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: 2011-04-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: India, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, originating product, plastics

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 14.4.2011 
COM(2011) 207 final 

2011/0086 (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 of 
30  November  2009  on  protection  against  dumped  imports  from  countries  not 
members  of  the  European  Community  ('the  basic  Regulation')  in  the  proceeding 
concerning imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India.  

Definitive measures are in force and were imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 
1292/2007 of 30 October 2007. They take into account countervailing duties, which 
were  in  force,  in  parallel,  at  the  time  of  imposition  of  definitive  measures.  These 
countervailing duties expired on 9 March 2011 and, therefore, the duty rates need to 
be re-adjusted. 

•  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 provisions in the area of the proposal 

Definitive measures are in force and were imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 
1292/2007 of 30 October 2007.  

•  Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

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

2. 

CONSULTATION  OF 
ASSESSMENT 

INTERESTED 

PARTIES  AND 

IMPACT 

•  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 contain provisions for a general impact assessment but 
contains an exhaustive list of conditions that have to be assessed. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

3. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

The attached proposal for a Council Regulation provides for the following actions: 

1) The level of the residual anti-dumping duty as well as of the individual company-
specific anti-dumping  duties  will be revised. In particular, the reduction which was 
applied  in  view  of  the  fact  that  countervailing  duties  were  also  in  place,  will  be 
cancelled. 

2)  As  concerns  the  exporting  producer  MTZ  Polyfilms  Ltd  ('MTZ  Polyfilms'), 
following  the  judgment  of  the  General  Court  of  17  November  2009  in  Case  T-
143/061  ('the  judgement'),  imports  into  the  European  Union  of  PET  film 
manufactured by MTZ Polyfilms are no longer subject to the anti-dumping measures 
imposed  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  366/2006  and  Regulation  (EC)  No  1292/2007. 
Therefore, MTZ Polyfilms is not affected by the attached proposal and will remain 
exempted from the anti-dumping duty. The situation of MTZ Polyfilms is subject to 
an implementation procedure initiated in a notice published in the Official Journal of 
the European Union2. 

It is proposed that the Council adopts the attached proposal for a Regulation. 

•  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. 

•  Subsidiarity principle 

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

•  Proportionality principle 

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

The form of action is described in the above-mentioned basic Regulation 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 instruments: regulation. 

Other means would not be adequate for the following reason: 

1 
2 

European Court reports 2009, Page II-04133. 
OJ C 131, 20.5.2010, p. 3. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
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 

2011/0086 (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  Community3  ('the  basic  anti-dumping 
Regulation') and in particular Article 14(1) 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 Community4 ('the basic anti-subsidy 
Regulation') and in particular Article 18(1) thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

1. 

(1) 

Procedure 

On 10 December 1999 and following an investigation ('the original anti-subsidy investigation'), 
the  Council  imposed,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  2597/1999,  a  definitive  countervailing  duty  on 
imports  of  polyethylene  terephthalate  (PET)  film  originating  in  India5.  Following  an  anti-
dumping  investigation  ('the  original  anti-dumping  investigation')  and  after  imposition,  by 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 367/2001, of a provisional anti-dumping duty on 24 February 
20016, a definitive anti-dumping duty on PET film originating in India was imposed by Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 of 13 August 20017. 

(2) 

On 8 March 2006, two Council Regulations concerning imports of PET film originating in India 
were published: Regulation (EC) No 367/20068 which followed an expiry review investigation 
and  which  maintained  the  definitive  countervailing  duty  ('the  expiry  review  anti-subsidy 

3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. 
OJ L 188, 18.7.2009, p. 93. 
OJ L 316, 10.12.1999, p. 1. 
OJ L 55, 24.2.2001, p. 16. 
OJ L 227, 23.8.2001, p. 1. 
OJ L 68, 8.3.2006, p. 15. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

regulation'); and Regulation (EC) No 366/20069 ('the amending anti-dumping regulation') which 
followed a partial interim review investigation and which amended the definitive anti-dumping 
duty on such imports. 

On 6 November 2007, following an expiry review, a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of 
PET film originating in India was imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1292/200710.  

On 20 May 2010, a notice11 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union. In the 
notice,  parties  were  informed  that,  in  view  of  the  judgment  of  the  General  Court  of 
17 November  2009  in  Case  T-143/0612  ('the  judgement'),  imports  into  the  European  Union  of 
PET film manufactured by MTZ Polyfilms Limited ('MTZ Polyfilms') are no longer subject to 
the anti-dumping measures imposed by the amending anti-dumping regulation and Regulation 
(EC) No 1292/2007 and that definitive anti-dumping duties paid pursuant to these regulations 
on  imports  of  PET  film  manufactured  by  MTZ  Polyfilms  should  be  repaid  or  remitted.  The 
notice  also  partially  reopened  the  relevant  anti-dumping  review  investigation  concerning 
imports of PET film originating, inter alia, in India in order to implement the above judgment 
of the General Court as far as MTZ Polyfilms is concerned. 

The  countervailing  duty  imposed  by  the  expiry  review  anti-subsidy  Regulation  expired  on 
9 March 201113 according to Article 18(1) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation. In line with the 
principle that 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,  the  level  of  the  anti-dumping  duty  rates  imposed  by  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1292/2007  was  set  taking  into  account  the  amount  of  the  countervailing  duty  imposed  by  the 
expiry  review  anti-subsidy  Regulation,  in  accordance  with  Article  14(1)  of  the  basic  anti-
dumping  Regulation.  In  view  of  the  expiry  of  the  countervailing  duty,  the  anti-dumping  duty 
rates now have to be adjusted. 

2. 

Anti-dumping duty rates after expiry of the countervailing duty on the same imports 

Introductory remark 

(6) 

As indicated in recital (5) above, the expiry of the countervailing duty on PET film originating 
in India, on 9 March 2011, requires an adjustment of the anti-dumping duty rates. Indeed, the 
anti-dumping  duty  established  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1292/2007  consists  of  the 
dumping  margin  minus  the  subsidisation  margin  relating  to  export  subsidies.  As  the 
countervailing  duty  has  now  expired,  the  level  of  the  anti-dumping  duty  rates  has  to  be  re-
determined. 

Determination of anti-dumping duty level 

(7) 

Pursuant to Article 9(4) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, the amount of the anti-dumping 
duty shall not exceed the margin of dumping established but should be less than that margin if 
such lesser duty would be adequate to remove the injury to the Union industry. Consequently, 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 

OJ L 68, 8.3.2006, p. 6. 
OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 1 
OJ C 131, 20.5.2010, p. 3. 
European Court reports 2009, Page II-04133. 
Notice of expiry, OJ C 68, 3.3.2011, p. 6. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
the  duty  level  should  be  established  at  the  lowest  level  of  the  dumping  margin  and  injury 
elimination level. 

(8) 

In  this  respect,  it  is  recalled  that,  in  the  original  anti-dumping  investigation,  the  injury 
elimination  level  was  in  all  cases  above  the  dumping  margins,  as  laid  out  in  recital  (195)  of 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 367/2001 and confirmed by recital (74) of Council Regulation 
(EC) No 1676/2001. Therefore, the anti-dumping duty should be set at the level of the dumping 
margins established in respect of the various Indian manufacturers, which are as follows: 

Company 

Dumping margin
and AD duty rate 

Reference 

Ester Industries Limited 

29,3% 

Council Regulation (EC) No 366/2006 

Garware Polyester Limited 

Jindal Poly Films Limited 

0% 

0% 

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 38/201114 

Council Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001* 

Polyplex Corporation 
Limited 

SRF Limited 

Uflex Limited 

3,7% 

Council Regulation (EC) No 366/2006 

15,5% 

Council Regulation (EC) No 1424/200615 

3,2% 

Council Regulation (EC) No 366/2006**  

Vacmet India Limited 

0% 

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 205/201116

All other companies 
(except MTZ Polyfilms) 

29,3% 

Council Regulation (EC) No 366/2006 

* Jindal Poly Films Limited was at that time known as Jindal Polyester Limited 

** Uflex Limited was at that time known as Flex Industries Limited 

(9) 

All  known  Indian  exporting  producers  of  PET  film,  the  Indian  authorities  and  the  Union 
industry of PET film have received disclosure of the above course of action. 

(10)  Following  this  disclosure,  several  Indian  companies  argued  that,  as  no  expiry  review  was 
requested for the countervailing measures, the Union industry was apparently in a good shape 
and,  therefore,  the  anti-dumping  measures  should  be  terminated  as  well.  In  addition,  one 
exporting  producer  argued  that  the  average  dumping  margin  of  the  sample  should  be 
recalculated  as  recently,  following  an  interim  review,  Garware  Polyester  Limited,  which  was 
one  of  the  companies  in  the  sample,  had  been  made  subject  to  a  revised  individual  dumping 
margin.  It  should  be  noted  that  both  claims  go  beyond  the  limited  scope  of  the  current 
regulation  which  only  aims  at  adjusting  the  level  of  the  existing  anti-dumping  duty  rates 
following  the  expiry  of  the  concurrent  countervailing  measures  on  the  same  imports.  Any 

14 
15 
16 

OJ L 15, 20.1.2011, p. 1. 
OJ L 270, 29.9.2006, p. 1. 
OJ L 58, 3.3.2011, p. 14. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
request  to  amend  the  level  of  the  anti-dumping  duty  rates  following  an  alleged  change  in 
circumstances should be presented pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation. Therefore, 
these claims have to be rejected. 

(11)  One  Indian  exporting  producer  argued  that,  as  the  countervailing  duties  had  expired,  the 
Commission  should  now  grant  a  price  adjustment  to  the  Indian  exporters  using  the  DEPB 
scheme, which it had refused during the original investigation and interim review investigation. 
Without  prejudice  to  whether  such  claim  could  be  examined  in  the  context  of  the  current 
amending  regulation,  it  should  be  noted  that,  as  summarised  in  recital  (50)  of  Commission 
Regulation  (EC)  No  367/2001  and  recital  (47)  of  the  amending  anti-dumping  regulation,  the 
price  adjustment  claim  for  DEPB  had  not  been  accepted  as  the  producers  concerned  had  not 
demonstrated that price comparability between domestic and EU sales prices had been affected 
by the DEPB benefits. That situation has not changed with the expiry of the countervailing duty 
and this claim, therefore, has to be rejected. 

(12)  No further substantive comments were received. Consequently, the duty rates should be revised 

to the levels of the dumping margin, as indicated in the table under recital (8) above, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 is hereby amended as follows: 

1. 

Article 2(2) shall be replaced by the following: 

'2.  The  rate  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  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 

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

29,3 

A026 

0 

0 

A028 

A030 

EN 

8 

   EN 

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 122 003, Haryana, 
India 

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

Vacmet India Limited  
Anant Plaza, IInd Floor, 4/117-2A,
Civil Lines, Church Road,  
Agra 282 002, Uttar Pradesh, 
India 

All other companies (except MTZ 
Polyfilms Limited – TARIC 
additional code A03117) 

3,7 

A032 

15,5 

A753 

3,2 

0 

A027 

A992 

29,3 

A999' 

Article 2 

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

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

Done at Brussels, 

For the Council 
The President 

17 

As regards MTZ Polyfilms Limited (New India Centre, 5th Floor, 17 Co-operage Road, Mumbai 400039, India), 
reference is made to the notice published in OJ C 131, 20.5.2010, p. 3. 

EN 

9 

   EN