where
two manufacturers intend to produce a single export
product and divide the production process. The manu­
facturer-exporter produces the intermediate product.
It
can import duty-free input materials and can obtain for
intermediate supplies. The
this purpose an AAS for
ultimate exporter finalises the production and is obliged
to export the finished product;

deemed exports: this sub-scheme allows a main contractor
to import
inputs free of duty which are required in
manufacturing goods to be sold as ‘deemed exports’ to
the categories of customers mentioned in paragraph
8.2(b) to (f), (g), (i) and (j) of the EXIM policy 04-09.
According to the GOI, deemed exports refer to those
transactions in which the goods supplied do not leave
supply is
the country. A number of categories of
regarded as deemed exports provided the goods are
manufactured in India, e.g. supply of goods to an EOU
or to a company situated in a special economic zone
(SEZ);

ARO: the AAS holder intending to source the inputs
in lieu of direct import, has
from indigenous sources,

the option to source them against AROs. In such cases
the Advance Authorisations are validated as AROs and
are endorsed to the indigenous supplier upon delivery of
the items specified therein. The endorsement of the ARO
entitles the indigenous supplier to the benefits of deemed
exports as set out in paragraph 8.3 of the EXIM policy
04-09 (i.e. AAS for intermediate supplies/deemed export,
deemed export drawback and refund of terminal excise
duty). The ARO mechanism refunds taxes and duties to
the supplier instead of refunding the same to the ultimate
exporter in the form of drawback/refund of duties. The
refund of taxes/duties is available both for indigenous
inputs as well as imported inputs;

back-to-back inland letter of credit: this sub-scheme again
covers indigenous supplies to an Advance Authorisation
holder. The holder of an Advance Authorisation can
approach a bank for opening an inland letter of credit
in favour of an indigenous supplier. The authorisation
will be invalidated by the bank for direct import, only
items being
the value and volume of
in respect of
sourced indigenously instead of importation. The indi­
genous
supplier will be entitled to deemed export
benefits as set out in paragraph 8.3 of the EXIM policy
04-09 (i.e. AAS for intermediate supplies/deemed export,
deemed export drawback and refund of terminal excise
duty).

It was established that during the RIP two cooperating
exporters availed of benefits from two of
the sub-
schemes above, linked to the product concerned, i.e. (i)
ALS/AAS physical exports and (ii) ALS for intermediate
supplies. It was therefore not necessary to establish the
countervailability of the remaining sub-schemes.

Following the imposition of the definitive countervailing
duty currently in force, the GOI modified the verification
system applicable to ALS/AAS. For verification purposes
by the Indian authorities, an Advance Authorisation
holder is legally obliged to maintain ‘a true and proper
account of consumption and utilisation of duty-free
imported/domestically procured goods’
in a specified
format (chapters 4.26, 4.30 and Appendix 23 HOP I
04-09), i.e. an actual consumption register. This register
has to be verified by an external chartered accoun­
tant/cost and works accountant who issues a certificate
stating that the prescribed registers and relevant records
have been examined and the information furnished under
Appendix 23 is true and correct in all respects. Never­
theless, the aforesaid provisions apply only to Advance
Authorisations issued on or after 13 May 2005. For all
Advance Authorisations or Advance Licenses
issued
before that date, holders are requested to follow the
previously applicable verification provisions, i.e. to keep
a true and proper account of licence-wise consumption
and utilisation of imported goods in the specified format
of Appendix 18 (chapter 4.30 and Appendix 18 HOP I
02-07).

(80)

(81)

L 350/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2008

(82)

and the

export obligation are

In regard to the sub-schemes used during the RIP by the
two exporting producers in the sample,
i.e. physical
exports and intermediate supplies, both the import
allowance
fixed in
volume and value by the GOI and are documented on
the licences. In addition, at the time of import and of
export, the corresponding transactions are to be docu­
mented by Government officials on the licence. The
volume of
is
determined by the GOI on the basis of standard input-
output norms (SIONs). SIONs exist for most products,
including the product concerned and are published in the
HOP II 04-09.

allowed under

imports

scheme

this

(83)

Imported input materials are not transferable and have to
be used to produce the resultant export product. The
export obligation must be fulfilled within a prescribed
time frame after issuance of
the licence (24 months
with two possible extensions of 6 months each).

(84)

(85)

3.2.4.4. D i s c l o s u r e c o m m e n t s

It was argued that

The GOI alleged that it had a proper verification system
for the scheme according to Appendix 23 of the HOP I
04-09, and that no excess remissions occurred in appli­
cation of ALS/AAS.
therefore the
scheme was not countervailable. No new evidence was
provided support
these allegations and therefore this
argument is rejected in the light of the findings that
neither of the sub-schemes be considered as permissible
duty drawback systems or substitution drawback systems
within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(ii) and Annexes II
and III to the basic Regulation, as there was no proper
verification system.

Furthermore, according to Annex II(II)(5) and Annex
III(II)(3)
to the basic Regulation, where it has been
found that there is no proper verification system, this
may be overcome by carrying out a further examination
by the exporting country to prove whether an excess
payment occurred. As no such examinations were
carried out before the verification visits, as well as it
was not proven that no excess payments were received,
the arguments are rejected.

performance, and therefore deemed to be specific and
countervailable under Article 3(4)(a) of the basic Regu­
lation. Without an export commitment a company
cannot obtain benefits under these schemes.

(88) Neither of the two sub-schemes used in the present case,
intermediate
ALS/AAS physical exports and ALS for
supply, can be considered as permissible duty drawback
systems or substitution drawback systems within the
meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(ii) of
the basic Regulation.
They do not conform to the strict rules laid down in
(definition and rules for
Annex I
drawback) and Annex III (definition and rules for substi­
tution drawback) to the basic Regulation.

item (i), Annex II

(89) As regards the exporting producer that used AAS, the
investigation established that
the new verification
requirements stipulated by the Indian authorities had
not yet been tested in practice since the licenses had
not been closed by the time of verification, and
therefore had not been verified according to the rules
prescribed by the EXIM policy. Therefore, that company
could not prove that no excess remission was incurred
under that particular licence. The whole amount of duties
saved on imports made under that licence shall therefore
be deemed a subsidy.

(90)

The GOI did not effectively apply its verification system
or procedure to confirm whether and in what amounts
inputs were consumed in the production of the exported
product (Annex II(II)(4) to the basic Regulation and, in
the case of
substitution drawback schemes, Annex
III(II)(2) to the basic Regulation). The SIONs themselves
cannot be considered a verification system of actual
consumption, since duty-free input materials imported
under authorisations/licenses with different SION yields
are mixed in the same production process
for an
exporting good. This type of process does not enable
the GOI
to verify with sufficient precision what
export
amounts of
production and under which SION benchmark they
should be compared.

consumed in the

inputs were

3.2.4.5. C o n c l u s i o n

(86)

The exemption from import duties is a subsidy within
the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(ii) and Article 2(2) of the
basic Regulation, i.e. a financial contribution of the GOI
which conferred a benefit upon the exporters.

(91)

Furthermore, an effective control done by the GOI based
on a correctly kept actual consumption register either did
In
take place or has not yet been completed.
not
addition, the GOI did not carry out a further examination
based on actual
inputs involved, although this would
normally need to be carried out in the absence of an
effectively applied verification system (Annex II(II)(5)
and Annex III(II)(3) to the basic Regulation).

(87)

In addition, ALS/AAS physical exports and ALS for inter­
mediate supply are clearly contingent in law upon export

(92)

These two sub-schemes are therefore countervailable.

30.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 350/11

3.2.4.6. C a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e s u b s i d y a m o u n t

(97)

Two companies in the sample benefited from ALS or
AAS with the benefit ranging from 0,17 % to 1,74 %.

(93)

(94)

In this respect,

In the absence of a permitted duty drawback system or
substitution drawback system, the countervailable benefit
is the amount of total remitted import duties normally
it is
due upon importation of inputs.
noted that the basic Regulation does not only provide
for the countervailing of an ‘excess’ remission of duties.
According to Article 2(1)(a)(ii) and Annex I(i) to the basic
Regulation only an excess remission of duties can be
countervailed, provided the conditions of Annexes II
and III to the basic Regulation are met. However, these
conditions were not fulfilled in the present case. Thus, if
an absence of an adequate monitoring process is estab­
lished, the above exception for drawback schemes is not
applicable and the normal rule of the countervailing of
the amount of (revenue forgone) unpaid duties, rather
than any purported excess remission, applies. As set
out in Annexes II(II) and III(II) to the basic Regulation
the burden is not upon the investigating authority to
calculate
contrary,
according to Article 2(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation it
only has to establish sufficient evidence to refute the
appropriateness of an alleged verification system.

remission. To the

such excess

In

two sub-schemes used for
the RIP.
during

The subsidy amount was calculated on the basis of
import duties forgone (basic customs duty and special
imported
additional customs duty) on the material
under
the product
the
accordance with
concerned
Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation, fees necessarily
incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted from the
subsidy amount where justified claims were made.
In
accordance with Article 7(2) of
the basic Regulation,
this subsidy amount has been allocated over the export
turnover generated by the product concerned during the
RIP as appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is
contingent upon export performance and was not
granted by reference to the quantities manufactured,
produced, exported or transported.

3.2.5. Export Processing Zones/Export Oriented Units

(EPZs/EOUs)

(98)

It was found that none of the cooperating exporting
producers was located in an SEZS or in an EPZS, or
had a status of EOU. Therefore,
it was found not
necessary to further analyse this scheme in this investi­
gation.

3.2.6. Income Tax Exemptions scheme (ITES)

(99) Under this scheme exporters could avail the benefit of a
partial
income tax exemption on profits derived from
export sales. The legal basis for this exemption was set
by Section 80HHC of the ITA.

(100) This provision was abolished for the assessment year
2005-2006 (i.e.
for the financial year from 1 April
2004 to 31 March 2005) onwards and thus 80HHC of
the ITA does not confer any benefits after 31 March
the cooperating exporting producers
2004. None of
availed benefits under this scheme during the RIP.
It
was therefore not
found necessary to further analyse
this scheme in this investigation.

3.2.7. Duty Drawback Scheme (DDS)

3.2.7.1. L e g a l b a s i s

(101) The scheme is based on Section 75 of the Customs Act
1962, Section 37(2)(xvi) of the Excise Act 1944 and
Sections 93A and 94 of the Finance Act 1994.

(95)

Several comments concerning certain details of calcu­
lation of benefit under the ALS/AAS were submitted.
Where such comments were found to be justified, the
calculations were adjusted accordingly.

3.2.7.2. E l i g i b i l i t y

(102) Any exporter is eligible for this scheme.

(96)

Contrary to the submission of some exporting producers,
even ALS/AAS benefit generated by exporting products
other than the product concerned had to be considered
when establishing the amount of countervailable benefit.
No obligation exists under ALS/AAS which limits the use
of
to the importation of duty-free input
material linked to a specific product. Consequently, the
product concerned can benefit from all ALS/AAS benefit
generated.

the benefit

3.2.7.3. P r a c t i c a l

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n

(103) There are two types of duty drawback rates set by the
GOI — ‘all-industry’ rates applied on a lump-sum basis
to all exporters of a specific product, and ‘brand’ rates
applied on a company basis for products not covered by
‘all industry’ rates. The first type (all-industry rate) is the
one relevant to the product concerned.

L 350/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2008

for

the

(104) The all-industry drawback rates are calculated as a
percentage of the value of products exported under this
scheme. Such all-industry drawback rates have been
established by
various
Indian authorities
including the product concerned. They are
products,
determined on the basis of presumed indirect taxes and
import charges charged on goods and services used in
the manufacturing process of the export product (import
duties, excise duty, service tax etc.), including presumed
indirect taxes and import charges charged on goods and
services for manufacturing the inputs, and regardless of
whether those taxes have actually been paid or not. The
amount of DDS is subject to a maximum value cap of
the export product per unit. If the company can reclaim
some of these duties from the Cenvat system then the
drawback rate is lower.

(105) The duty drawback rates on the product concerned have
been revised several times during the RIP. Until 1 April
2007 the applicable rates were from 6,4 % to 6,9 %
type, until 1 September
depending on the product
2007 from 9,1 % to 9,8 %. On 13 December 2007, i.e.
after the ed of the RIP, the drawback rates were increased
to 10,1 % to 10,3 % and the increase backdated to
imports from 1 September 2007, i.e. within the RIP.

(106) To be eligible for benefits under this scheme, a company
must export. A declaration must be made by the exporter
to the authorities in India indicating that the export is
taking place under the DDS at the time of export. In
order for the goods to be exported, the Indian customs
issue, during the dispatch procedure, an
authorities
export shipping bill. This document shows,
inter alia,
the amount of DDS which is to be granted for that
export transaction. The exporter then knows the benefit
it will receive and books it into accounts as an amount
receivable. Once the customs authorities issue an export
shipping bill, the GOI has no discretion over the granting
of DDS. The relevant DDS rate to calculate the benefit is
the time the export
generally that which applied at
the
increase of
declaration is made. A retroactive
drawback rates took place during the RIP, which was
taken into account
the subsidy
amount.

in the calculation of

3.2.7.4. D i s c l o s u r e c o m m e n t s

(107) Several parties argued that the DDS could not be coun­
tervailed in this investigation because it was not speci­
fically mentioned in the anti-subsidy questionnaires
issued at
investigation. This
the following reasons. The
argument
review according to the notice of
purpose of
subsidisation’, which has
initiation is
conferred benefit on the exporting producers of
the
product concerned,
it includes all subsidy schemes
operated by the GOI.

the beginning of
is rejected for

this
the ‘level of

the

i.e.

(108)

It was argued that the DDS was not contingent on export
performance because the benefit under this scheme did
not relate to the level of exports performed by the
exporters. This argument is rejected, because the benefit
of DDS can be claimed only if the goods are exported,
which is
the criterion of export
contingency laid down in Article 3(4)(a) of the basic
Regulation.
is not
necessary to analyse the argument that the DDS is not
specific in the meaning of Article 3(2) and (3) of the
basic Regulation.

this conclusion,

In the light of

sufficient

to fulfil

it

the procedure for

taxes incurred. However,

set out also in recital 104 above,

(109) The GOI submitted that DDS is a drawback system
compatible with the provisions of the basic Regulation,
setting the all-industry
and that
drawback rates was reasonable, effective and based on
generally accepted commercial practices in the country
of export according to Annex II (II)(4) and Annex III
(II)(2). As
this
procedure involved an industry-wide estimation of the
inputs used in production and import duties and
indirect
this procedure was
not
sufficiently precise even according to the GOI
submission. Indeed, the GOI confirmed that there was
an element of averaging, which would imply that the
actual drawback paid was more than the actual duties
paid. In addition, the GOI did not carry out a further
inputs involved, although
examination based on actual
in the
this would normally need to be carried out
absence of an effectively applied verification system
(Annex II(II)(5) and Annex III(II)(3)), nor did it prove
that no excess
alleged
parallel of the verification to the sampling techniques
set out in the basic Regulation is considered irrelevant,
as they clearly refer to the anti-subsidy investigations and
do not form part of the criteria laid down in Annexes II
and III. Therefore, these arguments are rejected.

remission took place. The

(110)

It was also submitted that no existence of excess
remissions could be presumed from the fact that in the
DDS the GOI did not include all indirect taxes payable in
India into the DDS, but only the central indirect taxes.
This argument is rejected, because according to Annex
II(II)(4) and Annex III(II)(2) excess remissions need to be
assessed in the framework of a particular subsidy scheme.

3.2.7.5. C o n c l u s i o n

(111) The DDS provides subsidies within the meaning of
Article 2(1)(a)(ii) and Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation.
The duty drawback amount is equivalent to government
revenue
that would otherwise have been
collected and paid to the GOI. In addition, the DDS on
exportation confers a benefit upon the exporter.

forgone

30.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 350/13

(112) The DDS is contingent in law upon export performance,
and therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable
under Article 3(4)(a) of the basic Regulation.

(113) Several parties to the proceeding argued that DDS is a
drawback system compatible with the provisions of the
basic Regulation and therefore the benefit conferred
according to it should not be countervailed.

(114) The investigation has established that this scheme cannot
be considered a permissible system for remission of
taxes or a permissible
prior-stage cumulative indirect
duty drawback or substitution drawback system within
the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation.
It does not conform to the strict rules laid down in
(guidelines on
item (h) and (i), Annex II
Annex I
consumption of inputs) and Annex III
(definition and
rules for substitution drawback) to the basic Regulation.
An exporter is under no obligation either (i) to keep an
account of the duties and taxes paid on the imported/
domestically purchased goods or incorporated services or
(ii) to actually consume those goods and services in the
production process, and (iii) the amount of drawback is
not calculated in relation to actual
inputs used by the
exporter and the duties and taxes actually paid.

(115) Moreover, there is no system or procedure in place to
confirm which inputs are consumed in the production
process of the exported product or whether an excess
refund of domestic indirect taxes within the meaning
of item (h) of Annex I and Annex II to the basic Regu­
lation or of import duties occurred within the meaning
of item (i) of Annex I and Annexes II and III to the basic
Regulation.

(116) Finally, an exporter is eligible for the DDS benefits
regardless of whether it imports or purchases domes­
tically any inputs at all, and has paid duties or taxes
on those purchases. In order to obtain the benefit, it is
sufficient for an exporter to simply export goods without
demonstrating that any input material was imported or
that any input material or service was purchased domes­
tically, and import duties or domestic indirect taxes have
been paid. Consequently, there is no difference in the
drawback rate whether a company owns all stages of
production of the inputs and the product concerned or
is a mere exporting trader.

3.2.7.6. C a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e s u b s i d y a m o u n t

(117)

In accordance with Articles 2(2) and 5 of the basic Regu­
the amount of countervailable subsidies was
lation,
the benefit conferred on the
calculated in terms of
In
recipient, which is found to exist during the RIP.
this
is
the benefit
conferred on the recipient when an export transaction
the
is made under this scheme. From that moment,
GOI
to the
is liable to pay the drawback amount
respective exporters, which constitutes a financial contri­

considered that

it was

regard,

bution within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(i) of the
basic Regulation. Once the customs authorities issue an
export shipping bill which shows, inter alia, the amount
of DDS which is to be granted for that export trans­
action, the GOI has no discretion as to whether or not
to grant
the cooperating
exporting producers booked DDS on an accrual basis
as income at the time of each export transaction.

the subsidy. Furthermore,

(118)

exports made

In order to take account of the impact of backdated
increase in rates, the value of the DDS credit booked
to
between
for
30 September 2007 was increased where necessary as
the actual benefit
the companies will be entitled to
receive from the GOI is higher than formally claimed
at the time of exportation.

September

1

(119)

In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation
this subsidy amount has been allocated over the total
export turnover during the review investigation period
as appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is
contingent upon export performance and it was not
granted by reference to the quantities manufactured,
produced, exported or transported.

they have

(120) Seven companies in the sample submitted claims that
although they benefited from the DDS,
they did not
incur any excess remissions, as the taxes or import
duties
accrued exceeded the drawback
amounts. It has been decided to reject these claims. In
recitals 113 and 115 it was concluded that the GOI did
not have an adequate verification system as provided in
Annexes I, II and III to the basic Regulation. The inves­
tigation also showed that companies did not keep any
consumption registers or any other internal reporting
system to account for possible excess remissions. Such
reports were created by the companies during the verifi­
cation visits and largely include the taxes paid by the
companies in general.

(121)

the

systems,

In the absence of permitted duty drawback systems or
substitution drawback
countervailable
benefit is the remission of total amount of drawback
accrued under
the DDS. Contrary to the disclosure
submissions made by the GOI, Texprocil and some
exporters, the basic Regulation does not only provide
for the countervailing of an ‘excess’ remission of duties.
According to Article 2(1)(a)(ii) and Annex I(i) to the basic
Regulation, only an excess remission of duties can be
countervailed, provided the conditions of Annexes II
and III to the basic Regulation are met. However, these
conditions were not fulfilled in the present case. Thus, if
an absence of an adequate verification procedure is estab­
lished, the above exception for drawback schemes is not
applicable and the normal rule of the countervailing of

L 350/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2008

contrary,

remission. To the

the amount of drawback, rather than any purported
excess remission, applies. As set out in Annexes II(II)
to the basic Regulation the burden is not
and III(II)
such
upon the
investigating authority to calculate
to
excess
Article 2(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation it only has to
establish sufficient evidence to refute the appropriateness
of an alleged verification system.
It should further be
noted, that an additional examination by the Indian auth­
orities in the absence of an effectively applied verification
system needs
i.e.
normally before the on-the-spot verification in a counter­
vailing duty investigation.

to be done in a timely manner,

according

(122) Contrary to the submission of some exporting producers,
even DDS benefit generated by exporting non-product
concerned had to be considered when establishing the
amount of countervailable benefit. No obligation exists
under DDS which limits the use of the benefit to a
specific product. Consequently, the product concerned
can benefit from all DDS benefit generated.

fluctuation in foreign currency loans. The programmes
under the scheme differentiate between the textile and
jute sectors, and the powerloom and handloom sector.
TUFS includes the following programmes:

(a) 5 % reimbursement of the normal interest charged by

the lending agency on rupee term loan; or

(b) coverage of 5 % exchange fluctuation (interest and
repayment) from the base rate on foreign currency
loan; or

(c) 15 % credit linked capital subsidy for the textile and

jute sector; or

(d) 20 % credit linked capital subsidy for the powerloom

sector; or

(123) All companies in the sample benefited from the DDS
scheme during the RIP with subsidy margins ranging
from 1,45 % to 7,57 %.

(e) 5 % interest

reimbursement, plus 10 % capital

subsidy, for specified processing machinery; and

3.2.8. Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (TUFS)

3.2.8.1. L e g a l b a s i s

(124) TUFS was introduced by a Resolution of the Ministry of
Textiles, Government of India, published in the Official
I Section I on
Gazette of
31 March
scheme was
from 1 April 1999 to
approved to be in effect
31 March 2004.
It was extended up to 31 March
2007 and subsequently extended again until the end of
the RIP.

India Extraordinary Part
1999

(Resolution).

The

3.2.8.2. E l i g i b i l i t y

(125) Existing or new producers

in the sector of cotton
textile and jute industry are eligible for

processing,
benefits under this scheme.

3.2.8.3. P r a c t i c a l

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n

(126) The aim of the scheme is to provide support for mod­
ernisation of technology in the textile and jute industry,
including units for processing of fibres, yarns, fabrics,
garments
for
scheme provides
various kinds of benefit
in the form of a capital
interest subsidy or coverage of exchange rate
subsidy,

and made-ups. The

(f) 25 % capital

subsidy on purchase of

the new
machinery and equipment for pre-loom and post-
of
loom operations,
handlooms
quality-control
equipments, for handloom production units.

handlooms/up-gradation

testing

and

and

(127) The investigation established that two companies in the
sample obtained benefit under the TUFS for purchase of
machinery used in production of the product concerned.
Those companies used, respectively, the interest reimbur­
sement loans (scheme (a)) and the 10 % capital subsidy
for processing machinery combined with 5 % interest
reimbursement (scheme (e)).

the borrowers.

(128) The Resolution provides a list of the type of machinery
the purchase of which is subsidised under the TUFS. To
from the TUFS, companies apply to
receive benefit
commercial banks or other
lending agencies, which
the loans to the companies based upon their
grant
own independent assessment of
the credit worthiness
the borrower is eligible for an
of
interest
the commercial
banks refer the claim to a ‘nodal agency’ who subse­
quently releases the benefit amount to the commercial
bank involved. The commercial banks finally credit the
funds so received to the account of the borrower. The
nodal agencies get reimbursement from the Ministry of
Textiles, Government of India. The Government of India
places the required funds at the disposal of the nodal
agencies on a quarterly basis.

subsidy under

the scheme,

If

30.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 350/15

3.2.8.4. D i s c l o s u r e c o m m e n t s

3.2.9. Export Credit

Scheme

(pre-shipment

and

post-

(129) No comments were received from interested parties

regarding this scheme.

shipment) (ECS)

3.2.9.1. L e g a l b a s i s

3.2.8.5. C o n c l u s i o n

(130) The TUFS constitutes a subsidy under the provisions of
Article 2(1)(a)(i) as it involves a direct transfer of funds
by the government in the form of a grant. The subsidy
confers a benefit by decreasing the financing and interest
costs for the purchase of the machinery.

(135) The details of

the Master Circular

in the Master
the scheme are set out
Circular IECD No 02/04.02.02/2006-07 (Export Credit
in Foreign Currency),
IECD No
01/04.02.02/2006-07 (Rupee Export Credit) and the
Master Circular DBOD.DIR(Exp.)No 01/04.02.02/2007-
08 (consolidated for both Rupee and Foreign Currency
export credit) of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), which
was addressed to all commercial banks in India during
the RIP. The Master Circulars are regularly revised and
updated.

(131) The subsidy is deemed to be specific and therefore coun­
tervailable according to Article 3(2)(a) of the basic Regu­
lation since it is specifically provided to an industry or a
group of
including the manufacture of the
product concerned.

industries,

3.2.9.2. E l i g i b i l i t y

(136) Manufacturing exporters and merchant exporters are

eligible for this scheme.

3.2.8.6. C a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e s u b s i d y a m o u n t

(132) The capital subsidy amount was calculated, in accordance
with Article 7(3) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of
the amount saved by the recipient companies on the
purchased machinery,
spread across a period which
reflects the normal depreciation period of such capital
goods. In accordance with the established practice, the
amount so calculated, which is attributable to the RIP,
has been adjusted by adding interest during this period in
order to reflect the full value of the benefit over time.
The commercial
interest rate during the review investi­
gation period in India was considered appropriate for this
In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic
purpose.
subsidy amount has been allocated
Regulation,
over the total
textiles during the RIP as
appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is not
granted by reference to the quantities manufactured,
produced, exported or transported.

turnover of

this

3.2.9.3. P r a c t i c a l

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n

(137) Under this scheme, the RBI mandatorily sets maximum
ceiling interest rates applicable to export credits, both in
Indian rupees or in foreign currency, which commercial
banks can charge an exporter. The ECS consists of two
sub-schemes,
the Pre-Shipment Export Credit Scheme
(packing credit), which covers credits provided to an
exporter for financing the purchase, processing, manufac­
turing, packing and/or shipping of goods prior to export,
and the Post-Shipment Export Credit Scheme, which
provides for working capital loans with the purpose of
financing export receivables. The RBI also directs the
banks to provide a certain amount of their net bank
credit towards export finance.

(133) The

interest

subsidy

calculated,

amount was

the machinery

in
accordance with Article 7(3) of
the basic Regulation,
on the basis of the amount actually repaid during the
RIP to the companies concerned linked to the interest
paid on the commercial loans taken out for the purchase
In accordance with
of
concerned.
Article 7(2) of
subsidy
this
amount has been allocated over the total turnover of
textiles during the RIP as appropriate denominator,
because the subsidy is not granted by reference to the
quantities manufactured, produced, exported or trans­
ported.

the basic Regulation,

(134) Two companies

in the sample benefited from this
scheme during the RIP with subsidy margins ranging
from 0,01 % to 0,31 %.

(138) As a result of the RBI Master Circular exporters can
obtain export
rates
compared with the interest rates for ordinary commercial
credits (cash credits), which are purely set under market
conditions.

at preferential

interest

credits

3.2.9.4. D i s c l o s u r e c o m m e n t s

(139) The GOI claimed that with regard to the ECS the
Commission failed to examine the scheme in the light
of the provisions of Annex I point (k) to the Agreement
on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) and
argued that export credits, both in Indian rupees or in
foreign currency, were not countervailable, especially as
in foreign currency loans the banks were allowed to
borrow funds at ‘internationally competitive rates’.

L 350/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2008

(140)

It should be noted that the export credit schemes referred
to under recital 135 do not fall within the application of
Annex I point (k) to the ASCM, because only export
financing with a duration of two years or more can
normally be regarded as ‘export credits’ in the meaning
of that provision since this is the definition of the OECD
Arrangement on Guidelines
for Officially Supported
Export Credits. Therefore this argument is rejected.

3.2.9.5. C o n c l u s i o n

(141) The preferential interest rates of an ECS credit set by the
RBI Master Circulars mentioned in recital 135 can
decrease interest costs of an exporter as compared with
credit costs purely set by market conditions and confer in
this case a benefit in the meaning of Article 2(2) of the
basic Regulation on such exporter. Export financing is
not per se more secure than domestic financing.
In
fact, it is usually perceived as being more risky and the
extent of security required for a certain credit, regardless
of the finance object, is a purely commercial decision of
a given commercial bank. Rate differences with regard to
different banks are the result of the methodology of the
RBI to set maximum lending rates for each commercial
bank individually. In addition, commercial banks would
not be obliged to pass through to borrowers of export
financing any more advantageous interest rates for export
credits in foreign currency.

it

context,

functions illustrated in points (i),

(142) Despite the fact that the preferential credits under the
ECS are granted by commercial banks, this benefit is a
financial contribution by a government within the
meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(iv) of the basic Regulation.
In this
should be noted that neither
Article 2(1)(a)(iv) of the basic Regulation nor the WTO
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
(ASCM) require a charge on the public accounts, e.g.
reimbursement of the commercial banks by the GOI,
to establish a subsidy, but only government direction
(ii) or
to carry out
(iii) of Article 2(1)(a) of the basic Regulation. The RBI
is a public body and falls therefore under the definition
of a ‘government’ as set out in Article 1(3) of the basic
Regulation.
is 100 % government owned, pursues
public policy objectives, e.g. monetary policy, and its
management is appointed by the GOI. The RBI directs
private bodies, since the commercial banks are bound by
the conditions it imposes,
inter alia, with regard to the
maximum ceilings for interest rates on export credits
mandated in the RBI Master Circular and the RBI
provisions that commercial banks have to provide a
certain amount of their net bank credit towards export
finance. This direction obliges commercial banks to carry
out functions mentioned in Article 2(1)(a)(i) of the basic
Regulation, in this case loans in the form of preferential
export financing. Such direct transfer of funds in the
form of loans under certain conditions would normally
be vested in the government, and the practice, in no real
from practices normally followed by
sense, differs

It

governments, within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(iv) of
the basic Regulation.

(143) This subsidy is deemed to be specific and countervailable
since the preferential interest rates are only available in
relation to the financing of export transactions and are
therefore contingent upon export performance, pursuant
to Article 3(4)(a) of the basic Regulation.

3.2.9.6. C a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e s u b s i d y a m o u n t

(144) The subsidy amount has been calculated on the basis of
the difference between the interest paid for export credits
used during the RIP and the amount that would have
been payable if the rates for ordinary commercial credits
had been applied. This subsidy amount (numerator) has
been allocated over the total export turnover during the
in accordance with
RIP as appropriate denominator
Article 7(2) of
the
subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it
was not granted by reference to the quantities manu­
factured, produced, exported or transported.

the basic Regulation, because

(145) Several comments concerning certain details of calcu­
lation of benefit under the ECS were submitted. Where
it was
the calculations were
adjusted as a result.

found to be justified,

(146) All companies and groups

in the sample obtained
subsidies from this scheme during the RIP with rates
up to 1,05 %, for one company the benefit was found
negligible.

3.3. Amount of countervailable subsidies

(147) The amount of countervailable subsidies in accordance
with the provisions of the basic Regulation, expressed
the investigated exporting producers
ad valorem,
ranged between 5,2 % and 9,7 %.

for

(148)

In accordance with Article 15(3) of the basic Regulation,
the subsidy margin for the cooperating companies not
included in the sample, calculated on the basis of the
the
weighted average subsidy margin established for
cooperating companies in the sample,
is 7,7 %. Given
that the level of the overall cooperation for India was
high (95 %), the residual subsidy margin for all other
companies was set at the level for the company with
the highest individual margin, i.e. 9,7 %.

30.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 350/17

Subsidy scheme →

DEPBS

DFRC/
DFIA

Company/Group ↓

EPCGS

ALS/AAS

EPZs/EOUs

ITES

ECS

DDS

TUFS

Total

Anunay Fab. Ltd

0,15 %

2,03 %

1,05 %

4,58 %

7,8 %

The Bombay Dyeing and Manufac­
turing Co. Ltd

1,65 %

N W Exports Limited

Nowrosjee Wadia & Sons Limited

Brijmohan Purusottamdas

Incotex Impex Pvt Ltd

Divya Global Pvt Ltd

0,94 %

Intex Exports

Pattex Exports

Sunny Made-Ups

1,45 %

1,74 %

0,11 %

4,15 %

0,31 %

9,4 %

0,94 %

7,39 %

8,3 %

0,04 %

7,26 %

0,08 %

7,57 %

8,2 %

7,6 %

Jindal Worldwide Ltd

1,44 %

1,25 %

0,76 %

4,57 %

8 %

Texcellence Overseas

Madhu Industries Ltd

3,96 %

negl,

1,45 %

5,4 %

Mahalaxmi Fabric Mills Pvt Ltd

Mahalaxmi Exports

0,07 %

7,41 %

0,01 %

7,5 %

Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt, Ltd

1,41 %

1,17 %

0,34 %

6,78 %

Prem Textiles

0,88 %

7,48 %

Vigneshwara Exports Ltd

0,5 %

0,09 %

negl,

0,17 %

0,61 %

3,84 %

9,7 %

8,3 %

5,2 %

4. COUNTERVAILING MEASURES

(149)

In line with the provisions of Article 19 of the basic Regulation and the grounds of this partial
it is established that the level of
interim review stated under point 3 of the notice of initiation,
subsidisation with regard to the cooperating producers has changed and, therefore, the rate of
countervailing duty, imposed by Regulation (EC) No 74/2004 has to be amended accordingly.

(150) The definitive duty currently in force was established on the basis of the countervailing margins, as
the injury elimination level was higher. As the subsidy margins established in this review also did not
exceed the injury elimination level, in accordance with Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation the duties
are determined on the basis of the subsidy margins.

(151) The subsidy margin for company Pasupati Fabrics, which did not form part of this review, was
maintained at the level established in the original investigation, as they were found to benefit from a
subsidy scheme which was not reviewed in this investigation.

L 350/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2008

(152) The companies that were found to be related have been regarded as a single legal entity (group) for
duty collection purposes and hence submitted to the same countervailing duty. The export quantities
of the product concerned during the RIP of those groups were used in order to ensure a proper
weighting.

(153) The sampled company Prem Textiles submitted information during the review investigation showing
that it had changed its name to ‘Prem Textiles (International) Pvt Ltd’. After examining this infor­
mation and concluding that the change of name in no way affects the findings of the present review,
it was decided to grant this request and refer to them as ‘Prem Textiles (International) Pvt Ltd’ in this
Regulation.

(154) Given that the level of the overall cooperation for India was high (95 %), the residual countervailing
duty for all other companies was set at the level for the company with the highest individual margin,
i.e. 9,7 %.

(155) The following duties therefore apply:

Company/group

Rate of duty (%)

Anunay Fab. Limited, Ahmedabad

The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd, Mumbai

N W Exports Limited, Mumbai

Nowrosjee Wadia & Sons Limited, Mumbai

Brijmohan Purusottamdas, Mumbai

Incotex Impex Pvt Limited, Mumbai

Divya Global Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

Intex Exports, Mumbai

Pattex Exports, Mumbai

Sunny Made-Ups, Mumbai

Jindal Worldwide Ltd, Ahmedabad

Texcellence Overseas, Mumbai

Madhu Industries Limited, Ahmedabad

Mahalaxmi Fabric Mills Pvt Ltd, Ahmedabad

Mahalaxmi Exports, Ahmedabad

Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt, Ltd, Mumbai

Prem Textiles, Indore

Vigneshwara Exports Limited, Mumbai

Cooperating companies not in the sample

All other companies

7,8 %

9,4 %

8,3 %

8,2 %

7,6 %

8 %

5,4 %

7,5 %

9,7 %

8,3 %

5,2 %

7,7 %

9,7 %

30.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 350/19

(156) The individual company countervailing duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the
basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during
that investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the average duty
applicable to Annex I companies and the countrywide duty applicable to ‘all other companies’) are
thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in India and produced by the
companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any
other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with its name and
address, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and
shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’.

(157) Any claim requesting the application of these individual company countervailing duty rates (e.g.
following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or
sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission forthwith with all relevant information, in
particular any modification in the company’s activities linked to production and export sales asso­
ciated with e.g.
that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. The
Commission, if appropriate, will, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, amend the Regu­
lation accordingly by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 74/2004 is hereby replaced with the following:

‘Article 1

1.
A definitive countervailing duty is hereby imposed on imports of bedlinen of cotton fibres, pure
or mixed with man-made fibres or flax (flax not being the dominant fibre), bleached, dyed or printed,
ex 6302 21 00 (TARIC codes
classifiable within CN codes
originating
6302 21 00 81 and 6302 21 00 89), ex 6302 22 90 (TARIC code 6302 22 90 19), ex 6302 31 00
(TARIC code 6302 31 00 90) and ex 6302 32 90 (TARIC code 6302 32 90 19).

in India,

currently

The rate of duty applicable to the net, free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, for products

2.
produced by the following companies shall be as follows:

Company

Rate of duty (%)

TARIC additional code

Anunay Fab. Limited, Ahmedabad

The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co.
Ltd, Mumbai

N.W. Exports Limited, Mumbai

Nowrosjee Wadia & Sons Limited, Mumbai

Brijmohan Purusottamdas, Mumbai

Incotex Impex Pvt Limited, Mumbai

Divya Global Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

Intex Exports, Mumbai

Pattex Exports, Mumbai

Sunny Made-Ups, Mumbai

7,8

9,4

9,4

9,4

8,3

8,3

8,2

7,6

7,6

7,6

A902

A488

A489

A490

A491

A903

A492

A904

A905

A906

L 350/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2008

Company

Rate of duty (%)

TARIC additional code

Jindal Worldwide Ltd, Ahmedabad

Texcellence Overseas, Mumbai

Madhu Industries Limited, Ahmedabad

Mahalaxmi Fabric Mills Pvt Ltd, Ahmedabad

Mahalaxmi Exports, Ahmedabad

Pasupati Fabrics, New Delhi

Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt, Ltd, Mumbai

Prem Textiles (International) Pvt Ltd, Indore

Vigneshwara Exports Limited, Mumbai

8

8

5,4

7,5

7,5

8,5

9,7

8,3

5,2

A494

A493

A907

A908

A495

A496

8048

A909

A497

The rate of duty applicable to the net, free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, for products

3.
produced by the companies listed in the Annex, shall be 7,7 % (TARIC additional code A498).

4.
The rate of duty applicable to the net, free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, for products
produced by the companies not specified in paragraphs 2 and 3, shall be 9,7 % (TARIC additional code
A999).

5.

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

The Annex to Regulation (EC) No 74/2004 shall be replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

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 Brussels, 18 December 2008.

For the Council
The President

M. BARNIER

30.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 350/21

ANNEX

‘ANNEX

TARIC Additional Code: A498

Ajit Impex

Alok Industries Limited

Alps Industries Ltd

Ambaji Marketing Pvt Ltd

Anglo French textiles

Anjal Garments

Anjani Synthetics Limited

Aravali

Ashok Heryani Exports

At Home India Pvt Ltd

Atul Impex Pvt Ltd

Balloons

Beepee Enterprise

Bhairav India International

Bunts Exports Pvt Ltd

Chemi Palace

Consultech Dynamics

Cotfab Exports

Country House

Creative Mobus Fabrics Limited

Deepak Traders

Dimple Impex (India) Pvt Ltd

Eleganza Furnishings Pvt Ltd

Emperor Trading Company

Estocorp (India) Pvt Ltd

Exemplar International

Falcon Finstock Pvt Ltd

G-2 International Export Ltd

Gauranga Homefashions

GHCL Ltd

Good Shepherd Health Education & Dispensary

Harimann International Private Limited

Heirloom Collections (P) Ltd

Hemlines Textile Exports Pvt Ltd

Mumbai

Mumbai

Ghaziabad

Ahmedabad

Pondicherry

Ghaziabad

Ahmedabad

Jaipur

New Delhi

New Delhi

Dombivli

New Delhi

Mumbai

Ahmedabad

Mumbai

Mumbai

Mumbai

Mumbai

New Delhi

Mumbai

Mumbai

New Delhi

Mumbai

Tirupur

New Delhi

Hyderabad

Ahmedabad

Ahmedabad

Mumbai

Gujarat

Tamilnadu

Mumbai

New Delhi

Mumbai

L 350/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2008

Himalaya Overseas

Home Fashions International

Ibats

Indian Arts and Crafts Syndicate

Indian Craft Creations

Indo Euro Textiles Pvt Ltd

Kabra Brothers

Kalam Designs

Kanodia Fabrics (International)

Karthi Krishna Exports

Kaushalya Export

Kirti Overseas

La Sorogeeka Incorporated

Lalit & Company

Manubhai Vithaldas

Marwaha Exports

Milano International (India) Pvt Ltd

Mohan Overseas (P) Ltd

M/s. Opera Clothing

M/S Vijayeswari Textiles Limited

Nandlal & Sons

Natural Collection

Oracle Exports Home Textiles Pvt Ltd

Pacific Exports

Petite Point

Pradip Exports

Pradip Overseas Pvt Ltd

Punch Exporters

Radiant Expo Global Pvt Ltd

Radiant Exports

Raghuvir Exim Limited

Ramesh Textiles India Pvt Ltd

Ramlaks Exports Pvt Ltd

Redial Exim Pvt Ltd

S. D. Entreprises

Samria Fabrics

Sanskrut Intertex Pvt Ltd

Sarah Exports

New Delhi

Kerala

New Delhi

New Delhi

New Delhi

New Delhi

Mumbai

Ahmedabad

Mumbai

Tirupur

Ahmedabad

Ahmedabad

New Delhi

Mumbai

Mumbai

New Delhi

Chennai

New Delhi

Mumbai

Coimbatore

Mumbai

New Delhi

Mumbai

Ahmedabad

New Delhi

Ahmedabad

Ahmedabad

Mumbai

New Delhi

New Delhi

Ahmedabad

Indore

Mumbai

Mumbai

Mumbai

Indore

Ahmedabad

Mumbai

30.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 350/23

Shades of India Crafts Pvt Ltd

Shanker Kapda Niryat Pvt Ltd

Shetty Garments Pvt Ltd

Shivani Exports

Shivani Impex

Shrijee Enterprises

S.P. Impex

Starline Exports

Stitchwell Garments

Sumangalam Exports Pvt Ltd

Summer India Textile Mills (P) Ltd

Surendra Textile

Suresh & Co.

Synergy Lifestyles Pvt Ltd

Syntex Corporation Pvt Ltd

Texel Industries

Texmart Import export

Textrade International Private Limited

The Hindoostan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd

Trend Setters

Trend Setters K.F.T.Z.

Utkarsh Exim Pvt Ltd

V & K Associates

Valiant Glass Works Private Ltd

Visma International

VPMSK A Traders

V.S.N.C. Narasimha Chettiar Sons

Welspun India Limited

Yellows Spun and Linens Private Limited

New Delhi

Baroda

Mumbai

Mumbai

Mumbai

Mumbai

Indore

Mumbai

Ahmedabad

Mumbai

Salem

Indore

Mumbai

Mumbai

Mumbai

Chennai

Ahmedabad

Mumbai

Mumbai

Mumbai

Mumbai

Ahmedabad

Mumbai

Mumbai

Tamilnadu

Karur

Karur

Mumbai

Mumbai’