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: 2011-02-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: India, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, originating product, plastics

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 4.2.2011 
COM(2011) 38 final 

2011/0017 (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 

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 
Community ('the basic Regulation') in the anti-dumping 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 

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.). 

Existing countervailing measures 

It  should  be  noted  that  Vacmet  India  Limited  is  currently  subject  to  a  countervailing 
duty of 19.1%.  

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. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

Summary of the proposed action 

On  14  January  2010,  the  Commission  initiated  a  partial  interim  review  limited  to 
dumping  aspects  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  applicable  to  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  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  Union 
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. The applicant 
refers  in  particular  to  a  significant  reduction  of  its  cost  of  production  since  he  now 
produces the basic raw material used in his production process instead of purchasing it. 

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopts the attached proposal for a Regulation 
so as to amend the anti-dumping duty rate applicable to the Indian producer concerned 
to  0%.  The  Regulation  should  be  published  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European 
Union no later than 14 April 2011. 

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 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: Council Regulation. 

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

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Union budget. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
2011/0017 (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  

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  Community(1)  (‘the 
basic anti-dumping 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  ('the  Commission') 
after consulting the Advisory Committee, 

Whereas: 

A. PROCEDURE 

1. Previous investigation and existing anti-dumping measures 

(1) 

(2) 

In  August  2001,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1676/2001(2),  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  366/2006(3),  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 which are detailed in Council Regulation (EC) No 
367/2006(4).  

1 
2 
3 
4 

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  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

In  August  2006,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1288/2006(5),  the  Council,  following  an 
interim review concerning the subsidisation of an Indian PET film producer, amended 
the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  imposed  on  that  producer  by  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1676/2001. 

In  September  2006,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1424/2006(6),  the  Council,  following  a 
new exporting producer request, amended Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 in respect of 
an Indian PET film producer. 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  1292/2007(7),  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(8)  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 and the definitive 
countervailing duties imposed 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 806/2010(9)  

It should be noted that Vacmet India Limited is subject to a residual anti-dumping duty 
of 17,3% on the basis of Regulation (EC) 1292/2007, as amended.  

2. Existing countervailing measures 

(9) 

It should also be noted that Vacmet India Limited is subject to a countervailing duty of 
19,1% on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 367/2006, as amended. 

3. Request for a partial interim review 

(10)  On  7  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 Vacmet India Limited, an exporting producer 
from India ('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 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

OJ L.236, 31.8.2006, p. 1. 
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 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
of  a  lasting  nature.  The  applicant  provided  prima  facie  evidence  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 
on  14  January  2010,  by  a  notice  published  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European 
Union(10)  ('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.  

(13)  On  14  January  2010,  the  Commission  also  announced,  by  a  notice  of  initiation 
published in the Official Journal of the European Union(11), the initiation of a partial 
interim review of the countervailing measures limited in scope to the examination of 
subsidisation as far as the applicant is concerned. 

5. Investigation  

(14)  The investigation of the level of dumping covered the period from 1 January 2009 to 

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

(15)  The Commission officially informed the applicant, and 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. 

(16) 

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.  

(17)  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 

(18)  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), 

10 
11 

OJ C 8, 14.1.2010, p. 27 
OJ C 8, 14.1. 2010, p. 29 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
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 

(19)  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 
producers  have  the  same  basic  physical  and  chemical  characteristics  and  the  same 
basic uses.  

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

of the basic Regulation. 

(a) Normal Value 

C. DUMPING 

(21) 

In order to establish normal value, it was first determined whether the total volume of 
domestic sales of the like product was representative in accordance of Article 2(2) of 
the basic Regulation, namely whether these sales represented 5% of the sales volume 
of  the  product  concerned  exported  to  the  European  Union.  The  Commission 
established  that  the  like  product  was  sold  domestically  by  the  applicant  in  overall 
representative  volumes.  This  representativity  test  was  then  carried  out  on  a  type-by-
type basis. It was found that two types were not sold domestically at all.  

(22)  The  Commission  subsequently  examined  whether  the  domestic  sales  of  the  like 
product  could  be  regarded  as  being  sold  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade  pursuant  to 
Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing for the like product 
sold on the Indian market, the proportion of profitable domestic sales to independent 
customers during the IP. It was found that more than 90% of the domestic sales were 
profitable.  

(23)  For  the  product  types  sold  domestically  and  which  passed  the  representativity  test 
mentioned  in  recital  (21)  above,  it  was  established  that  for  one  product  type,  all 
domestic  transactions  were  not  profitable  and  thus  were  not  made  in  the  ordinary 
course of trade in accordance with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.  

(24)  For the product types which were sold in sufficient quantities and sold in the ordinary 
course  of  trade  in  India,  normal  value  was established  on  the  basis  of  prices  paid  or 
payable by unrelated customers pursuant to Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation. For 
the other types, namely the type mentioned in recital (23) above and the types not sold 
domestically, normal value was constructed on the basis of the costs of manufacturing 
incurred by the applicant for the exported model in question plus a reasonable amount 
for sales, general and administrative (SG&A) costs and for profit in accordance with 
Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.  

(25)  Given the high level of profitable domestic sales made in the ordinary course of trade, 
the SG&A costs and the profit were based on all domestic sales of the like product on 
the domestic market. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
(b) Export price 

(26) 

In  all  cases  where  PET  film  was  directly  exported  to  independent  customers  in  the 
European Union, the export prices were established in accordance with Article 2(8) of 
the basic Regulation, namely on the basis of prices actually paid or payable. 

(27)  For  the  export  sales  to  the  Union  made  through  a  related  company,  the  export  price 
was established on the basis of prices at which the imported products were first resold 
to an independent buyer in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation. 

(28)  For  this  purpose,  adjustments  were  made  for  all  costs  incurred  between  importation 
and resale to the first independent customer in the Union market. A reasonable margin 
for  selling,  general  and  administrative  costs  and  profit  was  also  deducted  for  these 
sales.  The  percentages  used  to  calculate  the  profit  and  the  selling,  general  and 
administrative costs were in line with those reported in the Profit and Loss account of 
the related company. 

(c) Comparison 

(29)  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 

(30)  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 

(31) 

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

(32)  The investigation showed that the indicative dumping margin calculated for the export 
sales  of  the  applicant  to  third  countries  in  the  RIP  was  also  negative.  In  terms  of 
volume, these sales were several times higher than the export sales to the Union.  

(33) 

It  was  also  found  that  the  applicant  made  significant  investments  as  from  2007  to 
improve  its  production  process  and  to  produce  the  basic  raw  material  which  is 
necessary for the production of the product concerned. These changes have resulted in 
particular  to  a  reduction  of  costs  and  have  thus  explained  the  direct  impact  on  the 
Company dumping margin. This change in circumstances can be considered to be of a 
lasting nature.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
(34) 

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  present  interim  review.  Hence,  it  was  concluded  that  the 
changed  circumstances  are  of  a  lasting  nature  and  that  the  application  of  the  anti-
dumping measure at its current level is no longer justified. 

E. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 

(35) 

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 the 
applicant to 0 %.  

(36)  Pursuant  to  Article  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  (8)  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. 

(37) 

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 an opportunity to comment.  

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

appropriate, the definitive findings have been modified accordingly. 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

The  table  in  Article  2(2)  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1292/2007  is  hereby  amended  by 
inserting the following: 

Vacmet India Limited, Anant Plaza, IInd 
Floor,  4/117-2A,  Civil  Lines,  Church 
Road, Agra-282002, Uttar Pradesh, India 

0,0 

"A992" 

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

Article 2 

12 

OJ L 188, 18.07.2009 p. 93. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

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

Done at Brussels, […] 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

12 

   EN