Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION amending Council Regulation (EC) No 193/2007, imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate, originating in India and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 192/2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate, originating in, inter alia, India
Date: 2011-08-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: India, anti-dumping measure, import (EU), originating product, plastics

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 5.8.2011 
COM(2011) 477 final 

2011/0213 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

amending Council Regulation (EC) No 193/2007, imposing a definitive countervailing 
duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate, originating in India and 
amending Council Regulation (EC) No 192/2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping 
duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate, originating in, inter alia, India 

 
 
  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

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’)  and  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  Anti-dumping  Regulation')  in  the  interim 
review  of  the  countervailing  duty  in  force  in  respect  of  imports  of  certain  polyethylene 
terephthalate 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 provisions in the area of the proposal 

A  definitive  countervailing  duty  on  imports  of  certain  polyethylene  terephthalate  currently 
falling within CN codes 3907 60 20 originating in India was imposed by Council Regulation 
(EC) No 193/2007 as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1286/2008. A definitive anti-
dumping duty on imports of the same products was imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 
192/2007, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1286/2008. 

Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable 

2. 

RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS WITH THE INTERESTED PARTIES AND 
IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 

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 

2 

   EN 

 
3. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

Summary of the proposed action 

On  10  June  2010,  the  Commission  initiated  an  interim  review  of  the  measures  in  force  in 
respect  of  polyethylene  terephthalate  originating  in  India  further  to  a  request  made  by  an 
Indian exporting producer.  

The attached proposal for a Council Regulation is based on the findings of the investigation 
carried  out  which  is  limited  in  scope  to  the  examination  of  subsidisation  and  as  far  as  the 
applicant is concerned. 

The investigation found that the level of subsidisation was lower than in the last investigation 
and that the changed circumstances leading to the reduced subsidisation level are of a lasting 
nature. 

Anti-dumping duties were previously not fully imposed to avoid double-imposition with the 
previous countervailing duties. The decreased subsidy levels will now have to be taken into 
account for the purpose of adjusting the dumping margins, previously established. 

It  is  therefore  proposed  that  the  Council  adopt  the  attached  proposal  for  an  amending 
Regulation.  

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  and  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: 

the basic Regulation does not provide for alternative options. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Union budget. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
2011/0213 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

amending Council Regulation (EC) No 193/2007, imposing a definitive countervailing 
duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate, originating in India and 
amending Council Regulation (EC) No 192/2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping 
duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate, originating in, inter alia, 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 and 24 thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

1. 

PROCEDURE 

1.1. 

Previous investigation and existing countervailing measures 

(1) 

By Regulation (EC) No 2603/20002, the Council imposed a definitive countervailing 
duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (‘PET’) originating, inter alia, in India 
('the  country  concerned')  ('the  original  anti-subsidy  investigation').  Following  an 
expiry  review,  the  Council,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  193/20073  imposed  a  definitive 
countervailing  duty  for  a  further  period  of  five  years  ('anti-subsidy  review 
investigation').  The  countervailing  measures  were  amended  by  Council  Regulation 
(EC)  No  1286/20084  following  a  partial  interim  review  ('last  review  investigation'). 
The  countervailing  measures  consist  of  a  specific  duty.  The  rate  of  the  duty  ranges 
between  0  and  106,5  EUR/tonne  for  individually  named  Indian  producers  with  a 
residual  duty  rate  of  69,4  EUR/tonne  imposed  on  imports  from  other  producers 
('current countervailing measures'). 

1.2. 

Existing anti-dumping measures 

1 
2 
3 
4 

OJ L 188, 18.7.2009, p. 93. 
OJ L 301, 30.11.2000, p. 1. 
OJ L 59, 27.2.2007, p. 34. 
OJ L 340, 19.12.2008, p. 1. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(2) 

By  Regulation  (EC)  No  2604/20005,  the  Council  imposed  a  definitive  anti-dumping 
duty  on  imports  of  PET  originating,  inter  alia,  in  India  ('the  original  anti-dumping 
investigation').  Following  an  expiry  review,  the  Council,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No 
192/20076  imposed  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  for  a  further  period  of  five  years 
('anti-dumping  review  investigation').  The  anti-dumping  measures  were  amended  by 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1286/2008  following  the  last  anti-subsidy  review 
investigation.  The  measures  were  set  at  the  level  of  the  injury  elimination  level  and 
consisted  of  specific  anti-dumping  duties.  The  rate  of  the  duty  ranged  between  87,5 
and  200,9  EUR/tonne  for  individually  named  Indian  producers  with  a  residual  duty 
rate  of  153,6  EUR/tonne  imposed  on  imports  from  other  producers  ('current  anti-
dumping measures'). 

(3) 

By  Commission  Decision  of  29  November  20007  the  Commission  accepted 
undertaking  offers  of  several  exporting  producers  setting  a  minimum  import  price 
('MIP') ('undertaking'). 

1.3. 

Initiation of a partial interim review  

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

A request for a partial interim review ('the present review') pursuant to Article 19 of 
the basic Regulation was lodged by Reliance Industries Limited, an Indian exporting 
producer  of  PET  ('the  applicant'  or  ‘Reliance’).  The  request  was  limited  in  scope  to 
subsidisation  and  to  the  applicant.  The  applicant  at  the  same  time  also  requested  the 
review  of  the  current  anti-dumping  measures.  The  residual  anti-dumping  and 
countervailing duties are applicable to imports of products produced by Reliance and 
sales of the applicant to the Union are governed by the undertaking.  

The  applicant  provided  prima  facie  evidence  that  the  continued  application  of  the 
measure  at  its  current  level  was  no  longer  necessary  to  offset  the  countervailable 
subsidisation. In particular, the applicant provided prima facie evidence showing that 
its  subsidy  amount  has  decreased  well  below  the  duty  rate  currently  applicable  to  it. 
This reduction in the overall subsidy level would mainly be due to a significant drop in 
the benefits availed of under the Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPB). 

Having  determined,  after  consulting  the  Advisory  Committee,  that  the  request 
contained  sufficient  prima  facie  evidence,  the  Commission  announced  on  10  June 
2010  the  initiation  of  a  partial  interim  review  pursuant  to  Article  19  of  the  basic 
Regulation by a notice of initiation published in the Official Journal of the European 
Union8. The review was limited in scope to the examination of subsidisation in respect 
of the applicant.  

1.4. 

Parties concerned by the investigation 

(7) 

The Commission officially informed the applicant, the representatives of the exporting 
country  and  the  association  of  Union  producers  about  the  initiation  of  the  review. 
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. 

5 
6 
7 
8 

OJ L 301, 30.11.2000, p. 21. 
OJ L 59, 27.2.2007, p. 1. 
OJ L 301, 30.11.2000, p.88. 
OJ C 151, 10.6.2010, p.17. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(8) 

(9) 

All interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons 
why they should be heard, were granted a hearing. 

In  order  to  obtain  the  information  deemed  necessary  for  its  investigation,  the 
Commission sent a questionnaire to the applicant and the government of India ('GOI') 
and received replies within the deadline set for that purpose.  

(10)  The  Commission  sought  and  verified  all  information  deemed  necessary  for  the 
determination  of  subsidisation.  The  Commission  carried  out  verification  visits  at  the 
premises  of  the  applicant  in  Mumbai,  India  and  at  the  premises  of  the  GOI  in  New 
Delhi (Directorate General of Foreign Trade and Ministry of Commerce) and Mumbai 
(Regional Office of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade). 

1.5. 

Review investigation period 

(11)  The investigation of subsidisation covered the period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 

2010 ('the review investigation period' or 'RIP'). 

1.6. 

Parallel anti-dumping investigation 

(12)  On 10 June 20109 the Commission announced the initiation of a partial interim review 
of  the  current  anti-dumping  duties  pursuant  to  Article  11(3)  of  Council  Regulation 
(EC)  No  1225/2009  10  ('basic  Anti-dumping  Regulation'),  limited  in  scope  to  the 
examination of dumping in respect of the same applicant. 

(13) 

In  the  parallel  anti-dumping  investigation  it  was  found  that  the  circumstances  with 
regard  to  dumping  did  not  change  significantly  and  lastingly,  therefore  the 
investigation  was  terminated  without  changing  the  current  anti-dumping  measures 
applicable to Reliance. 

2. 

PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

2.1. 

Product concerned 

(14)  The product under review is polyethylene terephthalate (PET) having a viscosity of 78 
ml/g  or  higher,  according  to  the  ISO  Standard  1628-5,  currently  falling  within  CN 
code 3907 60 20 and originating in India ('the product concerned').  

2.2. 

Like product 

(15)  The  investigation  revealed  that  the  product  concerned  produced  in  India  and  sold  to 
the Union is identical in terms of physical and chemical characteristics and uses to the 
product produced and sold on the domestic market in India. It is therefore concluded 
that  products  sold  on  the  domestic  and  export  markets  are  like  products  within  the 
meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation. Since the present review was limited 
to  the  determination  of  subsidisation  as  far  as  the  applicant  is  concerned,  no 
conclusions were reached with regard to the product produced and sold by the Union 
industry on the Union market.  

9 
10 

OJ C 151, 10.6.2010, p.15. 
OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3. 

RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION  

3.1. 

Subsidisation 

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

Nationwide schemes:  

(a)  Advance Authorisation Scheme ('AAS');  

(b)  Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme ('DEPBS'); 

(c)  Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme ('EPCGS'); 

(d)  Focus Market Scheme ('FMS'); 

(e)  Focus Product Scheme ('FPS'); 

(f) 

Income Tax Exemption Scheme ('ITES'). 

Regional schemes: 

(g)  Capital Investment Incentive Scheme of the Government of Gujarat 

(17)  The schemes (a) to (e) 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 Foreign Trade Policy 
('FTP')  documents,  which  are  issued  by  the  Ministry  of  Commerce  every  five  years 
and  updated  regularly.  Two  FTP  documents  are  relevant  to  the  RIP  of  this  case,  i.e. 
FTP 04-09 and FTP 09-14. The latter entered into force in August 2009. In addition, 
the  GOI  also  sets  out  the  procedures  governing  FTP  04-09  and  FTP  09-14  in  a 
'Handbook of Procedures, Volume I' ('HOP I 04-09' and 'HOP I 09-14' respectively). 
The Handbook of Procedures is also updated on a regular basis. 

(18)  Scheme (f) is based on the Income Tax Act of 1961, which is amended by the yearly 

Finance Act. 

(19)  Scheme  (g)  is  administered  by  the  Government  of  Gujarat  and  is  based  on  Gujarat's 

industrial incentive policy. 

3.1.1.  Advance Authorisation Scheme (‘AAS’) 

(a)  Legal basis 

(20)  The  detailed  description  of  the  scheme  is  contained  in  paragraphs  4.1.1  to  4.1.14  of 
FTP 04-09 and FTP 09-14 and paragraphs 4.1 to 4.30A of HOP I 04-09 and HOP I 09-
14. 

(b)  Eligibility 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
(21)  The  AAS  consists  of  six  sub-schemes,  as  described  in  more  detail  in  recital  (22). 
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 FTP 04-09 and FTP 09-14, such as suppliers of an export oriented unit (EOU), 
are  eligible  for  AAS  deemed  export.  Eventually, 
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. 

intermediate  suppliers 

(c)  Practical implementation 

(22)  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 resultant 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 authorisation; 

(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 
authorisation  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  resultant 
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 
FTP  04-09  and  FTP  09-14.  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 
intermediate 
paragraph  8.3  of  FTP  04-09  and  FTP  09-14  (i.e.  AAS  for 
supplies/deemed  export,  deemed  export  drawback  and  refund  of  terminal  excise 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
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 the forecast export 
benefits  as  set  out  in  paragraph  8.3  of  FTP  04-09  and  FTP  09-14  (i.e.  AAS  for 
intermediate  supplies/deemed  export,  deemed  export  drawback  and  refund  of 
terminal excise duty).  

(23) 

It was established that during the RIP the  applicant obtained concessions only  under 
one sub-scheme linked to the product concerned, i.e. (iv) the AAS deemed exports. It 
is  therefore  not  necessary  to  establish  the  countervailability  of  the  remaining  unused 
sub-schemes.  

(24)  With  regard  to  the  use  of  AAS  for  deemed  exports  during  the  RIP,  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 this scheme 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 issued by the GOI.  

(25)  For verification purposes by the Indian authorities, an Advance Authorisation holder is 
legally obliged to maintain an actual consumption register ('true and proper account') 
of duty-free imported/domestically procured goods against each authorisation, as per 
prescribed  format  (paragraphs  4.26,  4.30  and  Appendix  23  HOP  I  04-09  and  HOP  I 
09-14). 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.  

(26)  The  export  obligation  must  be  fulfilled  within  a  prescribed  time-frame  (24  months 

with two possible extensions of six months each) after issuance of the authorisation.  

(27) 

It  was  established  that  the  there  were  no  links  between  the  imported  inputs  and  the 
exported finished products. The eligible input materials can be also raw materials used 
in  the  production  of  upstream  products.  Furthermore,  it  was  found  that,  although 
mandatory, the company did not keep for all licences the consumption register referred 
to in recital (24) above ('Appendix 23'), verifiable by an external accountant. In spite 
of the breach of this requirement, the company did avail the benefits under AAS which 
were  moreover,  in  view  of  the  found  overestimation  of  the  SIONs,  in  excess  of  the 
legal provisions therefore. 

(d)  Conclusion 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
(28)  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 exporter. 

(29) 

In  addition,  AAS  for  deemed  exports  is  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 this scheme. 

(30)  The  present  review  has,  therefore,  confirmed  that  the  main  sub-scheme  used  in  the 
present case cannot be considered as 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 rules laid down in Annexes I (item (i)), II (definition and rules 
for  drawback)  and  III  (definition  and  rules  for  substitution  drawback)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. The GOI did not effectively apply its 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 
themselves  cannot  be  considered  a  verification  system  of  actual  consumption,  since 
they have been found to be overgenerous and it was established that benefits received 
in excess are not reclaimed by the GOI. Indeed, an effective control done by the GOI 
based on a correctly kept actual consumption register did not take place. 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).  Finally,  it  has  been  confirmed  that,  although  mandatory  by  law,  the 
involvement  of  chartered  accountants  in  the  verification  process  is,  in  practice,  not 
guaranteed. 

(31)  AAS for deemed exports is therefore countervailable. 

(e)  Calculation of the subsidy amount 

(32) 

In  the  absence  of  permitted  duty  drawback  system  or  substitution  drawback  system, 
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 an excess remission of duties 
can  be  countervailed,  provided  the  conditions  of  Annexes  II  and  III  of  the  basic 
Regulation are met. However, these conditions were not fulfilled in the present case. 
Thus,  if  an  absence  of  an  adequate  monitoring  process  is  established,  the  above 
exception  for  drawback  schemes  is  not  applicable  and  the  normal  rule  for 
countervailing  the  amount  of  (revenue  forgone)  unpaid  duties,  rather  than  any 
purported  excess  remission,  applies.  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  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. 

(33)  The  subsidy  amount  for  the  applicant  was  calculated  on  the  basis  of  import  duties 
forgone  (basic  customs  duty  and  special  additional  customs  duty)  on  the  material 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
imported  under  the  deemed  exports  sub-scheme  during  the  RIP  (nominator).  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 has 
been  allocated  over  the  total  export  turnover  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. 

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

amounts to 0.52%. 

3.1.2.  Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (‘DEPBS’) 

(a)  Legal Basis 

(35)  The  detailed  description  of  the  DEPBS  is  contained  in  paragraphs  4.3  of  FTP  04-09 

and FTP 09-14 as well as in chapter 4 of HOP I 04-09 and HOP I 09-14.  

(b)  Eligibility 

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

(c)  Practical implementation 

(37)  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 (see recital (24) above) and the 
customs duty incidence on the presumed import content, regardless of whether import 
duties  have  actually  been  paid  or  not.  The  DEPBS  rate  for  the  product  concerned 
during the RIP of the current investigation was 8 % with a value cap of 58 Rs/kg. 

(38)  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,  during  the  dispatch 
procedure,  an  export  shipping  bill.  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  was  made.  Therefore,  there  is  no  possibility  for  a  retroactive 
amendment to the level of the benefit. 

(39) 

It was found that in accordance with Indian accounting standards, DEPBS credits can 
be booked on an accrual basis as income in the commercial accounts, upon fulfilment 
of  the  export  obligation.  Such  credits  can  be  used  for  payment  of  customs  duties  on 
subsequent  imports  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.  DEPBS  credits  are  freely  transferable  and  valid  for  a 
period of 24 months from the date of issue. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
(40)  Applications  for  DEPBS  credits  are  electronically  filed  and  can  cover  an  unlimited 
amount  of export transactions. The deadline to submit applications is 3 months after 
exportation, but as clearly provided in paragraph 9.3 of the HOP I 04-09 and HOP I 
09-14,  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). 

(41) 

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

(d)  Conclusions on DEPBS 

(42)  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  be  otherwise  due.  In  addition,  the  DEPBS  credit 
confers a benefit upon the exporter, because it improves its liquidity. 

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

(44)  This  scheme  cannot  be  considered  as  permissible  duty  drawback  system  or 
substitution  drawback  system  within  the  meaning  of  Article  3(1)(a)(ii)  of  the  basic 
Regulation  as  claimed  by  the  cooperating  Indian  exporting  producer.  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 

(45) 

In  accordance  with  Articles  3(2)  and  5  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  amount  of 
countervailable  subsidies  was  calculated  in  terms  of  the  benefit  conferred  on  the 
recipient, which is found to exist during the review investigation period. In this regard, 
it  was  considered  that  the  benefit  is  conferred  on  the  recipient  at  the  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. 

(46) 

It was found that the benefits derived from DEPBS were concentrated on the product 
concerned.  Therefore  it  is  considered  appropriate  to  assess  the  benefit  under  the 
DEPBS as being the sum of the credits earned on all export transactions of the product 
concerned made under this scheme during the RIP. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
(47)  Where justified claims were made, fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were 
deducted from the credits so established to arrive at the subsidy amounts as numerator, 
pursuant to Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation.  

(48) 

In  accordance  with  Article  7(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation  these  subsidy  amounts  have 
been  allocated  over  the  total  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.  

(49)  Based  on  the  above,  the  subsidy  rate  established  in  respect  of  this  scheme  for  the 

applicant during the RIP amounts to 7.52%. 

3.1.3.  Export Promotion Capital Goods scheme (‘EPCGS’) 

(a)  Legal basis 

(50)  The  detailed  description of  EPCGS  is  contained  in  chapter 5 of FTP 04-09 and FTP 

09-14 as well as in chapter 5 of HOP I 04-09 and HOP I 09-14.  

(b)  Eligibility 

(51)  Manufacturer-exporters,  merchant-exporters  “tied  to”  supporting  manufacturers  and 

service providers are eligible for this scheme.  

(c)  Practical implementation 

(52)  Under  the  condition  of  an  export  obligation,  a  company  is  allowed  to  import  capital 
goods  (new  and  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.  The  scheme  provides  for  a  reduced  import  duty  rate  of  3%  applicable  to  all 
capital goods imported under the scheme. 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. Under FTP 09-14 the capital goods can be imported with 0% 
duty rate under the EPCGS but in such case the time period for fulfilment of the export 
obligation is shorter.  

(53)  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. 

(d)  Conclusion on EPCGS 

(54)  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  be 
otherwise  due.  In  addition,  the  duty  reduction  confers  a  benefit  upon  the  exporter, 
because the duties saved upon importation improve the company’s liquidity. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
(55)  Furthermore,  EPCGS  is  contingent  in  law  upon  export  performance,  since  such 
licences cannot 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.  

(56)  EPCGS  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 

(57)  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 used in 
the petrochemical segment and other sectors for which such benefits were received by 
the company, spread across a period which reflects the normal depreciation period of 
such  capital  goods  in  the  industry  concerned. Interests  were  added  to  this  amount  in 
order to reflect the full value of the benefit over time. The commercial credit interest 
rate  applied  by  the  applicant  for  its  sales  during  the  review  investigation  period  was 
considered appropriate for this purpose. 

(58) 

In accordance with Articles 7(2) and 7(3) of the basic Regulation this subsidy amount 
has  been  allocated  over  the  export  turnover  of  the  petrochemical  sector  and  other 
sectors  for  which  such  benefits  were  received  during  the  RIP  as  appropriate 
denominator, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance.  

(59)  The  subsidy  rate  established  in  respect  of  this  scheme  during  the  RIP  amounts  to 

1.49%. 

3.1.4.  Focus Market Scheme ('FMS')  

(a)  Legal basis 

(60)  The detailed description of FMS is contained in paragraph 3.9.1 to 3.9.2.2 of FTP 04-
09  and  paragraph  3.14.1  to  3.14.3  of  FTP  09-14  and  in  paragraph  3.20  to  3.20.3  of 
HOP I 04-09 and paragraph 3.8 to 3.8.2 of HOP I 09-14. 

(b)  Eligibility 

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

(c)  Practical implementation 

(62)  Under this scheme exports of all products to countries notified under Appendix 37(C) 
of HOP I 04-09 and HOP I 09-14 are entitled to duty credit equivalent to 2.5% to 3% 
of  the  FOB  value  of  products  exported  under  this  scheme.  Certain  type  of  export 
activities are excluded from the scheme, e.g. exports of imported goods or transhipped 
goods,  deemed  exports,  service  exports  and  export  turnover  of  units  operating  under 
special  economic  zones/export  operating  units.  Also  excluded  from  the  scheme  are 
certain  types  of  products,  e.g.  diamonds,  precious  metals,  ores,  cereals,  sugar  and 
petroleum products. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
(63)  The duty credits under FMS are freely transferable and valid for a period of 24 months 
from the date of issue of the relevant credit entitlement certificate. They can be used 
for payment of custom duties on subsequent imports of any inputs or goods including 
capital goods. 

(64)  The credit entitlement certificate is issued from the port from which the exports have 
been  made  and  after  realisation  of  exports  or  shipment  of  goods.  As  long  as  the 
applicant provides to the authorities copies of all relevant export documentation (e.g. 
export  order,  invoices,  shipping  bills,  bank  realisation  certificates),  the  GOI  has  no 
discretion over the granting of the duty credits. 

(d)  Conclusion on FMS 

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

(66)  Furthermore,  FMS  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. 

(67)  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 point (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. 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 point 
(i) of Annex I and Annexes II and III of the basic Regulation. An exporter is eligible 
for FMS 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 FMS. Moreover, an exporter can use FMS duty 
credits in order to import capital goods although capital goods are not covered by the 
scope  of  permissible  duty  drawback  systems,  as  set  out  in  Annex  I  point  (i)  of  the 
basic  Regulation,  because  they  are  not  consumed  in  the  production  of  the  exported 
products. 

(e)  Calculation of the subsidy amount 

(68)  The  amount  of  countervailable  subsidies  was  calculated  in  terms  of  the  benefit 
conferred on the recipient for export of the product concerned, which is found to exist 
during  the  RIP  as  booked  by  the  applicant  using  the  scheme  on  an  accrual  basis  as 
income at the stage of export transaction. In accordance with Article 7(2) and 7(3) of 
the  basic  Regulation  this  subsidy  amount  (nominator)  has  been  allocated  over  the 
export turnover of the product concerned during the RIP as appropriate denominator, 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by 
reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported. 

(69)  Where justified claims were made, fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were 
deducted from the credits so established to arrive at the subsidy amounts as numerator, 
pursuant to Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation.  

(70)  The  subsidy  rate  established  with  regard  to  this  scheme  during  the  RIP  for  the 

applicant amounts to 0.87%. 

3.1.5.  Focus Product Sheme ('FPS') 

(71) 

In the course of the investigation it was found that Reliance did not obtain any benefits 
under  FPS  during  the  RIP.  It  was  therefore  not  necessary  to  further  analyse  this 
scheme in this investigation. 

3.1.6. 

Income Tax Exemption Scheme ('ITES') 

(72) 

In the course of the investigation it was found that Reliance did not obtain any benefits 
under  ITES  during  the  RIP.  It  was  therefore  not  necessary  to  further  analyse  this 
scheme in this investigation. 

3.1.7.  Capital Invesment Incentive Scheme ('CIIS') of the Government of Gujarat 

(73)  The State of Gujarat grants to eligible industrial enterprises incentives in the form of 
exemption  and/or  deferment  of  sales  and  purchase  tax  in  order  to  encourage  the 
industrial development of economically backward areas within this State.  

(a)  Legal basis 

(74)  The  detailed  description  of  this  scheme  as  applied  by  the  Government  of  Gujarat 
(GOG) is set out in GOG Resolution No INC-1095/2000(3)/I of 11 September 1995, 
the  Government  Notification,  Finance  Department  No 
(GHN-43)  VAT-
2006/S.5(2)(2)-TH dated the 1st April 2006 and Rule 18A of the Gujarat Value Added 
Tax Rules (2006). 

(b)  Eligibility 

(75)  Companies  setting  up  a  new  industrial  establishment  or  making  a  large-scale 
expansion  of  an  existing  industrial  establishment  in  backward  areas  are  eligible  to 
avail  of  benefits  under  this  scheme.  Nevertheless,  exhaustive  lists  of  ineligible 
industries exist that prevent companies in certain fields of operations from benefiting 
from the incentives. 

(c) Practical implementation 

(76)  Under  this  scheme,  companies  must  invest  in  backward  areas.  These  areas,  which 
represent certain territorial units in Gujarat are classified according to their economic 
development into different categories while at the same time there are areas excluded 
or  ‘banned’  from  the  application  of  the  incentive  schemes.  The  main  criteria  to 
establish  the  amount  of  the  incentives  are  the  size  of  the  investment  and  the  area  in 
which the enterprise is or will be located. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
(77) 

Incentives can be granted at any point in time since there are no time limits either in 
the  filing  of  an  application  for  the  incentives  or  in  the  fulfilment  of  the  quantitative 
criteria. 

(d) Conclusion  

(78)  This scheme provides subsidies within the meaning of Articles 3(1)(a)(ii) and 3(2) of 
the  basic  Regulation.  It  constitutes  a  financial  contribution  by  the  GOG,  since  the 
incentives granted, in the present case sales and purchase tax exemptions, decrease tax 
revenue which would be otherwise due. In addition, these incentives confer a benefit 
upon  a  company,  because  they  improve  its  financial  situation  since  taxes  otherwise 
due are not paid. 

(79)  Furthermore, the scheme is regionally specific in the meaning of Articles 4(2)(a) and 
4(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation  since  it  is  only  available  to  certain  companies  having 
invested  within  certain  designated  geographical  areas  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
State  concerned.  It  is  not  available  to  companies  located  outside  these  areas  and,  in 
addition, the level of benefit is differentiated according to the area concerned. 

(80)  The CIIS of the GOG is therefore countervailable. 

(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount 

(81)  The applicant claimed that it is no longer eligible for benefits under the CIIS for one of 
its  plants.  The  investigation  confirmed  this  claim.  In  case  of  another  plant,  the 
eligibility  of  the  company  expired  during  the  current  investigation.  The  subsidies 
received for the activities of these plants therefore were not taken into account in the 
calculation of the subsidy amount. 

(82)  The  subsidy  amount  was  calculated  on  the  basis  of  the  amount  of  the  sales  and 
purchase tax normally due during the review investigation period but which remained 
unpaid under this scheme. In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, the 
amount  of  subsidy  (numerator)  have  then  been  allocated  over  total  sales  during  the 
review  investigation  period  as  appropriate  denominator,  because  the  subsidy  is  not 
export contingent and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, 
produced, exported or transported. The subsidy rate obtained amounted to 0.31%.  

3.1.8.  Amount of countervailable subsidies 

(83)  The  amount  of  total  countervailable  subsidies  determined  in  accordance  with  the 
provisions of the basic Regulation, expressed ad valorem, for the applicant is 10.73%. 
This  amount  of  subsidisation  exceeds  the  de  minimis  threshold  mentioned  under 
Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation. 

(84) 

It  is  therefore  considered  that,  pursuant  to  Article  18  of  the  basic  Regulation, 
subsidisation continued during the RIP. 

3.2. 

Lasting nature of changed circumstances with regard to subsidisation 

(85) 

In  accordance  with  Article  19(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  it  was  examined  whether 
circumstances with regard to subsidisation changed significantly during the RIP. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
(86) 

It  was  established  that,  during  the  RIP,  Reliance  continued  to  benefit  from 
countervailable  subsidisation by  the  GOI.  Further, the subsidy rate found during this 
review is lower than that established during the last review investigation. No evidence 
is available that the schemes will be discontinued or new schemes will be introduced 
in the near future. 

(87)  Since it has been demonstrated that the company is in receipt of less subsidisation than 
before  and  that  it  is  likely  to  continue  to  receive  subsidies  of  an  amount  less  than 
determined in the last review investigation, it is concluded that the continuation of the 
existing measure is higher than the countervailable subsidy causing injury and that the 
level of the measures should therefore be amended to reflect the new findings. 

4. 

COUNTERVAILING MEASURES AND ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 

4.1. 

Countervailing measures 

(88) 

In line with the provisions of Article 19 of the basic Regulation and the grounds of this 
partial interim review stated in the Notice of Initiation, it is established that the margin 
of subsidisation with regard to the applicant has decreased from 13.8 % to 10.7 % and, 
therefore,  the  rate  of  countervailing  duty,  imposed  to  this  exporting  producer  by 
Regulation (EC) No 1286/2008 has to be amended accordingly. 

(89)  The  amended  countervailing  duty  rate  should  be  established  at  the  level  of  the  new 
rate of subsidisation found during the present review, as the injury margins calculated 
in the original anti-subsidy investigation remain higher. 

(90) 

In  the  original  investigation,  in  order  to  avoid  that  fluctuations  in  the  PET  prices 
caused by variations in the crude oil prices result in higher duties being collected, was 
decided that measures should take the form of a specific duty. It is considered that this 
approach  should  also  be  followed  in  this  review  for  the  same  reason.  The  revised 
amount of specific duty is therefore EUR 90.4/tonne. 

4.2. 

Anti-dumping measures 

(91)  The amendment of the countervailing duty rate will have an impact on the definitive 
anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of PET produced by Reliance, by Regulation 
(EC) No 192/2007. 

(92) 

In all previous investigations the anti-dumping duty was adjusted in order to avoid any 
double-counting of the effects of benefits from export subsidies. In this regard, Article 
14(1) of the of the basic Anti-dumping Regulation and Article 24(1) of the basic anti-
subsidy Regulation provide that no product shall be subject to both anti-dumping and 
countervailing  measures  for  the  purpose  of  dealing  with  one  and  the  same  situation 
arising  from  dumping  or  export  subsidisation.  It  was  found  in  the  previous 
investigations as well as in the present partial interim review that certain of the subsidy 
schemes  investigated,  which  were  found  to  be  countervailable,  constituted  export 
subsidies  within  the  meaning  of  Article  4(4)(a)  of  the  basic  anti-subsidy  Regulation. 
With respect to other subsidy schemes, and in particular the CIIS of the GOG, there 
was no evidence and no argument was made showing whether and to what degree the 
same subsidies are being offset twice when anti-dumping and countervailing duties are 
simultaneously  imposed  on  the  same  imported  product.  More  specifically,  there  was 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
no evidence that the CIIS lowered the export price of a product in a different manner 
than the price of products sold domestically. Thus, the CIIS affects the prices at which 
the producer sells its goods in the domestic market and in export markets in the same 
way and to the same extent. 

(93)  As such, these subsidies affected the export price of the applicant, thus leading to an 
increased  margin  of  dumping.  In  other  words,  the  definitive  dumping  margins 
established in the original anti-dumping investigation were partly due to the existence 
of export subsidies. 

(94)  Consequently,  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  rates  for  the  applicant  must  now  be 
adjusted to take account of the revised level of benefit received from export subsidies 
in the RIP in the present partial interim review to reflect the actual dumping margin 
remaining after the imposition of the adjusted definitive countervailing duty offsetting 
the effect of the export subsidies. 

(95) 

In  other  words,  the  new  subsidy  levels  will  have  to  be  taken  into  account  for  the 
purpose of adjusting the dumping margins, previously established. 

(96)  The anti-dumping duty rate of Reliance should thus be 132.6 EUR/tonne. 

(97)  The  applicant  as  well  as  the  other  parties  concerned  were  informed  of  the  facts  and 
considerations on the basis of which it was intended to propose the termination of the 
investigation.  

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

Part of the table concerning Reliance Industries Ltd. in paragraph 2 of Article 1 of Regulation 
(EC) No 193/2007 shall be replaced by the following: 

Country 

Company 

Countervailing duty 
(EUR/tonne) 

TARIC additional 
code 

India 

Reliance Industries 
Ltd 

90.4 

A181 

Article 2 

Part of the table concerning Reliance Industries Ltd. in paragraph 2 of Article 1 of Regulation 
(EC) No 192/2007 shall be replaced by the following: 

Country 

Company 

Anti-dumping duty 
(EUR/tonne) 

TARIC additional 
code 

India 

Reliance Industries 
Ltd 

132.6 

A181 

EN 

20 

   EN 

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

Article 3 

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

Done at Brussels, 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

21 

   EN