Proposal for a CouncilRegulation amending Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India
Date: 2010-06-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: India, countervailing charge, import, originating product, plastics

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 8.6.2010 
COM(2010)295 final 

2010/0159 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

amending Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on 
imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India  

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This proposal concerns the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 
June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the 
European  Community  ('the  basic  Regulation')  in  the  anti-subsidy  proceeding 
concerning imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India. 

General context 

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

Existing measures in the area of the proposal 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  367/2006  imposing  a  definitive  countervailing  duty  on 
imports  of  polyethylene  terephthalate  (PET)  film  originating  in  India  as  amended  by 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1124/2007  in  relation  to  the  Jindal  Poly  Films  Limited 
(the  applicant  in  the  present  partial  interim  review)  and  as  last  amended  by  Council 
Regulation (EC) No 15/2009. 

Consistency with the other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Consultation of interested parties 

Interested parties concerned by the proceeding have had the possibility to defend their 
interests during the investigation, in line with the provisions of the basic Regulation. 

Collection and use of expertise 

There was no need for external expertise. 

Impact assessment 

This proposal is the result of the implementation of the basic Regulation. 

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

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

Summary of the proposed action 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On 9 September 2009, the Commission initiated a partial interim review limited to the 
level  of  subsidisation  of  the  countervailing  duty  in  force  in  respect  of  imports  of 
polyethylene  terephthalate  (PET)  film  originating  in  India.  The  review  was  initiated 
because the applicant, an exporting producer in India, provided sufficient prima facie 
evidence  -  that  the  circumstances  with  regard  to  subsidisation  on  the  basis  of  which 
measures were established have changed and that these changes are of a lasting nature. 

The  partial  interim  review  investigation  confirmed  that  (i)  the  level  of  subsidisation 
with regard to the concerned co-operating Indian producer has decreased; (ii) the actual 
modalities  of  the  investigated  schemes  and their  countervailiability  have  not  changed 
with respect to the previous investigation. Since it was demonstrated that the applicant 
will continue to receive subsidies in the future of an amount which is less than the one 
determined  in  the  previous  interim  review  investigation,  the  level  of  the  measures 
should be amended to reflect the new findings. The changed circumstances were found 
to be of a lasting nature.  

Therefore, it is proposed that the Council adopts the attached proposal for a Regulation 
so as to amend the duty rate applicable to the concerned co-operating Indian producer. 

Legal basis 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  597/2009  of  11  June  2009  on  protection  against 
subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community.  

Subsidiarity principle 

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

Proportionality principle 

The proposal complies with the proportionality principle because the form of action is 
described  in  the  above-mentioned  basic  Regulation  and  leaves  no  scope  for  national 
decision. 

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

Choice of instruments 

Proposed instruments: regulation. 

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

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Union budget. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
.. 

2010/0159 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

amending Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on 
imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India  

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,  

Having  regard  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  597/2009  of  11  June  2009  on  protection 
against  subsidised  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European  Community1  (‘the 
basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 19 thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

A. PROCEDURE 

I. 

Previous investigation and existing countervailing measures 

(1) 

In  December  1999,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  2597/19992,  the  Council  imposed  a 
definitive  countervailing  duty  on  imports  of  polyethylene  terephthalate  (PET)  film 
('the product concerned') currently falling within CN codes ex 3920 62 19 and ex 3920 
62  90,  originating  in  India.  The  investigation  which  led  to  the  adoption  of  that 
Regulation is hereinafter referred to as the 'original investigation'. The measures took 
the  form  of  an  ad  valorem  countervailing  duty,  ranging  between  3,8  %  and  19,1  % 
imposed  on  imports  from  individually  named  exporters,  with  a  residual  duty  rate  of 
19,1 % imposed on imports of the product concerned from all other companies. The 
investigation period of the original investigation was 1 October 1997 to 30 September 
1998. 

(2) 

In  March  2006,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  367/20063  ('Regulation  (EC)  No  367/2006'), 
the Council, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation, 
maintained  the  definitive  countervailing  duty  imposed  by  Regulation  (EC)  No 
2597/1999  on  imports  of  PET  film  originating  in  India.  The  review  investigation 
period was 1 October 2003 to 30 September 2004. 

1 
2 
3 

OJ L 188, 18.7.2009, p. 93. 
OJ L 316, 10.12.1999, p. 1. 
OJ L 68, 8.3.2006, p. 15. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

In August 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 1288/20064, the Council, following an interim 
review  concerning  the  subsidisation  of  an  Indian  PET  film  producer,  Garware 
Polyester Limited ('Garware'), amended the definitive countervailing duty imposed on 
Garware by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006. 

In  September  2007,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1124/20075,  the  Council,  following  a 
partial  interim  review  concerning  the  subsidisation  of  another  Indian  PET  film 
producer, Jindal Poly Films Limited ('Jindal'), formerly known as Jindal Polyester Ltd, 
amended the definitive countervailing duty imposed on Jindal by Regulation (EC) No 
367/2006. 

In  January  2009,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  15/20096,  the  Council,  following  a  partial 
interim  review  initiated  by  the  Commission  on  its  own  initiative  concerning  the 
subsidisation of five Indian PET film producers, amended the definitive countervailing 
duty imposed on these companies by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006.  

II. 

Existing anti-dumping measures 

(6) 

It should be noted that Jindal Poly Films Limited is subject to an anti-dumping duty of 
0 %.7  

III. 

Initiation of a partial interim review 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

The request for a partial interim review was lodged by Jindal Poly Films Limited, an 
exporting producer from India ('the applicant'). The request is limited in scope to the 
examination  of  subsidisation  as  far  as  the  applicant  is  concerned.  The  applicant  has 
provided prima facie evidence that the circumstances with regard to subsidisation on 
the basis of which measures were established have changed significantly and that these 
changes are of a lasting nature. 

Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence 
existed to justify the initiation of a partial interim review, the Commission announced 
on 9 September 2009, by a notice of initiation published in the Official Journal of the 
European  Union8  ('Notice  of  Initiation'),  the  initiation  of  a  partial  interim  review,  in 
accordance  with  Article  19  of  the  basic  Regulation,  limited  to  the  level  of 
subsidisation to the applicant, with a view to determining whether the measures should 
be removed or amended for the applicant.,  

The partial interim review investigation would also assess the need, depending on the 
review  findings,  to  amend  the  rate  of  duty  currently  applicable  to  imports  of  the 
product concerned from exporting producers in the country concerned not individually 
mentioned  in  Article  1(2)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  367/2006,  i.e.  the  duty  rate  as 
applying to 'all other companies' in India.  

IV. 

Investigation period 

4 
5 
6 
7 
8 

OJ L 236, 31.8.2006, p. 1. 
OJ L 255, 29.9.2007, p. 1. 
OJ L 6, 10.1.2009, p. 1. 
OJ L288, 6.11.2007, p. 1. 
OJ c 215, 9.9.2009, P. 17. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
(10)  The investigation of the level of subsidisation covered the period from 1 April 2008 to 

31 March 2009 ('review investigation period' or 'RIP'). 

V. 

Parties concerned by the investigation 

(11)  The  Commission  officially  informed  the  applicant,  the  Government  of  India  (GOI), 
Du  Pont  Tejin  Films,  Luxembourg,  Mitsubishi  Polyester  Film,  Germany,  Toray 
Plastics Europe, France and Nurell, Italy, which represent a major proportion of Union 
PET film production (hereinafter 'the Union  industry'), of the  initiation of the  partial 
interim  review  investigation.  Interested  parties  were  given  the  opportunity  to  make 
their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in 
the Notice of Initiation. 

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

why they should be heard, were granted a hearing. 

(13)  The written and oral comments submitted by the parties were considered and, where 

appropriate, taken into account. 

(14) 

In order to obtain the information necessary for its investigation, the Commission sent 
a questionnaire to the applicant. In addition, a questionnaire was sent to the GOI. 

(15)  Replies from the questionnaire were received from the applicant and from the GOI.  

(16)  The  Commission  sought  and  verified  all  information  it  deemed  necessary  for  the 
determination of subsidisation. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of 
the applicant and at the premises of the GOI in Delhi.  

VI.  Disclosure and comments on procedure 

(17)  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  rate 
applicable  to  the  applicant.  They  were  given  a  reasonable  time  to  comment.  All 
submissions and comments were taken duly into consideration as set out below. 

B. PRODUCT CONCERNED 

(18)  The  product  covered  by  this  review  is  the  same  product  as  the  one  concerned  by 
Council Regulation (EC) No 367/2006, namely polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film 
falling within CN codes ex 3920 62 19 and ex 3920 62 90 originating in India. 

C. SUBSIDISATION 

1. 

Introduction 

Nationwide Schemes 

(19)  On the basis of the information submitted by the GOI and the other interested parties 
and  the  replies  to  the  Commission’s  questionnaire,  the  following  schemes,  which 
allegedly involve the granting of subsidies, were investigated:  

(a)  Advance  Authorization  Scheme  (formerly  known  as  Advance  Licence 

Scheme); 

EN 

6 

   EN 

(b)  Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme; 

(c)  Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme; 

(d)  Export Credit Scheme. 

  Regional Schemes 

(e)  Package Scheme of Incentives (PSI)  

(20)  The schemes (a) to (c) specified 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 GOI to issue notifications 
regarding the export and 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 relevant to the RIP 
of this case, i.e. the five-year plan 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  31  March  2009,  Volume  I'  ('HOP  I  04-09').  The  Handbook  of  Procedure  is  also 
updated on a regular basis. 

(21)  The Export Credit Scheme specified above under (d) 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. 

(22)  The scheme specified above under (e) is managed by State authorities in India. 

2. 

Advance Authorisation Scheme ('AAS') 

(a)  Legal basis 

(23)  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  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  367/2006  of  the  definitive 
countervailing duty currently in force. 

(b)  Eligibility 

(24)  The  AAS  consists  of  six  sub-schemes,  as  described  in  more  detail  in  recital  (25) 
below.  Those  sub-schemes  differ  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  the  EXIM-policy  04-09,  such  as  suppliers  of  an  export  oriented 
unit ('EOU'), are eligible for AAS deemed export. Eventually, 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. 

(c)  Practical implementation 

EN 

7 

   EN 

(25)  Advance authorisations can be issued for: 

(i)  Physical exports: This is the main sub-scheme. It allows for duty free import of 
input  materials  for  the  production  of  a  specific  resulting  export  product. 
"Physical"  in  this  context  means  that  the  export  product  has  to  leave  Indian 
territory.  An  import  allowance  and  export  obligation  including  the  type  of 
export product are specified in the licence; 

(ii)  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  product  group.  It  can  choose  to  export  any 
resulting  product  falling  under  the  product  group  using  such  duty-exempt 
material; 

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

(iv)  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 the 
country.  A  number  of  categories  of  supply  is  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'); 

(v)  ARO: The AAS holder intending to source the inputs from indigenous sources, 
in lieu of direct import, has 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;  

(vi)  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 in respect of the value and volume of items being 
sourced  indigenously  instead  of  importation.  The  indigenous  supplier  will  be 
entitled  to  deemed  export  benefits  as  set  out  in  paragraph  8.3  of  the  EXIM-

EN 

8 

   EN 

policy  04-09  (i.e.  AAS  for  intermediate  supplies/deemed  export,  deemed 
export drawback and refund of terminal excise duty). 

(26)  The  applicant  received  concessions  under  the  AAS  linked  to  the  product  concerned 
during  the  RIP.  The  applicant  made  use  of  two  of  the  sub-schemes,  i.e.  (i)  AAS 
physical  exports  and  (ii)  AAS  for  deemed  exports.  It  is  therefore  not  necessary  to 
establish the countervailability of the remaining unused sub-schemes. 

(27)  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  accountant/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.  Nevertheless,  the  aforesaid  provisions  apply  only  to 
Advance  Authorisations  issued  on  or  after  13  May  2005.  For  all  Advance 
Authorisations or Advance Licences 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). 

(28)  With  regard  to  the  sub-schemes  used  during  the  RIP  by  the  applicant,  i.e.  physical 
exports and deemed exports, both the import allowance and the export obligation are 
fixed  in  volume  and  value  by  the  GOI  and  are  documented  on  the  Authorisation.  In 
addition, at the time of import and of export, the corresponding transactions are to be 
documented  by  Government  officials  on  the  Authorisation.  The  volume  of  imports 
allowed under the AAS 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.  The  most  recent  changes  in  the  SIONs  for  PET 
film and PET chips, an intermediate product, were revised in September 2005.  

(29) 

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). 

(30)  The scheme as described above has not changed since the last partial interim review 
concerning  subsidisation  for  the  applicant  which  was  concluded  in  January  2009. 
However, the benefit under this scheme has substantially decreased as shown in recital 
(39) below.  

(31)  The current interim review investigation established that the verification requirements 
stipulated by the Indian authorities were not honoured and not yet tested in practice. 
The  applicant  did  not  maintain  a  system  whereby  it  could  be  verified  which  inputs 
were  consumed  in  the  production  of  the  exported  product  and  in  what  amounts,  as 
stipulated  by  the  Foreign  Trade  Policy  (FTP)  2004  to  2009  (Appendix  23)  and  in 
accordance  with  Annex  II(II)(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  The  consumption  register 
was never inspected by the GOI.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

(32)  Changes  in  the  administration  of  the  FTP  2004  to  2009,  which  became  effective  in 
autumn  of  2005  (mandatory  sending  of  the  consumption  register  to  the  India 
authorities in the context of the redemption procedure) has not yet been applied in the 
case of the applicant. Thus, the de facto implementation of this provision could not be 
verified at this stage.  

(d)  Conclusion 

(33)  The  exemption  from  import  duties  is  a  subsidy  within  the  meaning  of  Article 
3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation, i.e. a financial contribution of the 
GOI which conferred a benefit upon the investigated exporters.  

(34) 

In addition, AAS physical exports and AAS for deemed exports are clearly contingent 
in  law  upon  export  performance,  and  therefore  deemed  to  be  specific  and 
countervailable  under  Article  4(4),  first  subparagraph,  point  (a)  of  the  basic 
Regulation.  Without  an  export  commitment  a  company  cannot  obtain  benefits  under 
these schemes. 

(35)  The two sub-schemes used in the present case cannot be considered permissible duty 
drawback  systems  or  substitution  drawback  systems  within  the  meaning  of  Article 
3(1)(a)(ii)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  They  do  not  conform  to  the  rules  laid  down  in 
Annex  I  item  (i),  Annex  II  (definition  and  rules  for  drawback)  and  Annex  III 
(definition and rules for substitution drawback) of the basic Regulation. The GOI did 
not  effectively  apply  either  its  new  or  its  old  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)  of  the  basic  Regulation  and,  in  the  case  of 
substitution drawback schemes, Annex III(II)(2) of the basic Regulation). The SIONs 
for the product concerned were not sufficiently precise. The SION's themselves cannot 
be considered a verification system of actual consumption because the design of those 
standard  norms  does  not  enable  the  GOI  to  verify  with  sufficient  precision  what 
amounts  of  inputs  were  consumed  in  the  export  production  In  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).  

(36)  These two sub-schemes are therefore countervailable. 

(e)  Calculation of the subsidy amount 

(37) 

In the absence of permitted duty drawback systems or substitution drawback systems, 
the countervailable benefit is the remission of total import duties normally due upon 
importation of inputs. In this respect, it is noted that the basic Regulation does not only 
provide for the countervailing of an "excess" remission of duties. According to Article 
3(1)(a)(ii) and Annex I(i) of the basic Regulation only when the conditions of Annexes 
II  and  III  of  the  basic  Regulation  are  met  that  the  excess  remission  of  duties  can  be 
countervailed. However, these conditions were not fulfilled in the present case. Thus, 
if  an  adequate  monitoring  process  is  not  demonstrated,  the  above  exception  for 
drawback  schemes  is  not  applicable  and  the  normal  rule  of  the  countervailing  of  the 
amount  of  unpaid  duties  (revenue  forgone),  applies,  rather  than  of  any  purported 
excess remission. As set out in Annexes II(II) and III(II) of the basic Regulation the 
burden is not upon the investigating authority to calculate such excess remission. To 

EN 

10 

   EN 

the contrary, according to Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation, the investigating 
authority only has to establish sufficient evidence to refute the appropriateness of an 
alleged verification system. 

(38)  The  subsidy  amount  for  the  applicant,  which  used  the  AAS,  was  calculated  on  the 
basis  of  import  duties  forgone  (basic  customs  duty  and  special  additional  customs 
duty) on the material imported under the two sub-schemes during the RIP (numerator). 
In accordance with 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 
was  allocated  over  the  export  turnover  of  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. 

(39)  The  subsidy  rate  established  in  respect  of  this  scheme  for  the  applicant  for  the  RIP 

amounts to 0,7 %. 

3. 

Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (‘DEPBS’) 

(a)  Legal Basis 

(40)  The  detailed  description  of  the  DEPBS  is  contained  in  paragraph  4.3  of  the  EXIM-

policy 04-09 and in chapter 4 of the HOP I 04-09.  

(b)  Eligibility 

(41)  Any manufacturer-exporter or merchant-exporter is eligible for this scheme.  

(c)  Practical implementation of the DEPBS 

(42)  An eligible exporter can apply for DEPBS credits which are calculated as a percentage 
of  the  value  of  products  exported  under  this  scheme.  Such  DEPBS  rates  have  been 
established  by  the  Indian  authorities  for  most  products,  including  the  product 
concerned.  They  are  determined  on  the  basis  of  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.  

(43)  To be eligible for benefits under this scheme, a company must export. At the [] time of 
the export transaction, a declaration must be made by the exporter to the authorities in 
India  indicating  that  the  export  is  taking  place  under  the  DEPBS.  In  order  for  the 
goods  to  be  exported,  the  Indian  customs  authorities  issue  an  export  shipping  bill, 
during the dispatch procedure. This document shows, inter alia, the amount of DEPBS 
credit  which  is  to  be  granted  for  that  export  transaction.  At  this  point  in  time,  the 
exporter knows the benefit it will receive. Once the customs authorities issue an export 
shipping  bill,  the  GOI  has  no  discretion  over  the  granting  of  a  DEPBS  credit.  The 
relevant  DEPBS  rate  to  calculate  the  benefit  is  that  which  applied  at  the  time  the 
export declaration is made.  

(44)  DEPBS  credits  are  freely  transferable  and  valid  for  a  period  of  12  months  from  the 
date of issue. They can be used for payment of customs duties on subsequent imports 

EN 

11 

   EN 

of any goods unrestrictedly importable, except capital goods. Goods imported against 
such  credits  can  be  sold  on  the  domestic  market  (subject  to  sales  tax)  or  used 
otherwise. 

(45)  Application  for  DEPBS  credits  are  electronically  filed  and  can  cover  an  unlimited 
amount  of  export  transactions.  De  facto  no  strict  deadlines  apply  to  DEPBS  credits. 
The electronic system used to manage DEPBS does not automatically exclude export 
transactions exceeding the deadline submission periods mentioned in chapter 4.47 of 
the HOP I 04-09. Furthermore, as clearly provided in chapter 9.3 of the HOP I 04-09, 
applications  received  after  the  expiry  of  submission  deadlines  can  always  be 
considered with the imposition of a minor penalty fee (i.e. 10 % of the entitlement). 

(46) 

It was found that the applicant used this scheme during the RIP. 

(d)  Conclusions on the DEPBS 

(47)  The  DEPBS  provides  subsidies  within  the  meaning  of  Article  3(1)(a)(ii)  and  Article 
3(2) of the basic Regulation. A DEPBS 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  otherwise  be  due.  In  addition,  the  DEPBS  credit 
confers a benefit upon the exporter, because it improves its liquidity. 

(48)  Furthermore, the DEPBS is contingent in law upon export performance, and therefore 
deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 4(4), first subparagraph, point 
(a) of the basic Regulation. 

(49)  This scheme cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system or substitution 
drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(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 substitution drawback) 
of  the  basic  Regulation.  An  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 relation to actual inputs used. 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 payment of import duties occurred within the 
meaning  of  item  (i)  of  Annex  I,  and  Annexes  II  and  III,  of  the  basic  Regulation. 
Lastly, an exporter is eligible for the DEPBS benefits regardless of whether it imports 
any inputs at all. In order to obtain the benefit, it is sufficient for an exporter to simply 
export goods without demonstrating that any input material was imported. Thus, even 
exporters which 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 DEPBS.  

(e)  Calculation of the subsidy amount 

(50) 

In  accordance  with  Articles  3(2)  and  5  of  the  basic  Regulation  and  the  calculation 
methodology  used  for  this  scheme  in  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  367/2006,  the 
amount  of  countervailable  subsidies  was  calculated  in  terms  of  the  benefit  conferred 
on the recipient found to exist during the RIP. In this regard, it was considered that the 
benefit is conferred on the recipient at the point in time when an export transaction is 
made  under  this  scheme.  At  this  moment,  the  GOI  is  liable  to  forego  the  customs 
duties,  which  constitutes  a  financial  contribution  within  the  meaning  of  Article 
3(1)(a)(ii)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  Once  the  customs  authorities  issue  an  export 

EN 

12 

   EN 

shipping  bill  which  shows,  inter  alia,  the  amount  of  DEPBS  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,  the  co-operating  exporting  producer  booked  the 
DEPBS credits on an accrual basis as income.  

(51)  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 Regulation. In accordance with Article 7(2) of 
the basic Regulation this subsidy amount has been allocated over the export turnover 
of  the  product  concerned  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. 

(52)  The  subsidy  rate  established  in  respect  of  this  scheme  for  the  applicant  for  the  RIP 

amounts to 5,1 %. 

4. 

Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (‘EPCGS’)  

(a)  Legal basis 

(53)  The detailed description of the EPCGS is contained in chapter 5 of the EXIM-policy 

04-09 and in chapter 5 of the HOP I 04-09. 

(b)  Eligibility 

(54)  Manufacturer-exporters,  merchant-exporters  "tied  to"  supporting  manufacturers  and 

service providers are eligible for this scheme.  

(c)  Practical implementation 

(55)  Under  the  condition  of  an  export  obligation,  a  company  is  allowed  to  import  capital 
goods (new and -since April 2003- second-hand capital goods up to 10 years old) at a 
reduced rate of duty. To this end, the GOI issues, upon application and payment of a 
fee, an EPCGS licence. Since April 2000, the scheme provides for  a reduced  import 
duty rate of 5 % applicable to all capital goods imported under the scheme. 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.  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.  

(56)  The  EPCGS  licence  holder  can  also  source  the  capital  goods  indigenously.  In  such 
case, the indigenous manufacturer of capital goods may avail himself of the benefit for 
duty  free  import  of  components  required  to  manufacture  such  capital  goods. 
Alternatively, the indigenous manufacturer can claim the benefit of deemed export in 
respect of supply of capital goods to an EPCGS licence holder. 

(57) 

It was found that the applicant used this scheme during the RIP. 

(d)  Conclusion on EPCG Scheme 

EN 

13 

   EN 

(58)  The  EPCGS  provides  subsidies  within  the  meaning  of  Article  3(1)(a)(ii)  and  Article 
3(2) of the basic Regulation. The duty reduction constitutes a financial contribution by 
the  GOI,  since  this  concession  decreases  the  GOI’s  duty  revenue,  which  would 
otherwise be due. In addition, the duty reduction confers a benefit upon the exporter, 
because the duties saved upon importation improve its liquidity. 

(59)  Furthermore,  the  EPCGS  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 4(4), first subparagraph,  point (a) of 
the basic Regulation.  

(60)  This scheme cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system or substitution 
drawback  system  within  the  meaning  of  Article  3(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,  item  (i),  of  the  basic  Regulation,  because  they  are  not  consumed  in  the 
production of the exported products. 

(e)  Calculation of the subsidy amount 

(61)  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 spread 
across a period which reflects the normal depreciation period of such capital goods in 
the  industry  concerned.  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  investigation  period  in  India  was 
considered  appropriate  for  this  purpose.  Where  justified  claims  were  made,  fees 
necessarily  incurred  to  obtain  the  subsidy  were  deducted  in  accordance  with  Article 
7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation.  

(62)  The applicant claimed that capital goods imported duty-free under the EPCG scheme 
used in the unit located in Khanvel were no longer in use and that the benefit relating 
to such goods should not be included in the numerator. In reply to this, it is noted that 
the  applicant  has  already  received  the  benefit  relating  to  these  capital  goods.  In 
addition, as there is no evidence that the applicant no longer possesses such goods or 
that it will not use them again, the claim has to be rejected. 

(63) 

In accordance with Article 7(2) and 7(3) of the basic Regulation, this subsidy amount 
has been allocated over the export turnover of the product concerned during the RIP as 
the  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. 

(64)  The  subsidy  rate  established  in  respect  of  this  scheme  for  the  applicant  for  the  RIP 

amounts to 2,3 %. 

5. 

Export Credit Scheme (‘ECS’)  

(a) Legal basis 

(65)  The details of the scheme are set out in the Master Circular DBOD No. DIR.(Exp).BC 
01/04.02.02/2007-08  (Rupee/Foreign  Currency  Export  Credit)  and  Master  Circular 

EN 

14 

   EN 

DBOD  No.  DIR.(Exp).BC  09/04.02.02/2008-09  (Rupee/Foreign  Currency  Export 
Credit)  of  the  Reserve  Bank  of  India  (‘RBI’),  which  is  addressed  to  all  commercial 
banks in India. 

(b) Eligibility 

(66)  Manufacturing exporters and merchant exporters are eligible for this scheme.  

(c) Practical implementation 

(67)  Under  this  scheme,  the  RBI  mandatorily  sets  maximum  ceiling  interest  rates 
applicable  to  export  credits,  both  in  Indian  rupees  and  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, manufacturing, 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. 

(68)  As  a  result  of  the  RBI  Master  Circulars  exporters  can  obtain  export  credits  at 
preferential interest rates as compared with the interest rates for ordinary commercial 
credits ("cash credits"), which are solely set under market conditions. The difference 
in  rates  might  decrease  for  companies  with  good  credit  ratings.  In  fact,  high  rating 
companies might be in a position to obtain export credits and cash credits at the same 
conditions.  

(69) 

It was found that the applicant used this scheme during the RIP. 

(d)  Conclusion on the ECS 

(70)  The  preferential  interest  rates  of  an  ECS  credit  set  by  the  RBI  Master  Circulars 
mentioned  in  recital  (65)  can  decrease  the  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 3(2) of the basic Regulation on such an 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.  

(71)  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  3(1)(a)(iv)  of  the  Regulation.  In  this  context,  it  should  be  noted  that  neither 
Article  3(1)(a)(iv)  of  the  basic  Regulation  nor  the  Agreement  on  Subsidies  and 
Countervailing Measures 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 to carry out functions illustrated in points (i), (ii) or (iii) of Article 3(1)(a) of 
the basic Regulation. The RBI is a public body and falls therefore under the definition 
of  "government"  as  set  out  in  Article  2(b)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  It  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,  within  the 

EN 

15 

   EN 

meaning of the second indent of Article 3(1)(a)(iv) of the basic Regulation, 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 
Circulars  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  3(1)(a)(i)  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  in  this  case  provide  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 differs, in no real sense, from 
practices normally followed by governments, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(iv) 
of  the  basic  Regulation.  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 4(4), first subparagraph, point (a) of the basic Regulation. 

(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount 

(72)  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  for  ordinary  commercial  credits  used  by  the  applicant.  This  subsidy 
amount (numerator) has been allocated over the total export turnover during the RIP as 
the appropriate denominator in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, 
because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by 
reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.  

(73)  The  subsidy  rate  established  in  respect  of  this  scheme  for  the  applicant  for  the  RIP 

amounts to 0,2%. 

8. 

PACKAGE SCHEME OF INCENTIVES (PSI) 

(a) Legal basis 

(74) 

In previous investigations regarding PET film, including the review investigation that 
led  to  the  imposition  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  367/2006  of  the  definitive 
countervailing  duty  currently  in  force,  several  Indian  State  schemes  involving 
incentives granted to local companies were investigated. The State schemes fall under 
the  heading  'Package  Scheme  of  Incentives'  (PSI),  as  there  can  be  different  kinds  of 
incentives  involved.  The  investigation  established  that  a  company's  entitlement  to 
benefits under the scheme is stipulated in the 'Eligibility Certificate'.  

(75)  The Package Scheme of Incentives  (PSI) of the Government of Maharashtra (GOM) 
has been amended several times since its introduction. The applicant continues to avail 
itself  of  benefits  under  the  PSI  '1993  Scheme'  and  not  under  successor  schemes. 
Consequently, only the PSI 1993 was assessed in the context of the case at hand. 

(76)  The Sales Tax Remission Scheme of the Government of West Bengal provides for the 
remission of Central Sales Tax. The investigation revealed that the applicant enjoyed 
trade  tax  (Central  Sales  Tax)  exemption  under  the  PSI  of  the  Government  of  West 
Bengal in respect of its purchases. This tax provision excuses home-market sales by a 
company from payment of sales tax (both local sales tax and central sales tax). 

(b) Eligibility 

EN 

16 

   EN 

(77) 

In order to be eligible, companies must as a general rule invest in less developed areas 
of a state either by setting up a new industrial establishment or by making a large scale 
capital 
industrial 
establishment.  The  main  criterion  to  establish  the  amount  of  incentives  is  the 
classification of the area in which the enterprise is or will be located and the size of the 
investment. 

in  expansion  or  diversification  of  an  existing 

investment 

(c) Practical implementation 

(78)  Under the sales tax exemption schemes, designated units were not required to collect 
any  sales  tax  on  their  sales  transactions.  Similarly,  designated  units  were  exempted 
from the payment of sales tax on their purchases of goods from suppliers eligible for 
the schemes. Whereas the exemption in relation to sales transaction is not considered 
to  confer  any  benefit  on  the  designated  sales  units,  the  exemption  in  relation  to 
purchase  transactions,  however,  does  confer  a  benefit  on  the  designated  purchasing 
units. 

(79)  Exemption  of  sales  tax  on  purchases  within  the  State  of  Maharashtra  (which  was 
earlier exempted under the Maharashtra Sales Tax Exemption Scheme of Incentives) is 
no  longer  available.  In  April  2005  the  sales  tax  legislation  for  intra-State  sales  in 
Maharashtra was replaced by a value added tax (VAT) system. With effect from April 
2005, the applicant, as a non-exempt unit, has to purchase materials by paying VAT. 

(d) Conclusion 

(80)  As regards the PSI 1993 of the GOM, the applicant only accrued remission rights of 
sales tax on sales of finished goods during the RIP, which in the past has been found 
not  to  confer  a  benefit  on  the  recipient  (recital  114  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
367/2006). Therefore, no countervailable benefit was found under the PSI 1993 of the 
GOM.  

(81)  However, as regards the applicant's purchases from companies not located in the State 
of  Maharashtra  of  raw  materials  without  the  payment  of  Central  Sales  Tax,  the  PSI 
provides  subsidies  within  the  meaning  of  Article  3(1)(a)(ii)  and  Article  3(2)  of  the 
basic Regulation. The exemption from payment of sales taxes on purchases constitutes 
a  financial  contribution,  since  this  concession  decreases  the  Government's  revenue 
which would otherwise be due. In addition, this exemption confers a benefit upon the 
companies as it improves their liquidity. 

(82)  The  PSI  is  only  available  to  companies  having  invested  within  certain  designated 
geographical  areas  within  the  jurisdiction  of  a  State  in  India.  It  is  not  available  for 
companies located outside these areas. The level of benefit is different according to the 
area concerned. The scheme is therefore specific in accordance with Article 4(2), first 
subparagraph,  point  (a)  and  Article  4(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation  and  therefore 
countervailable. 

(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount 

(83)  Concerning the sales tax exemption, the subsidy amount was calculated on the basis of 

the amount of the sales tax normally due during the RIP but which remained unpaid. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

(84)  Pursuant  to  Article  7(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  amount  of  subsidy  (numerator) 
has then been allocated over the total turnover of export and domestic sales during the 
review investigation period as the appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is not 
export-contingent and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, 
produced, exported or transported.  

(85)  The  subsidy  rate  established  in  respect  of  this  scheme  for  the  applicant  for  the  RIP 

amounts to 0,1 %. 

9. 

AMOUNT OF COUNTERVAILABLE SUBSIDIES 

(86) 

It  is  recalled  that  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1124/2007,  amending  Council 
Regulation (EC) No 367/2006, established the amount of countervailable subsidies for 
the applicant, expressed ad valorem, at 17,1%.  

(87)  During the present partial interim review, the amount of countervailable subsidies for 
the applicant, expressed ad valorem, was found to be 8,4%, as listed hereunder: 

SCHEME→ 

AAS(*)  DEPBS(*) EPCGS(*) ECS(*) PSI  Total 

COMPANY↓ 

 % 

%  

Jindal 
Poly 
Films Limited 

0,7 

5,1 

%  

2,3 

%  

%   %  

0,2 

0,1 

8,4 

(*) Subsidies marked with an asterisk are export subsidies 

(88)  Account taken of the above it is concluded that the level of subsidisation with regard 

to the exporting producer concerned has decreased. 

10. 

COUNTERVAILING MEASURES 

(89) 

It was also examined whether the changed circumstances with regard to the examined 
schemes could be considered to be of a lasting nature. In this respect, several elements 
would suggest that this is the case. 

(90)  Firstly,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  findings  in  this  partial  interim  review  are  in  line 
with the subsidy amounts established for five Indian PET film producers in the partial 
interim  review  published  in  January  2009,  where  the  amount  of  countervailable 
subsidies, expressed ad valorem, were found to be ranging from 5,4% to 8,6%. This is 
an indication of certain constancy in the level of subsidisation existing in India for this 
product.  

(91)  Secondly, while in the previous investigation the main benefit was conferred under the 
AAS,  the  benefit  under  this  scheme  has  dropped  significantly  during  the  RIP  and 
evidence has been obtained that this continued to be the case also after the RIP 

(92)  On the basis of the above there seems to be indications that the applicant will continue 
to receive subsidies in the future of an amount which is less than the one determined in 
the previous partial interim review investigation. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

(93)  Since  it  has  been  demonstrated  that  the  applicant  is  in  receipt  of  much  lesser 
subsidisation  than  before  and  that  it  is  likely  to  continue  to  receive  subsidies  of  an 
amount  which  is  less  than  determined  in  the  previous  partial  interim  review 
investigation, the level of the measure should therefore be amended to reflect the new 
findings. 

(94) 

In  view  of  the  above,  the  amended  countervailing  duty  rate  should  be  established  at 
the  new  rate  of  subsidisation  found  during  the  present  partial  interim  review,  as  the 
injury margin calculated in the original anti-subsidy investigation remains higher. 

(95)  Pursuant  to  Article  24(1),  second  subparagraph  of  the  basic  Regulation  and  Article 
14(1)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1225/20099,  no  product  shall  be  subject  to  both  anti-
dumping and countervailing duties for the purpose of dealing with one and the same 
situation arising from dumping or from export subsidisation. However, as mentioned 
in recital (6) above, since the applicant is subject to an anti-dumping duty of 0 % with 
regard to the product concerned, these provisions do not apply in the present case. 

(96)  With  regard  to  the  rate  of  duty  currently  applicable  to  imports  of  the  product 
concerned  from  exporting  producers  not  individually  mentioned  in  Article  1(2)  of 
Regulation  (EC)  No  367/2006,  i.e.  the  duty  specified  as  applying  to  'all  other 
companies' in India, it is noted that the actual modalities of the investigated schemes 
and  their  countervailability  have  not  changed  with  respect  to  the  previous 
investigation.  Thus  there  is  no  reason  to  re-calculate  the  subsidy  and  duty  rates  of 
these companies. Consequently, the rates of the duty applicable to all companies other 
than the applicant remain unchanged. 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 shall be replaced by the following: 

"2. 
The  rate  of  the  definitive  countervailing  duty  applicable  to  the  net  free-at-Union-
frontier price, before duty, of the products manufactured by the companies listed below, shall 
be as follows: 

Company 

Definitive duty (%)  TARIC additional code 

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

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

7,2 

5,4 

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

8,4 

9 

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009 p. 51. 

A026 

A028 

A030 

EN 

19 

   EN 

                                                 
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,  Block  C,  Sector  45, 
Greenwood  City,  Gurgaon  122003, 
Haryana, India 

8,7 

8,6 

5,4 

Uflex Limited, A-1, Sector 60, Noida 201 
301 (U.P.), India 

6,4 

All other companies 

19,1 

" 

A031 

A032 

A753 

A027 

A999’ 

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

Article 2 

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

Done at Brussels, […] 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

20 

   EN