Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION terminating the partial interim review of the anti-dumping and countervailing measures applicable to imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India
Date: 2010-10-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: India, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, import, originating product, plastics

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION  

Brussels, 22.10.2010 
COM(2010) 592 final 

2010/0299 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

terminating the partial interim review of the anti-dumping and countervailing measures 
applicable to imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

Context of the proposal 

•  Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This proposal concerns the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on 
protection  against  dumped  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European 
Community1  (‘the  basic  anti-dumping  Regulation’)  and  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
597/2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the 
European  Community2  ('the  basic  anti-subsidy  Regulation')  in  the  proceeding 
concerning  imports  of  certain  polyethylene  terephthalate  (PET)  film  originating  in 
India. 

•  General context 

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

•  Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1292/20073  which  imposed  a  definitive  anti-dumping 
duty on imports of PET film originating in India following an expiry review pursuant 
to  Article  11(2)  of  the  basic  anti-dumping  Regulation,  as  last  amended  by  Council 
Regulation  (EC)  No  15/20094,  and  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  367/20065  which 
maintained  the  definitive  countervailing  duty  imposed  by  Regulation  (EC)  No 
2597/19996  on  imports  of  PET  film  originating  in  India,  as  last  amended  by  Council 
Regulation (EU) No 579/20107. 

•  Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

2. 

Consultation of interested parties and impact assessment 

•  Consultation of interested parties 

Interested parties concerned by the proceeding have had the possibility to defend their 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. 
OJ L 188, 18.7.2009, p. 93. 
OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 1. 
OJ L 6, 10.1.2009, p. 1. 
OJ L 68, 8.3.2006, p. 15. 
OJ L 316, 10.12.1999, p. 1. 
OJ L 168, 2.7.2010, p. 1. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
interests during the investigation, in line with the provisions of the basic Regulations. 

•  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 Regulations. 

The basic Regulations do not provide for a general impact assessment but contain an 
exhaustive list of conditions that have to be assessed. 

3. 

Legal elements of the proposal 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

On 9 September 2009, the Commission initiated a partial interim review investigation 
of the anti-dumping and countervailing measures applicable to imports of polyethylene 
terephthalate (PET) film originating in India, limited to the examination of the product 
scope. 

The applicant claimed that a particular product type, siliconized polyester release liner 
('SPRL')  should  be  excluded  from  the  product  scope  under  measures  on  the  grounds 
that  this  product  type  has  different  characteristics,  production  process  and  end-use 
compared to the other types of PET film. 

The  investigation  showed  that  despite  certain  differences,  SPRL  and  other  types  of 
PET  film  share  the  same  basic  physical,  technical  and  chemical  characteristics. 
Therefore,  it  is  concluded  that  the  partial  interim  review  of  the  anti-dumping  and 
countervailing measures applicable to imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film 
originating in India should be terminated without amending the measures in force.  

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation 
terminating  the  partial  interim  review,  which  should  be  published  in  the  Official 
Journal of the European Union by 8 December 2010 at the latest.  

•  Legal basis 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1225/2009  of  30  November  2009  on  protection  against 
dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community and Council 
Regulation  (EC)  No  597/2009  of  11  June  2009  on  protection  against  subsidized 
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. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  Proportionality principle 

The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reason: 

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

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

4. 

Budgetary implication 

The proposal has no implication for the Union budget. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2010/0299 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

terminating the partial interim review of the anti-dumping and countervailing measures 
applicable to 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 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection 
against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community8 repealing 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22  December  1995  on  protection  against  dumped 
imports  from  countries  not  members of the European Community9 (‘the basic anti-dumping 
Regulation’), and in particular Article 11(3) thereof, 

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  Community10 
repealing  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2026/97  of  6  October  1997  on  protection  against 
subsidized  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European  Community11  (‘the  basic 
anti-subsidy Regulation’), and in particular Article 19 thereof,  

Having  regard  to  the  proposal  submitted  by  the  European  Commission  ('Commission')  after 
consulting the Advisory Committee, 

Whereas: 

1. 

MEASURES IN FORCE 

1.1. 

Previous investigations and existing countervailing measures 

(1) 

In  December  1999,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  2597/199912,  the  Council  imposed  a 
definitive  countervailing  duty  on  imports  of  polyethylene  terephthalate  (PET)  film 
('the  product  concerned'),  originating  in  India.  The  investigation  which  led  to  the 
adoption  of  that  Regulation  is  hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  'original  anti-subsidy 
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 

8 
9 
10 
11 
12 

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p.51. 
OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. 
OJ L 188, 18.7.2009, p. 93. 
OJ L 288, 21.10.1997, p. 1. 
OJ L 316, 10.12.1999, p. 1. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
exporters,  with  a  residual  duty  rate  of  19,1  %  imposed  on  imports  from  all  other 
companies. The investigation period of the original investigation was 1 October 1997 
to 30 September 1998. 

In March 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 367/200613, the Council, following an expiry 
review  pursuant  to  Article  18  of  the  basic  anti-subsidy  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.  

In August 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 1288/200614, the Council, following a partial 
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  1124/200715,  the  Council,  following  a 
partial  interim  review  concerning  the  subsidisation  of  another  Indian  PET  film 
producer,  Jindal  Poly  Films  Limited,  formerly  known  as  Jindal  Polyester  Ltd. 
('Jindal'), amended the definitive countervailing duty imposed on Jindal by Regulation 
(EC) No 367/2006. 

In  January  2009,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  15/200916,  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. 

In  June  2010,  by  Regulation  (EU)  No  579/201017,  the  Council,  following  a  partial 
interim  review  concerning  the  subsidisation  of  Jindal,  amended  the  definitive 
countervailing duty imposed on Jindal by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006, as amended 
by Regulation 1124/2007. 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

1.2. 

Previous investigations and existing anti-dumping measures 

(7) 

In August 2001, by Regulation (EC) No 1676/200118, the Council imposed a definitive 
anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  polyethylene  terephthalate  (PET)  film  originating, 
inter alia, in India. The investigation which led to the adoption of that Regulation is 
hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  'original  anti-dumping  investigation'.  The  measures 
consisted  of  an  ad  valorem  anti-dumping  duty  ranging  between  0  %  and  62,6  % 
imposed on imports from individually named exporting producers, with a residual duty 
rate of 53,3 % on imports from all other companies. 

(8) 

In  March  2006,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  366/200619,  the  Council  amended  the 
measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001. The anti-dumping duty imposed 
ranged between 0 % and 18%, taking into account the findings of the expiry review of 

13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 

OJ L 68, 8.3.2006, p. 15. 
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 L 168, 2.7.2010, p. 1. 
OJ L 277, 23.8.2001, p. 1. 
OJ L 68, 8.3.2006, p. 6. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
(9) 

(10) 

(11) 

(12) 

the definitive countervailing duties (Council Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 referred to 
in recital (2).  

In August 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 1288/2006, the Council, following an interim 
review  concerning  the  subsidisation  of  an  Indian  PET  film  producer,  Garware, 
amended  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  imposed  on  Garware  by  Regulation  (EC) 
No 1676/2001. 

In September 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 1424/200620, the Council, following a new 
exporting producer request amended Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 in respect of SRF 
Limited. The amended Regulation established a dumping margin of 15,5 % and a anti-
dumping  duty  rate  of  3,5  %  for  the  company  concerned  taking  into  account  the 
company's  export  subsidy  margin  as  ascertained  in  the  anti-subsidy  investigation 
which  led  to  the  adoption  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  367/2006  referred  to  above.  Since 
the company did not have an individual countervailing duty, the rate established for all 
other companies was applied. 

In  November  2007,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1292/200721,  the  Council  imposed  a 
definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of PET film originating in India following an 
expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation. By the 
same  Regulation  a  partial  interim  review  pursuant  to  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic  anti-
dumping Regulation, limited to one Indian exporting producer was terminated.  

In  January  2009,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  15/2009,  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 anti-dumping 
duty imposed on these companies by Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007. 

2. 

PROCEDURE 

2.1. 

Grounds for the review 

(13)  The  request  for  a  partial  interim  review  pursuant  to  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic  anti-
dumping Regulation and Article 19 of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation was lodged by 
Polyplex Corporation Limited, an exporting producer from India ('the applicant'). The 
request was limited to the examination of the product scope as regards the clarification 
of  whether  certain  product  types  fall  within  the  scope  of  the  anti-dumping  and 
countervailing measures applicable to imports of PET film. 

(14)  The applicant requested the exclusion of 'siliconized polyester release liner' ('SPRL') in 
so far as it falls within the definition of the product concerned, from the scope of the 
current anti-dumping and countervailing measures on imports of PET film originating 
in India. The applicant provided prima facie evidence that the basic physical, technical 
and  chemical  characteristics  of  SPRL  significantly  differ  from  those  of  the  product 
concerned. 

20 
21 

OJ L 270, 29.9.2006, p.1. 
OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 1. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
2.2. 

Initiation 

(15)  Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee that sufficient evidence 
existed to justify the initiation of a partial interim review, the Commission announced 
by  a  notice  published  on  9  September  2009  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European 
Union22  ('the  Notice  of  Initiation')  the  initiation  of  a  partial  interim  review  in 
accordance with the provisions of Article 11(3) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation 
and Article 19 of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation limited to the examination of the 
product scope. In particular the review had to determine whether or not the siliconized 
polyester  release  liner  is  part  of  the  product  concerned  as  defined  in  the  original 
investigation. 

2.3. 

Review investigation 

(16)  The  Commission  officially  informed  the  authorities  of  the  Republic  of  India  ('the 
country concerned') and all other parties known to be concerned, i.e. known exporting 
producers in the country concerned, users and importers in the Union and producers in 
the  Union,  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 in the Notice of Initiation. 

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

why they should be heard, were granted a hearing. 

(18)  The  Commission  sent  questionnaires  to  all  parties  known  to  be  concerned,  and  all 
other parties which made themselves known within the deadlines set out in the Notice 
of Initiation. 

(19)  Questionnaire  replies  were  received  from  the  applicant,  two  other  Indian  exporting 

producers, four Union producers and two Union importers.  

(20)  The  Commission  sought  and  verified  all  information  deemed  necessary  for  the 
purpose of the assessment as to whether there was a need for amendment of the scope 
of the existing anti-dumping and countervailing measures and carried out verification 
visits at the premises of the following companies:  

–  Garware Polyester Limited, Mumbai, India, 

–  Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Wiesbaden, Germany, 

–  Polyplex Corporation Limited, Noida, India. 

(21)  The  investigation  covered  the  period  from  1  April  2008  to  31  March  2009  ('review 

investigation period' or 'RIP').  

3. 

PRODUCT CONCERNED 

(22)  The product concerned is the same product as the one defined by Council Regulation 
(EC)  No  367/2006  and  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1292/2007,  namely 

22 

OJ C 215, 9.9.2009, p. 19. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India, currently falling within CN 
codes ex 3920 62 19 and ex 3920 62 90. 

4. 

FINDINGS OF THE REVIEW INVESTIGATION 

4.1. 

Background 

(23)  Polyethylene  terephthalate  (PET)  film  is  a  non-self-adhesive  film  of  polyethylene 
terephthalate. PET film is always produced from PET polymer and consists of a base 
film  which  may  be  subject  to  further  treatment  either  during  or  after  the  production 
process.  Such  treatment  of  the  base  film  may  typically  include  corona  treatment, 
metallisation or chemical coating. 

(24)  PET  film  has  specific  physical,  chemical  and  technical  characteristics  which 
distinguishes it from other films. Some of these characteristics of PET film are e.g. its 
high tensile strength, the very good electrical properties, low moisture absorption and 
humidity resistance, low shrinkage and good barrier properties. Therefore, while these 
specific  characteristics  determine  various  types  of  PET  film,  these  types  retain  the 
same basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics of base PET film. PET film 
has five broad end-uses which fall within five market segments, i.e. magnetic media, 
packaging, electrical, imaging and industrial applications. 

4.2.  Methodology 

(25) 

In order to assess whether SPRL and other types of PET film should be considered as 
one single product or two different products, it was examined whether SPRL and other 
types  of  PET  film  shared  the  same  basic  physical  and  chemical  characteristics. 
Moreover,  the  production  process,  differences  in  end-uses  and  interchangeability  as 
well as differences in costs and prices were examined. 

4.3.  Main arguments of the parties 

to 

its  surface  becomes 

(26)  The applicant claimed that the basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics of 
SPRL  differ  from  those  of  the  product  concerned.  In  particular,  the  relatively  low 
release  force  of  SPRL  and  its  low  surface  tension  make  the  film  slippery  and 
inks,  coatings,  adhesives  and 
inactive 
consequently 
metallisation.  According  to  the  applicant,  due  to  the  migration  of  uncured  silicone 
within the SPRL, even the reverse side of a single side coated SPRL exhibits marked 
differences in physical and technical properties compared to other types of PET film. 
These  features  allegedly  impede  the  usage  of  SPRL  in  base  PET  film  industry 
segments  identified  in  the  original  investigation,  i.e.  packaging,  magnetic  media, 
electrical,  imaging  and  industrial  applications.  On  the  other  hand,  the  functionally 
active surface of other types of PET film makes it impossible to use them as release 
liners,  since  they  would  irretrievably  stick  to  adhesive  surfaces.  Consequently,  the 
applicant  argued  that  SPRL  is  not  interchangeable  in  its  applications  with  any  other 
kind of PET film. 

(27)  The  Union  industry  claimed  that  the  applicant's  arguments  relied  on  two  successive 
sets of artificially limited comparisons. First, the applicant compared SPRL against a 
narrow set of PET films, i.e. base PET film, and not against other types of coated PET 
film that are more comparable with SPRL. Second, this allegedly limited comparison 
was carried out only with regard to a highly selective and limited set of physical and 

EN 

9 

   EN 

chemical  properties.  The  Union  industry  claimed  that  when  comparing  SPRL  with  a 
wide range of other types of PET film, and over a representative number of chemical 
and physical properties, it is clear that SPRL is the same product as other types of PET 
film  and  should  remain  within  the  scope  of  the  anti-dumping  and  countervailing 
measures.  According  to  the  Union  industry,  SPRL  is  effectively  PET  film 
subsequently  coated  with  a  silicone  layer.  It  is  not  conceptually  different  from  other 
types of coated film, such as metallised film or film with an anti-static coating or film 
with  barrier  coating,  and  as  such  is  clearly  product  concerned.  In  support  for  its 
claims,  the  Union  industry  provided  a  comparison  of  a  number  of  different  physical 
and chemical properties over a number of different types of PET film. 

4.4. 

Findings 

4.4.1.  Physical and chemical characteristics 

(28)  The investigation showed that the two characteristics mentioned in recital (27) above, 
i.e. the relatively low release force of SPRL and its low surface tension, are additional 
features compared to the basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics of PET 
film  as  defined  in  the  original  anti-dumping  investigation23  and  mentioned  in  recital 
(24)  above.  In  this  respect,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  basic  physical,  technical  and 
chemical characteristics are the same for SPRL as for any other types of PET film.  

(29)  As  regards  the  two  characteristics  specific  to  SPRL,  i.e.  low  release  force  and  low 
surface tension, it was found that these are not the characteristics of PET film as such 
but rather the characteristics of its siliconized surface or effectively the characteristics 
of  silicone.  Coating  with  silicone,  as  well  as  coating  with  any  other  substances, 
changes  some  features  of  the  surface  of  the  film  but  does  not  change  the  basic 
physical, technical and chemical characteristic of the base PET film itself, which under 
the coating layer remains the same.  

(30)  While it is true that covering PET film with silicone results in a low release force of 
the  surface  and  also  in  a  low  surface  tension,  a  similar  argument  could  be  made  for 
other  types  of  coating,  i.e.  when  covered  with  other  types  of  coating  the  surface  of 
PET  film  obtains  other  special  characteristics.  In  some  cases  coating  may  result  in 
characteristics  which  make  PET  film  suitable  only  for  very  specific  applications. 
Coating  with  silicone  is  by  no  means  unique  in  this  respect.  Other  special  products 
with other types of coating include for example sealable films, anti-fog coated films, 
peeling/sealing  films  and  co-polyester  coated  films.  All  these  types,  however,  share 
the  same  basic  physical,  technical  and  chemical  characteristics  and  are  part  of  the 
product concerned as defined in the original investigation. 

(31)  On this basis, it is considered that there are no significant differences in terms of basic 
physical, technical and chemical characteristics between SPRL and other types of PET 
film which would justify the exclusion of SPRL from the product scope. 

23 

Recital (10) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 367/2001, OJ L 55, 24.2.2001, p. 16. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
4.4.2.  Comparison of other criteria  

(32)  For the sake of completeness, other claims raised by the applicant in its review request 
allegedly  showing  that  SPRL  and  PET  film  are  different  products,  were  also 
examined.  

4.4.2.1.  Production process 

(33)  The applicant claimed that SPRL requires separate manufacturing facilities compared 

to other types of PET film produced. 

(34)  As mentioned in recital (23) above, PET film is always produced from PET polymer 
and consists of a base film which may be subject to further treatment either during or 
after  the  production  process.  Such  treatment  of  the  base  film  may  typically  include 
corona treatment, metallisation or chemical coating. 

(35)  SPRL is PET film coated with a silicone layer. The investigation showed that there are 
two different technologies of manufacturing SPRL. The Union producer investigated 
is using the in-line coating technology of manufacturing. In this technology the base 
PET  film  is  coated  during  the  production  process  before  stretching.  The  coating 
module  is  just  an  additional,  removable  part  of  the  production  line.  In  contrast,  the 
Indian producers investigated use the off-line coating technology. In this  process the 
PET film is first produced, after which it is coated on a separate production line.  

(36) 

(37) 

It  was  found  that  the  choice  between  in-line  or  off-line  coating  technology  is  purely 
economic,  the  cost  of  investment  in  movable  modules  for  the  in-line  coating  being 
approximately  10  times  higher  than  the  investment  in  an  off-line  coating  line.  The 
advantage  of  in-line  coating  is  a  much  higher  speed  of  the  line  enabling  significant 
volumes  of  production.  In-line  coating  also  leads  to  per-unit  savings  on  the  silicone 
costs as the layer of silicone surface is thinner than in the case of off-line coating. 

It should be noted that the existence of two different coating methodologies does not 
alter the basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics of SPRL, which remain 
the same as compared to those of other types of PET film. Indeed different production 
processes  are  not  per  se  relevant  to  determine  whether  a  product  type  is  a  distinct 
product  provided  that  the  product  types  obtained  from  these  processes  are  alike  in 
terms of the basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics.  

4.4.2.2.  Differences in end-uses and interchangeability 

(38)  The  applicant  also  claimed  that  there  is  no  interchangeability  in  the  applications 
between  SPRL  and  other  types  of  PET  film.  This  claim  was  confirmed  by  the 
investigation. However, as concluded in the original investigation, this is also true for 
other types of PET film with a special treatment.  

(39)  The  investigation  confirmed  that  the  purpose  of  coating,  or  of  any  other  special 
treatment  of  PET  film,  is  to  make  it  suitable  for  certain  specific  applications.  The 
substance chosen as the coating layer in each case has certain characteristics serving 
the  relevant  purpose.  Silicone  for  example  gives  a  low  release  force.  The  coating 
substance may have other special features (in case of silicone it is low surface tension) 
which makes it impossible to use the coated product for other applications. There are a 

EN 

11 

   EN 

number of other types of PET film, coated with other substances or otherwise treated, 
which for the above reasons have specific and limited applications. 

(40)  Therefore, whilst SPRL is specifically used for certain applications, its basic physical, 
technical and chemical characteristics are the same as those of the other types of PET 
film. As a consequence, interchangeability and end-use are not relevant to determine 
whether SPRL would constitute a different product. 

4.4.2.3.  Differences in costs and prices  

(41)  Finally,  the  applicant  claimed  that  the  process  of  siliconizing  of  base  PET  film 

involves additional costs. 

(42) 

(43) 

It was indeed found that the additional cost of silicone coating can amount up to 10% 
of  the  costs  of  manufacturing,  depending  on  the  choice  of  coating  methodology.  As 
described  in  recitals  (35)  and  (36)  the  applicant  has  opted  for  a  more  costly 
methodology  in  terms  of  per-unit  silicone  costs.  It  should  be  stressed,  however,  that 
this  is  an  additional  cost  in  comparison  to  the  cost  of  producing  the  base  PET  film. 
Coating the base PET film with other substances, as well as the metallization process, 
also increase the costs of manufacturing and thereby prices.  

In  this  respect,  however,  it  is  considered  that  the  additional  cost  of  silicone  coating 
does not constitute in itself a decisive criterion when determining whether SPRL form 
a  distinct  product.  Indeed  differences  in  costs  and  prices  do  not  per  se  justify  the 
conclusion  that a certain product type should be considered as a different product as 
long as this type share the same basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics 
of the product concerned.  

5. 

CONCLUSIONS ON THE PRODUCT SCOPE 

(44)  The  findings  of  the  investigation  confirmed  that  the  process  of  siliconizing  the  PET 
film results in a different surface of the end-product compared to the base PET film. 
However,  this  process  does  not  change  the  basic  physical,  chemical  and  technical 
characteristics  of  the  product.  Indeed,  the  investigation  confirmed  that  there  are  a 
number  of  specially  treated  types  of  PET  film  on  the  market  which  fall  under  the 
definition  of  the  product  concerned  as  established  in  the  original  investigation.  In 
addition, 
process, 
analysed, 
interchangeability/end-use  and  differences  in  costs  and  prices,  did  not  alter  this 
conclusion.  

production 

criteria 

other 

i.e. 

the 

the 

(45)  All  interested  parties  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the 
basis  of  which  the  above  conclusions  were  reached.  Parties  were  granted  a  period 
within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure.  

(46)  The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were duly considered, but did 
not  change  the  conclusion  not  to  amend  the  product  scope  of  the  anti-dumping  and 
countervailing measures on imports of PET film in force, 

EN 

12 

   EN 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

The  partial  interim  review  of  the  anti-dumping  and  countervailing  measures  applicable  to 
imports  of  certain  PET  film  originating  in  India  is  hereby  terminated  without  amending  the 
anti-dumping and countervailing measures in force. 

This  Regulation  shall  enter  into  force  on  the  day  following  that  of  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 Presiden 

EN 

13 

   EN