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: 2011-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: India, anti-dumping measure, import (EU), originating product, plastics, thin sheet

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 9.12.2011 
COM(2011) 868 final 

2011/0423 (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 

 
 
 
 
  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This proposal concerns the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on 
protection  against  dumped  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European 
Community1  (‘the  basic  Regulation’)  in  the  proceeding  concerning  imports  of 
polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India 

•  General context 

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

The  measures  currently  in  force  are  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  imposed  by 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 (OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 1.) on imports of 
polyethylene terephtalate (PET) film originating in India, as last amended by Council 
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 469/2011 (OJ L 129, 17.5.2011, p. 1.). 

•  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 contain 
an exhaustive list of conditions that have to be assessed. 

1 

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

On 29 October 2010, the Commission initiated a partial interim review investigation 
of  the  anti-dumping  measures  applicable  to  imports  of  polyethylene  terephthalate 
(PET) film originating in India, limited in scope to the examination of dumping as far 
as  Ester  Industries  Ltd.  ('the  applicant')  is  concerned.  The  review  was  initiated 
because the applicant, an exporting producer in India, provided sufficient prima facie 
evidence  that  the  circumstances  with  regard  to  dumping  on  the  basis  of  which 
measures  were  established,  have  changed  and  that  these  changes  are  of  a  lasting 
nature. 

The  comparison  of  the  applicant's  normal  value  and  its  export  price  to  the  EU 
showed  a  dumping  margin  of  8,3%  in  the  review  investigation  period,  which  is 
significantly less than the anti-dumping duty currently applicable to the company.  

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. 

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation 
so as to amend to 8,3% the duty rate applicable to Ester Industries Ltd., which should 
be published in the Official Journal of the European Union by 28 January 2012 at the 
latest. 

•  Legal basis 

Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against 
dumped  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European  Community  and  in 
particular Article 11(3) thereof. 

•  Subsidiarity principle 

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

•  Proportionality principle 

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

The form of action is described in the above-mentioned basic 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 instrument: Council Regulation. 

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

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Union budget. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
2011/0423 (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 Community2 (‘the basic 
Regulation’), and in particular Articles 9(4) and Article 11(3), (5) and (6) thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

A. PROCEDURE 

1. 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 

Previous investigations and existing anti-dumping measures 

In August 2001, by Regulation (EC) No 1676/20013, the Council imposed a definitive 
anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  polyethylene  terephthalate  (PET)  film  originating, 
inter  alia,  in  India.  The  measures  consisted  of  an  ad  valorem  anti-dumping  duty 
ranging  between  0  %  and  62,6  %  imposed  on  imports  from  individually  named 
exporting  producers,  with  a  residual  duty  rate  of  53,3  %  on  imports  from  all  other 
companies. 

In  August  2001,  the  Commission,  by  Decision  2001/645/EC4  accepted  price 
undertakings offered by five Indian producers. The acceptance of the undertakings was 
subsequently withdrawn5 in March 2006. 

In March 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 366/20066, 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 Regulation (EC) No 367/20067.  

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p.51. 
OJ L 227, 23.8.2001, p. 1. 
OJ L 227, 23.8.2001, p. 56. 
OJ L 68, 8.3.2006, p. 37. 
OJ L 68, 8.3.2006, p. 6. 
OJ L 68, 8.3.2006, p. 15. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

In September 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 1424/20068, the Council, following a new 
exporting producer request, amended Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 in respect of one 
Indian exporter. The amended Regulation established a dumping margin of 15,5 % for 
cooperating  companies  not  included  in  the  sample  and  an  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  1292/20079,  the  Council  imposed  a 
definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of PET film originating in India following an 
expiry  review  pursuant  to  Article  11(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  By  the  same 
Regulation a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, 
limited  in  scope  to  the  examination  of  dumping  in  respect  of  one  Indian  exporting 
producer was terminated.  

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  (EC)  No  1292/2007  in  this  regard  was  made  by  Regulation  (EU)  No 
806/201010. 

In  January  2009,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  15/200911,  the  Council,  following  a  partial 
interim  review  initiated  by  the  Commission  on  its  own  initiative  concerning  the 
subsidisation of five Indian PET film producers, amended the definitive anti-dumping 
duties  imposed  on  these  companies  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1292/2007  and  the 
definitive  countervailing  duties  imposed  on these  companies  by  Regulation  (EC)  No 
367/2006. 

In  May  2011,  by  Regulation  (EU)  No  469/201112,  the  Council  amended  Regulation 
(EC)  No  1292/2007  and  thus  adjusted  the  anti-dumping  duty  rates  in  view  of  the 
expiry on 9 March 201113 of the countervailing duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 
367/2006.  

(9) 

The applicant of this interim review – Ester Industries Limited - is currently subject to 
a definitive anti-dumping duty of 29,3 %.  

2. 

Request for a partial interim review 

(10) 

In July 2010, 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  Ester  Industries  Limited,  an  exporting 
producer from India ('Ester' or 'the applicant'). In its request, the applicant claimed that 
the circumstances on the basis of which measures were imposed have changed and that 

8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 

OJ L 270, 29.9.2006, p. 1. 
OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 1. 
OJ L 242, 15.9.2010. 
OJ L 6, 10.1.2009, p. 1. 
OJ L 129, 17.5.2011, p. 1. 
Notice of expiry (OJ C 68, 3.3.2011, p. 6). 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
these changes are of a lasting nature. The applicant provided prima facie evidence that 
the continued imposition of the measure at its current level was no longer necessary to 
offset injurious dumping.  

3. 

Initiation of a review 

(11)  Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence 
existed to justify the initiation of a partial interim review, the Commission announced 
by  a  notice  published  on  29  October  2010  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European 
Union14  ('the  Notice  of  Initiation')  the  initiation  of  a  partial  interim  review  in 
accordance  with  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation  limited  in  scope  to  the 
examination of dumping in respect of the applicant. 

(12)  The  Notice  of  Initiation  mentioned  that  the  partial  interim  review  would  also  assess 
the  need,  depending  on  the  review  findings,  to  amend  the  rate  of  duty  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. 

4. 

Investigation 

(13)  The investigation of the level of dumping covered the period from 1 October 2009 to 

30 September 2010 ('the review investigation period' or 'the RIP') 

(14)  The  Commission  officially  informed  the  applicant,  the  authorities  of  the  exporting 
country  and  the  Union  industry  of  the  initiation  of  the  partial  interim  review 
investigation. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known 
in writing and to be heard. 

(15) 

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

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

B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

1. 

Product concerned 

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

14 

OJ C 294, 29.10.2010, p. 10. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

Like product 

(18)  As in previous investigations, this investigation has shown that PET film produced in 
India and exported to the Union and the PET film produced and sold domestically on 
the Indian market, as well as the PET film produced and sold in the EU by the Union 
producers  have  the  same  basic  physical  and  chemical  characteristics  and  the  same 
basic uses.  

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

of the basic Regulation. 

C. DUMPING  

(a) Normal value  

(20) 

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

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

(22) 

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

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

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

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
(b) Export price  

(25) 

(26) 

In the previous interim review leading to the adoption of Regulation (EC) 366/2006, it 
was  determined  that  price  undertakings  influenced  the  past  export  prices  and  made 
them  unreliable  for  the  determination  of  future  export  behaviour.  In  that  interim 
review, given that Ester was selling the product concerned in substantial quantities on 
the  world  market,  it  was  decided  to  establish  the  export  price  on  the  basis  of  prices 
actually paid or payable to all third countries. 

It is recalled that the acceptance of price undertakings was withdrawn in March 2006, 
i.e. more than three years before the current RIP. Therefore, Ester's export prices to the 
Union in the current RIP were not influenced by any price undertakings. It can be thus 
concluded that they can be considered reliable for the determination of future export 
behaviour. 

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

(c) Comparison  

(28)  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 affected prices and price comparability. For this purpose, due allowance 
in the form of adjustments was made, where applicable and justified, for differences in 
transport,  insurance,  handling,  loading  and  ancillary  costs,  commissions,  financial 
costs and packing costs paid by the applicant.  

(29)  The applicant claimed that compared to the previous interim review investigation it is 
offering its customers a wider variation of chemical coatings and this aspect should be 
taken  into  account  when  classifying  the  product  concerned  into  different  product 
types. However, the company did not demonstrate that the different types of chemical 
coatings affected price comparability and, in particular, that the customers consistently 
paid different prices on the domestic market and on the EU export market depending 
on  the  type  of  chemical  coating.  Therefore,  the  product  classification  applied  in  the 
previous investigations should be maintainedand the claim must be rejected. 

(30)  The  applicant  also  claimed  an  adjustment  on  the  export  price,  based  on  the  benefits 
received upon exportation under the Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPB) on a 
post-export  basis.  In  this  respect,  it  was  found  that  under  this  scheme,  the  credits 
received when exporting the product concerned could be used to offset customs duties 
due on imports of any goods or could be freely sold to other companies. In addition, 
there is no constraint that the imported goods should only be used in the production of 
the exported product concerned. Ester did not demonstrate that the benefit under the 
DEPB  scheme  affected  price  comparability  and,  in  particular,  that  the  customers 
consistently paid different prices on the domestic market because of the DEPB scheme 
benefits. Therefore, the claim was rejected.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
(31)  The applicant further claimed an adjustment on the export price, based on the benefits 
received  under  the  Export  Promotion  Capital  Goods  Scheme  (EPCG)  and  under 
"Export  Credits"  Scheme.  In  this  regard  it  has  to  be  noted  that  similarly  as  with  the 
other schemes mentioned  above  there  is no constraint that the imported goods under 
the  EPCG  Scheme  should  only  be  used  in  the  production  of  the  exported  product 
concerned.  Secondly,  the  applicant  did  not  submit  any  evidence  of  an  explicit  link 
between pricing of the exported goods and the benefits received under the EPCG and 
"Export Credits" Schemes. Finally, the applicant did not demonstrate that the benefits 
under  these  two  schemes  affected  price  comparability  and,  in  particular,  that  the 
customers  consistently  paid  different  prices  on  the  domestic  market  because  of  the 
EPCG and "Export Credits" Schemes benefits. Therefore, the claim has to be rejected. 

(d) Dumping margin  

(32)  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. Following the comments on disclosure 
set out in recitals (44) and (45) below, the dumping margin, expressed as a percentage 
of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, is 8,3%.  

D. LASTING NATURE OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES 

(33) 

(34) 

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

In  this  regard  the  investigation  showed  that  Ester  indeed  has  taken  a  number  of 
measures  for  cost  reduction  and  efficiency  improvements.  Notably,  the  company 
modernized and built a new production line. Further, as a result of significant increase 
in  production,  the  overhead  costs  substantially  declined.  The  company  also  started 
sourcing  its  raw  materials  more  efficiently  (from  a  closer  location)  and  managed 
thereby to considerably reduce freight costs. This cost reduction has a direct impact on 
the dumping margin . This change in circumstances can therefore be considered to be 
of a lasting nature.  

(35)  As regards export price, the investigation showed a certain stability in Ester's pricing 
policies  over  a  long  period,  between  2006  (the  year  when  the  undertaking  was 
repealed) and 2010 (almost the end of the RIP). Given that change in the methodology 
for the determination of Ester's export price to the Union as described in recitals (24) 
and  (25)  above  and  the  above-mentioned  stability  in  prices,  the  newly  calculated 
dumping margin is likely to be of a lasting nature. 

(36) 

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

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
E. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 

(37)  One exporting producer argued that the average dumping margin of the sample should 
be recalculated, in case the current interim review resulted in a lower dumping margin 
for Ester (which was one of the companies in the sample) than previously established. 
It  should  be  recalled  that  the  scope  of  the  current  partial  interim  review  pursuant  to 
Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation is explicitly limited to the review of the margin 
of  dumping  of  the  applicant,  an  individual  exporter,  namely  Ester.  Therefore,  the 
investigation  was  limited  to  the  specific  circumstances  of  the  applicant,  taking  into 
account all relevant and duly documented evidence15. The conclusions reached on this 
basis  are  not  pertinent  for  the  other  companies  in  the  sample  or  any  other  exporting 
producer in the country concerned. 

(38) 

(39) 

(40) 

(41) 

15 

16 

It  is  considered  that  the  determination  of  a  new  sample  average  margin  of  dumping 
pursuant  to  Article  9(6)  of  the  basic  Regulation  in  such  circumstances  is  neither 
legally  possible  nor  economically  appropriate  for  the  following  reasons.  Indeed,  it 
should  be  recalled  that  the  calculation  of  a  sample  average  margin  of  dumping  will 
only resorted to when, in the context of one given investigation, it is considered that 
the  number  of  exporters  is  so  large  that  individually  investigating  all  cooperating 
exporters  would  unduly  burden  the  Institutions  and  jeopardize  the  completion  of  the 
investigation within the mandatory deadline laid out in the Basic Regulation. It is then 
assumed  that  the  computation  of  a  weighted  average  margin  on  the  basis  of  the 
margins of dumping of the sampled exporters is representative of the dumping margin 
of the non-sampled cooperating exporters. This can only be the case if such calculation 
is made on the basis of margins of dumping relating to the same period of time. None 
of  the  above  circumstances  are  present  in  the  context  of  a  partial  interim  review 
limited to one company originally in the sample such as the current investigation. As a 
consequence,  it  is  concluded  that  the  factual  circumstances  of  the  current  partial 
interim review are such that the disciplines of Article 9(6) clearly do not apply. 

It is to be recalled that the statement in the Notice of Initiation according to which "if 
it is determined that measures should be removed or amended for the applicant, it may 
be necessary to amend the rate of duty currently applicable to imports of the products 
concerned  from  other  companies  in  India"  means  that,  as  result  of  the  review,  the 
residual duty may go up in order to avoid circumvention16. Since the applicant's duty 
is revised downwards, the abovementioned provision of the Notice of Initiation is not 
relevant. 

In  light  of  the  reasons  described  in  recitals  (37)  to  (39)  above,  the  claim  that  the 
average dumping margin of the sample should be recalculated has to be rejected. 

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 the opportunity to comment. 

Judgment  of  the  General  Court  of  17  December  2010,  EWRIA  and  Others  v  Commission,  Case  T-
369/08, point 7 and 79 and the jurisprudence quoted there. 
Implementing Regulation of the Council (EU) No 270/2010 of 29 March 2010 (OJ L 84, 31.3.2010, p. 
13) amending Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 (OJ L 109, 26.4.2007, p. 12) imposing a definitive anti-
dumping duty on imports of ironing boards originating, inter alia, in the People's Republic of China. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(42)  The applicant reiterated its claims concerning the product classification referred to in 
recital (29) as well as its claims concerning duty drawback adjustment on the export 
price  due  to  the  DEPB,  EPCG  and  "Export  Credits"  benefits  as  described  in  recitals 
(30) and (31). However, since no new elements have been provided that could alter the 
Commission's findings, the claims had to be rejected. 

(43)  The  applicant  further  contested  the  method  of  calculating  the  CIF  value  of  those 
transactions  which  have  been  made  on  FOB  basis.  When  establishing  the  unit  CIF 
value the Commission related the total freight cost paid by the company to all export 
transactions  including  the  FOB  transactions.  The  company  claimed  that  the  total 
freight cost should have been related to the CIF transactions only. This claim has been 
accepted. 

(44)  The  applicant  finally  claimed  that  not  all  sample  sales  have  been  excluded  from  the 

determination of the dumping margin. This claim has also been accepted. 

(45)  Following  the  review  investigation  the  proposed  revised  dumping  margin  and  anti-
dumping  duty  rate  that  would  be  applicable  to  imports  of  the  product  concerned 
manufactured by Ester Industries Limited amounts to 8,3%, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

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

Ester  Industries  Limited,  DLF  City, 
Phase  II,  Sector  25,  Gurgaon,  Haryana  - 
122022, India 

8,3 

A026 

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

Article 2 

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

Done at Brussels, 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

11 

   EN