Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION amending Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India
Date: 2010-12-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: India, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, dumping, import, plastics

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION  

Brussels, 20.12.2010 
COM(2010) 782 final 

2010/0376 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

amending Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on 
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  Regulation’)  in  the  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. 

The measures currently in force are a definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 (OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 1.) on imports of polyethylene 
terephtalate  (PET)  film  originating  in  India,  as  amended  by  Council  Regulation  (EC) 
No 15/2009 (OJ L 6, 10.1.2009, p. 1.) and by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 
No 806/2010 (OJ L 242, 15.9.2010, p. 6.). 

There are also countervailing duties in force, imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 
15/2009 (OJ L 6, 10.1.2009, p. 1) 

•  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 
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. 

1 

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3. 

Legal elements of the proposal 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

On 1 December 2009, the Commission initiated a partial interim review investigation 
of  the  anti-dumping  measures  applicable  to  imports  of  polyethylene  terephthalate 
(PET) film originating in India, limited in scope to the examination of dumping as far 
as  Garware  Polyester  Ltd.  ('the  applicant')  is  concerned.  The  review  was  initiated 
because the applicant, an exporting producer in India, provided sufficient prima facie 
evidence that the circumstances with regard to dumping on the basis of which measures 
were established, have changed and that these changes are of a lasting nature. 

The comparison of the applicant's normal value and its export price to the EU showed 
that the company did not dump in the review investigation period.  

The investigation showed also that the changed circumstances leading to the initiation 
of the review could reasonably be considered to be of a lasting nature as the applicant 
has made significant changes in its production process and technology. 

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation so 
as to amend to 0% the duty rate applicable to Garware Polyester Ltd., which should be 
published in the Official Journal of the European Union by 1 March 2011 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  in 
particular Article 11(3) thereof.  

•  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 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: Council Regulation. 

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

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4. 

Budgetary implication 

The proposal has no implication for the Union budget. 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
2010/0376 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

amending Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 imposing a definitive antidumping 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 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection 
against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community2 (‘the basic 
Regulation’), and in particular Article 9(4) and Article 11(3), (5) and (6) thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

A. PROCEDURE 

1. 

(1) 

(2) 

Previous investigations and existing anti-dumping measures 

In August 2001, by Regulation (EC) No 1676/20013, the Council imposed a definitive 
anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  polyethylene  terephthalate  (PET)  film  originating, 
inter  alia,  in  India.  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. 

In March 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 366/20064, 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 the 
definitive countervailing duties (Regulation (EC) No 367/20065).  

(3) 

In August 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 1288/20066, the Council, following an interim 
review  concerning  the  subsidisation  of  an  Indian  PET  film  producer,  Garware 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p.51. 
OJ L 227, 23.8.2001, p. 1. 
OJ L 68, 8.3.2006, p. 6. 
OJ L 68, 8.3.2006, p. 15. 
OJ L 236, 31.08.2006, p. 1 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Polyester  Limited,  amended  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  imposed  on  that 
company by Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 referred to in recital (1) above. 

In  September  2006,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1424/2006(7),  the  Council,  following  a 
new exporting producer request, amended Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 in respect of 
one Indian exporter. 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  1292/20078,  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  Regulation.  By  the  same 
Regulation a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, 
limited  in  scope  to  the  examination  of  dumping  in  respect  of  one  Indian  exporting 
producer was terminated.  

In  January  2009,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  15/20099,  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 
duties  imposed  on  these  companies  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1292/2007  and  the 
definitive  countervailing  duties  imposed  on these  companies  by  Regulation  (EC)  No 
367/2006. 

Regulation  (EC)  No  1292/2007  also  maintained  the  extension  of  the  measures  to 
Brazil  and  Israel  with  certain  companies  being  exempted.  The  last  amendment  to 
Regulation 1292/2007 in this regard was made by Regulation 806/201010.  

Applicant of this interim review - Garware Polyester Limited is currently subject to a 
definitive anti-dumping duty of 14,7 %.  

Existing countervailing measures 

It should also be noted that Garware Polyester Limited is subject to a countervailing 
duty of 5,4 % on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 15/2009 referred to in recital (6). 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

2. 

(9) 

3. 

Request for a partial interim review 

(10) 

In  August  2009,  the  Commission  received  a  request  for  a  partial  interim  review 
pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation. The request, limited in scope to the 
examination  of  dumping,  was  lodged  by  Garware  Polyester  Limited,  an  exporting 
producer from India ('Garware' or 'the applicant'). In its request, the applicant claimed 
that the circumstances on the basis of which measures were imposed have changed and 
that these changes are of a lasting nature. The applicant provided prima facie evidence 

7 
8 
9 
10 

OJ L 270, 29.9.2006, p. 1. 
OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 1. 
OJ L 6, 10.1.2009, p. 1 
OJ L 242, 15.9.2010, p. 6. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
that the continued imposition of the measure at its current level is no longer necessary 
to offset dumping.  

4. 

Initiation of a review 

(11)  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  1  December  2009  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European 
Union11  ('the  Notice  of  Initiation')  the  initiation  of  a  partial  interim  review  in 
accordance  with  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation  limited  in  scope  to  the 
examination of dumping in respect of the applicant. 

(12)  The partial interim review investigation was also to 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  2(2)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1292/2007,  i.e.  the  anti-dumping 
duty rate as applying to 'all other companies' in India. 

5. 

Investigation 

(13)  The investigation of the level of dumping covered the period from 1 October 2008 to 

30 September 2009 ('review investigation period' or 'RIP') 

(14)  The  Commission  officially  informed  the  applicant,  the  authorities  of  the  exporting 
country,  and  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 be heard. 

(15) 

In order to obtain the information necessary for its investigation, the Commission sent 
a  questionnaire  to  the  applicant  and  received  a  reply  within  the  deadline  set  for  that 
purpose.  

(16)  The  Commission  sought  and  verified  all  information  it  deemed  necessary  for  the 
determination of dumping. A verification visit was carried out at the premises of the 
applicant.  

B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

1. 

Product concerned 

(17)  The  product  concerned  by  this  review  is  the  same  as  that  defined  in  the  Regulation 
imposing  the  measures  in  force  (Regulation  (EC)  No  1292/2007  as  last  amended), 
namely  polyethylene  terephthalate  (PET)  film,  originating  in  India,  currently  falling 
within CN codes ex 3920 62 19 and ex 3920 62 90. 

2. 

Like product 

(18)  As in previous investigations, this investigation has shown that PET film produced in 
India and exported to the Union and the PET film produced and sold domestically on 
the Indian market, as well as the PET film produced and sold in the EU by the Union 

11 

OJ C 291, 1.12.2009, p. 28. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
producers  have  the  same  basic  physical  and  chemical  characteristics  and  the  same 
basic uses.  

(19)  These products are therefore considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) 

of the basic Regulation. 

C. DUMPING  

(a) Normal value  

(20) 

In  accordance  with  Article  2(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  Commission  first 
examined  whether  the  applicant's  domestic  sales  of  the  like  product  to  independent 
customers were representative, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales was equal to 
at least 5 % of the total volume of the corresponding export sales to the Union.  

(21)  The  Commission  subsequently  identified  those  types  of  the  like  product  sold 
domestically  by  the  company  that  were  identical  or  directly  comparable  to  the  types 
sold for export to the Union.  

(22) 

It  was  further  examined  whether  the  domestic  sales  of  the  applicant  were 
representative for each product type, i.e. whether domestic sales of each product type 
constituted at least 5 % of the sales volume of the same product type to the Union. For 
the product types sold in representative quantities it was then examined whether such 
sales were made in the ordinary course of trade, in accordance with Article 2(4) of the 
basic Regulation.  

(23)  The  examination  as  to  whether  the  domestic  sales  of  each  product  type,  sold 
domestically  in  representative  quantities,  could  be  regarded  as  having  been  made  in 
the ordinary course of trade was made by establishing the proportion of the profitable 
sales to independent customers of the type in question. In all cases where the domestic 
sales  of  the  particular  product  type  were  made  in  sufficient  quantities  and  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  trade,  normal  value  was  based  on  the  actual  domestic  price, 
calculated as a weighted average of all the domestic sales of that type made during the 
RIP. 

(24)  For the remaining product types where domestic sales were not representative or not 
sold in the ordinary course of trade, normal value was constructed in accordance with 
Article 2(3) of the basic  Regulation.  Normal value was constructed by adding  to  the 
manufacturing  costs  of  the  exported  types,  adjusted  where  necessary,  a  reasonable 
percentage  for  selling,  general  and  administrative  expenses  and  a  reasonable  margin 
for profit, on the basis of actual data pertaining to production and sales, in the ordinary 
course of trade, of the like product, by the exporting producer under investigation in 
accordance with the first sentence of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation.  

(b) Export price  

(25)  Since all export sales of the cooperating Indian exporting producer to the Union were 
made directly to independent customers, the export price was established on the basis 
of  the  prices  actually  paid  or  payable  for  the  product  concerned  in  accordance  with 
Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation. 

(c) Comparison  

EN 

8 

   EN 

(26)  The comparison between the weighted average normal value and the weighted average 
export price was made on an ex-works basis and at the same level of trade. In order to 
ensure  a  fair  comparison  between  normal  value  and  the  export  price,  account  was 
taken,  in  accordance  with  Article  2(10)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  of  differences  in 
factors  which  were  demonstrated  to  affect  prices  and  price  comparability.  For  this 
purpose,  due  allowance  in  the  form  of  adjustments  was  made  for  differences  in 
transport,  insurance,  handling,  loading  and  ancillary  costs,  commissions,  financial 
costs and packing costs paid by the applicant where applicable and justified.  

(d) Dumping margin  

(27)  As  provided  for  under  Article  2(11)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  weighted  average 
normal  value  by  type  was  compared  with  the  weighted  average  export  price  of  the 
corresponding  type  of  the  product  concerned.  This  comparison  did  not  show  the 
existence of dumping.  

D. LASTING NATURE OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES 

(28) 

(29) 

(30) 

(31) 

In  accordance  with  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  it  was  also  examined 
whether the changed circumstances could reasonably be considered to be of a lasting 
nature.  

In  this  regard  the  investigation  showed  that  after  the  previous  investigation,  i.e.  the 
expiry  review  referred  to  in  recital  (5),  Garware  has  made  significant  changes  in  its 
production  process  and  technology.  The  company  has  shifted  from  dimethyl 
terephthalate  (DMT)  to  purified  terephthalic  acid  (PTA)  as  the  main  raw  material. 
During  the  investigation  period  of  that  expiry  review  Garware  was  the  only  Indian 
exporting  producer  which  was  still  using  the  old  technology  based  on  DMT.  This 
change of technology as well as the investment in a new plant for manufacturing chips 
has resulted in a significant reduction of costs of manufacturing between the previous 
expiry  review  and  the  current  review.  This  cost  reduction  has  a  direct  impact  on  the 
dumping margin. This change in circumstances can therefore be considered to be of a 
lasting nature.  

It should be also noted that an indicative dumping margin calculated for export sales 
of the applicant to third countries in the RIP was negative. In terms of volume these 
sales were several times higher than the export sales to the Union.  

It  was  therefore  considered  that  the  circumstances  that  led  to  the  initiation  of  this 
interim review are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future in a manner that would 
affect the findings of the interim review. Therefore it was concluded that the changed 
circumstances  are  of  a  lasting  nature  and  that  the  application  of  the  measure  at  its 
current level is no longer justified. 

E. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 

(32) 

In  the  light  of  the  results  of  this  review  investigation,  it  is  considered  appropriate  to 
amend  the  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  imports  of  the  product  concerned  from 
Garware to 0 %.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

(33)  Pursuant  to  14(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation  and  Article  24(1),  second  subparagraph  of 
the  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  597/200912,  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. As mentioned in recital 
(9)  above,  the  applicant  is  subject  to  a  countervailing  duty.  Since  the  anti-dumping 
duty  established  for  the  applicant  is  0%  with  regard  to  the  product  concerned,  this 
situation does not arise in the present case. 

(34) 

Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis 
of which it was intended to propose to amend the duty rate applicable to the applicant 
and  were  given  opportunity  to  comment.  No  comments  were  received  from  the 
interested parties. 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

The  entry  concerning  Garware  Polyester  Limited,  in  the  table  in  Article  2(2)  of  Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007, shall be replaced by the following: 

Article 1 

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

0,0 

A028 

" 

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 

12 

OJ L 188, 18.07.2009 p. 93. 

EN 

10 

   EN