Proposal for a COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, and terminating the expiry review proceeding concerning imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Indonesia and Malaysia
Date: 2013-04-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: India, Taiwan, Thailand, anti-dumping measure, import (EU), originating product, plastics

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 23.4.2013  
COM(2013) 234 final 

2013/0122 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene 
terephthalate originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand following an expiry review 
pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, and terminating the expiry 
review proceeding concerning imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating 
in Indonesia and Malaysia 

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'),  and  in  particular 
Articles 9(2), 9(4) and 11(2) thereof in the expiry review of the anti-dumping duty in 
force on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Indonesia, 
Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand. 

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 

By Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 , the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping 
duty  on  imports  of  certain  polyethylene  terephthalate  ('PET')  originating  in  India, 
Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand. Following an expiry review, the Council 
by  Regulation  (EC)  No  192/2007,  imposed  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  for  a 
further period of five years. The anti-dumping measures were subsequently amended 
by Council Regulation 1286/2008 pursuant to  Article 19 of the Council Regulation 
(EC)  No  597/2009  on  protection  against  subsidised  import  from  countries  not 
members  of  the  European  Community  ('the  basic  anti-subsidy  Regulation').  A  later 
interim  review  pursuant  to  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation  amended  the 
measures in force by Council Implementing Regulation No 906/2011.  

By Decision 2000/745/EC, as amended from time to time, the Commission accepted 
undertakings setting a minimum import price offered by three exporting producers in 
India. 

In parallel to the measures against the countries concerned, anti-dumping duties exist 
against imports of PET from China (extended in November 2010) and countervailing 
measures  are  in  force  since  September  2010  against  imports  of  PET  originating  in 
Iran,  Pakistan  and  the  United  Arab  Emirates.  Anti-dumping  and  anti-subsidy 
investigations  against  Oman  and  Saudi  Arabia  were  closed  in  2011  following  a 
withdrawal of the complaint.  

Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

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. 

3. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

Summary of the proposed action 

On  24  February  2012,  the  Commission  announced  by  a  notice,  published  in  the 
Official Journal of the European Union, the initiation of an expiry review of the anti-
dumping  measures  applicable  to  imports  of  certain  polyethylene  terephthalate 
originating in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand. 

The  review  was  initiated  following  a  request  lodged  by  the  Committee  of 
Polyethylene  Terephthalate  Manufacturers  in  Europe  (CPME)  on  behalf  of  Union 
producers representing around 95 %, of the Union production of certain polyethylene 
terephthalate. 

With  respect  to  India,  Taiwan  and  Thailand,  the  review  investigation  found 
continued dumping of the product concerned which would result in the recurrence of 
injury to the Union industry in case anti-dumping measures were lifted. It was further 
established  that  the  continuation  of  measures  was  not  against  the  interest  of  the 
Union. 

As for Indonesia and Malaysia, it was concluded that it was not likely that imports to 
the  Union  from  those  countries  would  resume  at  dumped  prices  in  injurious 
quantities  to  the  Union  market  in  the  short  to  medium  term  should  measures  be 
allowed to lapse. 

Therefore  it  is  suggested  that  the  Council  adopts  the  attached  proposal  for  a 
Regulation in order to extend the existing measures for India, Taiwan and Thailand 
and to terminate the measures for Indonesia and Malaysia. 

Legal basis 

EN 

3 

   EN 

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. 

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. 

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Union budget. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

2013/0122 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene 
terephthalate originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand following an expiry review 
pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, and terminating the expiry 
review proceeding concerning imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating 
in Indonesia and Malaysia 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,  

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection 
against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community 1 ('the basic 
Regulation'), and in particular Articles 9(2), 9(4) and 11(2) thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

1. 

(1) 

A. PROCEDURE 

Previous investigations and measures in force 

By Regulation (EC) No 2604/20002 ('the original investigation'), the Council imposed 
a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate ('PET') 
originating  in,  inter  alia,  India,  Indonesia,  Malaysia,  Taiwan  and  Thailand  ('the 
countries concerned'). Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 was subsequently amended by 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  496/20023,  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  823/20044, 
Council Regulation (EC) No 83/20055 and Council Regulation (EC) No 1646/20056.  

(2) 

Following  an  expiry  review  and  partial  interim  review,  the  Council,  by  Regulation 
(EC) No 192/20077 ('the measures in force'), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty 
on  imports  of  certain  polyethylene  terephthalate  originating  in,  inter  alia,  India, 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. 
OJ L 301, 30.11.2000, p. 21. 
OJ L 78, 21.3.2002, p.4. 
OJ L 127, 29.4.2004, p. 7. 
OJ L 19, 21.1.2005, p.1. 
OJ L 266, 11.10.2005, p. 10. 
OJ L 59, 27.2.2007, p. 1. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
Indonesia,  Malaysia,  Taiwan  and  Thailand  for  a  further  period  of  five  years. 
Regulation (EC) No 192/2007 was subsequently amended by Council Regulation (EC) 
No 1286/20088, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 906/20119 and by Council 
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 295/201310 . 

By Decision 2000/745/EC11  and  subsequent  amendments,  the  Commission  accepted 
undertakings setting a minimum import price offered by exporting producers in India 
and Indonesia. 

Countervailing measures in force 

By Regulation (EC) No 2603/200012, the Council imposed a definitive countervailing 
duty  on  imports  of  PET  originating  in  India,  Malaysia  and  Thailand.  Following  an 
expiry review, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 193/200713, imposed a definitive 
countervailing  duty  on  imports  originating  in  India  for  a  further  period  of  five  years 
(‘the countervailing measures in force’). 

Request for an expiry review 

Following  the  publication  of  a  notice  of  impending  expiry14  of  the  anti-dumping 
measures in force, the Commission received on 25 November 2011 a request for the 
initiation of an expiry review of these measures pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic 
Regulation. The request was lodged by the Committee of Polyethylene Terephthalate 
Manufacturers in Europe ('the applicant'), on behalf of producers representing around 
95% of the Union production of certain polyethylene terephthalate.  

The request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely 
to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the Union industry. 

Initiation of an expiry review 

Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence 
existed  for  the  initiation  of  an  expiry  review,  the  Commission  announced  on  24 
February 2012, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union15 
('the notice of initiation'), the initiation of an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of 
the basic Regulation. 

Parallel investigation 

On 24 February 2012, the Commission  also announced, by a notice published  in the 
Official Journal of the European Union16, the initiation of an expiry review pursuant 

OJ L 340,19.12.2008, p. 1. 
OJ L 232, 9.9.2011, p. 19. 
OJ L 90, 28.3.2013, p. 1. 
OJ L 301, 30.11.2000, p. 21. 
OJ L 301, 30.11.2000, p. 1. 
OJ L 59, 27.2.2007, p. 88. 
OJ C 122, 20.4.2011, p. 10. 
OJ C 55, 24.2.2012, p. 4. 
OJ C 55, 24.2.2012, p.14. 

(3) 

2. 

(4) 

3. 

(5) 

(6) 

4. 

(7) 

5. 

(8) 

8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
to Article 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 200917 ('the basic 
anti-subsidy Regulation') of the countervailing measures in force on imports of certain 
PET originating in India. 

6. 

Investigation 

6.1. 

Review investigation period and period considered 

(9) 

The investigation of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of dumping covered 
the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011 ('the review investigation period' 
or 'RIP'). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of 
a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2008 to the 
end of the RIP ('the period considered').  

6.2. 

Parties concerned by the investigation 

(10)  The  Commission  officially  advised  the  applicant  and  other  known  Union  producers, 
exporting  producers  in  the  countries  concerned,  unrelated  importers,  users  known  to 
be concerned and the representatives of the countries concerned of the initiation of the 
expiry review. 

(11) 

(12) 

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

In  view  of  the  apparent  large  number  of  exporting  producers  in  India,  Indonesia, 
Malaysia,  Taiwan  and  Thailand,  as  well  as  unrelated  importers  it  was  considered 
appropriate  to  examine  whether  sampling  should  be  used  in  accordance  with  Article 
17  of  the  basic  Regulation.  In  order  to  enable  the  Commission  to  decide  whether 
sampling  would  be  necessary  and,  if  so,  to  select  a  sample,  the  above  parties  were 
requested to make themselves known within 15 days of the initiation of the review and 
to provide the Commission with the information requested in the notice of initiation.  

(13)  As regards the selection of the samples of exporting producers, seven known exporting 
producers in India were contacted. Seven exporting producers replied and indicated a 
willingness  to  be  included  in  the  sample.  Based  on  their  volume  of  exports  to  the 
Union, a sample of three Indian exporting producers was selected.  

(14)  Five known exporting producers in Indonesia were contacted. However, no exporting 
producer  in  Indonesia  expressed  a  willingness  to  cooperate  with  the  investigation. 
Accordingly,  all  known  exporting  producers  and  the  authorities  of  Indonesia  were 
informed that findings in relation to Indonesia would be made on the basis of the facts 
available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.  

(15)  Two  known  exporting  producers  in  Malaysia  were  contacted.  Only  one  exporting 
producer replied and indicated a willingness to be included in the sample. Therefore, it 
was  decided  that  sampling  was  not  necessary  with  regards  to  exporting  producers  in 

17 

OJ L 188, 18.7.2009, p. 93. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
Malaysia. All other known exporting producers and the authorities of Malaysia were 
informed that findings in relation to the non-cooperating exporting producers would be 
made  on  the  basis  of  the  facts  available  in  accordance  with  Article  18  of  the  basic 
Regulation. 

(16)  Six  known  exporting  producers  in  Taiwan  and  one  exporting  producers’  association 
were  contacted.  No  exporting  producer  in  Taiwan  expressed  a  willingness  to  be 
included  in  the  sample.  All  known  producers,  including  their  representative 
association,  as  well  as  the  authorities  of  Taiwan,  were  informed  that  findings  in 
relation to Taiwan would be made on the basis of facts available in accordance with 
Article 18 of the basic Regulation.  

(17)  Nine  known  exporting  producers  in  Thailand  were  contacted.  Only  one  exporting 
producer replied and indicated a willingness to be included in the sample. Therefore, it 
was  decided  that  sampling  was  not  necessary  with  regards  to  exporting  producers  in 
Thailand.  All  other  known  exporting  producers  and  the  authorities  of  Thailand  were 
informed  that  findings  in  relation  to  non-cooperating  exporting  producers  would  be 
made  on  the  basis  of  the  facts  available  in  accordance  with  Article  18  of  the  basic 
Regulation. 

(18)  The Commission announced in the notice of initiation that it had provisionally selected 
a  sample  of  Union  producers.  This  sample  consisted  of  four  companies,  out  of  the 
thirteen Union producers that were known prior to the initiation of the investigation, 
selected on the basis of the largest representative volume of production and sales that 
could  reasonably  be  investigated  within  the  time  available.  The  sample  represented 
over 50% of the total estimated Union production and sales during the RIP. Interested 
parties were invited to consult the file and to comment on the appropriateness of this 
choice  within  15  days  of  the  date  of  publication  of  the  notice  of  initiation.  All 
interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why 
they should be heard, were granted a hearing.  

(19)  Certain  interested  parties  raised  objections  concerning  the  sampling  of  Union 
producers.  They  claimed  that:  (i)  the  Commission  should  not  resort  to  sampling,  in 
particular,  since  no  sampling  was  used  in  the  previous  investigation;  (ii)  the  method 
used  for  the  selection  of  the  sample  was  contested  on  the  grounds  that  it  'confuses 
three  different  steps',  namely,  the  support  for  the  initiation  of  the  expiry  review, 
definition of the Union industry and sampling; (iii) the provisional sample was set up 
on  the  basis  of  incorrect  and  incomplete  information;  (iv)  the  selected  provisional 
sample  was  not  representative  because  it  included  entities  rather  than  groups;  it  was 
also  claimed  that  including  one  company  that  went  through  a  recent  divestment  or 
another company that had related sales diminished the representativity of the sample.  

(20)  The arguments raised by the parties were addressed as follows:  

– 

The  decision  to  use  a  sample  is  made  for  each  investigation  independently 
depending on the particular circumstances of each case and Article 11(9) of the 
basic  Regulation  does  not  govern  the  use  of  such  a  sample  for  the 
determination of injury in the context of an expiry review. Unlike the previous 
investigations, where the investigation of all companies that came forward and 
cooperated was feasible, the Commission considered in the current review that, 
in  view  of  their  large  number,  not  all  Union  producers  could  be  reasonably 

EN 

8 

   EN 

– 

– 

– 

investigated  in  the  time  available  and  that  the  conditions  of  Article  17  were 
therefore met.  

The  Commission  did  not  'confuse'  the  determination  of  the  support  for  the 
initiation of the expiry review, the determination of the Union industry and the 
selection  of  the  provisional  sample  as these  steps remained independent from 
each other and were decided upon separately. It was not demonstrated to what 
extent  the  use  of  the  production  and  sales  data  provided  by  the  Union 
producers in the context of the examination of the support for the initiation of 
the expiry review had affected the representativity of the sample.  

The sample was set up on the basis of the information available at the time of 
selection  in  accordance  with  Article  17  of  the  basic  Regulation.  The 
representativity  of  the  sample  was  reviewed  following  the  comments  of  the 
parties  concerning  specific  company  data.  None  of  the  comments  made  were 
considered to be founded.  

As required by Article 17 of the basic Regulation the sample was established 
on  the  basis  of  the  largest  representative  volume  of  production  and  sales  that 
could  be  reasonably  investigated  within  the  time  available.  The  entities 
belonging to larger groups that were found to operate independently from other 
subsidiaries  of  the  same  group  were  considered  representative  of  the  Union 
industry  and  there  was  therefore  no  need  to  investigate  the  entire  group  on  a 
consolidated basis. At the same time, the companies were sampled as economic 
entities,  ensuring  that  all  relevant  data  could  be  verified.  Moreover,  the 
divestments and existence of related sales were part of the characteristics of the 
sector  in  the  period  considered  and  therefore  none  of  these  elements  was 
considered to diminish the representativity of the sample. 

(21)  Following  the  disclosure  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  (‘disclosure’)  the 
parties reiterated the above-mentioned arguments which have already been addressed.  

(22)  The three Indian sampled exporting producers, the sole Malaysian exporting producer 
and the sole Thai exporting producer that expressed a willingness to be included in the 
sample submitted questionnaire replies. However the questionnaire reply of one Indian 
sampled producer revealed that it only exported insignificant volumes of the product 
concerned during the RIP and therefore verification visits were eventually completed 
in  the  two  remaining  exporting  producers  which  together  represented  99%  of  total 
imports from India to the Union during the RIP.  

(23)  Following  disclosure,  one  Indian  cooperating  producer  requested  a  calculation  of  its 
dumping margin. In this respect it was reconfirmed that the exports from this company 
were  insignificant  and  consequently  had  no  impact  on  the  determination  of  the 
likelihood  of  continuation  or  recurrence  of  dumping  in  the  present  expiry  review. 
Therefore, this request was rejected.  

(24)  Sampling for unrelated importers was foreseen in the notice of initiation. None of the 
twenty four contacted unrelated importers cooperated in the present investigation. 

(25)  All  five  known  suppliers  of  raw  material  were  contacted  upon  the  initiation  and 

received relevant questionnaire. Two suppliers replied to the questionnaire.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

(26)  All known users and users' associations were contacted upon the initiation. Seventeen 
users submitted a questionnaire reply. Twenty associations of users from 16 Member 
States made themselves known and made submissions. 

(27)  Verification of information received 

(28)  The  Commission  sought  and  verified  all  the  information  it  deemed  necessary  for  a 
determination  of  the  likelihood  of  a  continuation  or  recurrence  of  dumping  and 
resulting  injury  and  of  the  Union  interest.  Verification  visits  were  carried  out  at  the 
premises of the following interested parties: 

(a)  Union producers  

– 

– 

– 

– 

Indorama Polymers Europe, UAB, Netherlands 

Equipolymers, Italy, Germany 

Neo Group, UAB, Lithuania 

Novapet SA, Spain 

(b)  Exporting producers in India: 

– 

– 

Dhunseri Petrochem & Tea Ltd, Kolkata; 

Reliance Industries Ltd, Navi Mumbai;  

(c)  Producer in Malaysia: 

–  MPI Polyester Industries Sdn Bhd, Shah Alam, Selangor; 

(d)  Producer in Thailand: 

– 

Indorama Polymers Pcl, Bangkok; 

(e)  Users in the Union  

– 

– 

Coca-Cola Europe, Belgium; 

Nestle Waters France, France. 

B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

1. 

Product concerned 

(29)  The product concerned by this review is the same as the one in the last expiry review 
concluded in 2007 mentioned above in recital (2), namely polyethylene terephthalate 
having  a  viscosity  number  of  78  ml/g  or  higher,  according  to  ISO  Standard  1628-5, 
currently  falling  within  CN  code  3907  60  20  and  originating  in  India,  Indonesia, 
Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand. 

2. 

Like product 

EN 

10 

   EN 

(30)  As  in  the  original  and  in  the  review  investigations,  it  was  found  that  the  product 
concerned  and  PET  produced  and  sold  on  the  domestic  markets  in  the  countries 
concerned, as well as PET produced and sold in the Union by Union producers had the 
same  basic  physical  and  chemical  characteristics  and  uses.  They  were  therefore 
considered  to  be  like  products  within  the  meaning  of  Article  1(4)  of  the  basic 
Regulation.  

C. LIKELIHOOD OF A CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF DUMPING 

3. 

Preliminary remarks 

(31) 

(32) 

In accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the 
expiry of the existing measures would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence 
of dumping. 

In case of non-cooperation, such as in the case of the Indonesia and Taiwan, use had to 
be made of facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. As 
far  as  Malaysia  and  Thailand  are  concerned,  information  made  available  by  the 
cooperating companies as well as facts available were used. 

(33)  During the RIP, the total import volume of the product concerned originating from the 
countries  concerned  according  to  Eurostat  amounted  to  126,500  tonnes,  representing 
4.5% of the Union market share. 

(34)  As regards the development of production capacity and domestic consumption in the 
countries  concerned,  a  proprietary  market  intelligence  report  included  in  the  request 
was  used  as  well  as  publicly  available  information  such  as  public  company  web 
profiles and verified questionnaire replies of the cooperating companies.  

4. 

India 

4.1. 

Preliminary remarks 

(35)  As mentioned above, seven Indian exporting producers cooperated and three of them 
were selected for the sample. Since one of the sampled companies was found to only 
export  insignificant  volumes  of  the  product  concerned  during  the  RIP,  verification 
visits  were  eventually  completed  in  the  two  remaining  exporting  producers  which 
together represented 99% of total imports from India to the Union during the RIP.  

(36)  During the RIP total Indian imports amounted to 97,000 tonnes representing 76% of 
total  imports  from  the  countries  concerned  by  the  current  review  and  3.4%  of  the 
Union market share. The two sampled Indian exporting producers were subject to an 
undertaking  and  were  found  to  respect  the  minimum  import  price  (MIP)  during  the 
RIP.  As  these  represented  almost  the  total  export  from  India,  their  market  share 
corresponded almost exactly to the market share of all India.  

4.2. 

Dumping of imports during the RIP 

4.2.1.  Normal value 

(37) 

In  accordance  with  Article  2(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  it  was  first  established  for 
each  sampled  Indian  exporting  producer  whether  its  total  domestic  sales  of  the  like 

EN 

11 

   EN 

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. 

(38)  Subsequently,  those  types  of  the  like  product  sold  domestically  by  the  exporting 
producers  having  overall  representative  domestic  sales,  and  that  were  identical  or 
directly comparable to the types sold for export to the Union, were identified. 

(39) 

It  was  further  examined  whether  the  domestic  sales  of  each  cooperating  exporting 
producer 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 (‘OCOT’), in accordance 
with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing the proportion 
of  domestic  sales  to  independent  customers  on  the  domestic  market  which  were 
profitable for each exported type of the product concerned during the RIP. 

(40)  As  it  was  found  that  the  domestic  sales  of  all  product  types  were  made  in  sufficient 
quantities  and  in  the  OCOT,  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. 

4.2.2.  Export price 

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

4.2.3.  Comparison 

(42)  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.  

(43) 

In  order  to  ensure  a  fair  comparison  between  normal  value  and  the  export  price,  in 
accordance  with  Article  2(10)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  account  was  taken  of 
differences  in  factors  affecting  prices  and  price  comparability.  For  this  purpose,  due 
allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences in transport, insurance, 
handling, financial costs, packing costs, commissions and rebates where demonstrated 
to affect price comparability.  

(44)  One  exporting  producer  claimed  an  adjustment  pursuant  to  Article  2(10)(b)  of  the 
basic Regulation, on the grounds that import charges were allegedly borne by the like 
product when intended for consumption in the exporting country but were refunded by 
means of a duty drawback scheme ('DDS') when the product was sold for export to the 
Union.  The  investigation  showed,  however,  that  no  correlation  existed  between  the 
duty drawback amount, calculated as a fixed percentage of the FOB value of products 
exported,  and  the  actual  duties  paid  on  imported  inputs  contained  in  the  exported 
product.  In  fact,  it  has  been  found  that  even  exporters  which  procure  all  their  inputs 
locally and therefore do not import any of their inputs, are still entitled to benefit from 
the DDS. Therefore, the claim was rejected.  

4.2.4.  Dumping margin 

EN 

12 

   EN 

(45)  As  provided  for  under  Article  2(11)  and  (12)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  weighted 
average normal value by type was compared with the weighted average export price of 
the  corresponding  type  of  the  product  concerned.  This  comparison  showed  the 
existence  of  dumping  which  amounted  to  4.8%  and  6.6%  respectively  for  the  two 
sampled exporting producers which exported to the EU during the RIP, despite the fact 
both companies were subject to price undertakings.  

(46)  Following  disclosure,  an  exporting  producer  claimed  that  the  calculation  of  the 
dumping  margin  on  the  basis  of  the  domestic  sales  of  four  months  instead  of  all 
months of the RIP was not justified and argued that it artificially inflated its dumping 
margin.  It  must  be  noted  that,  in  the  context  of  an  expiry  review  the  measures  are 
either  maintained  or  repealed  but  cannot  be  amended.  In  addition,  the  four  months 
concerned, i.e. one month per each quarter and the normal value and export prices of 
the  same  months  were  compared.  It  follows  that  a  fair  comparison  was  guaranteed. 
Therefore the claim was rejected. 

4.3. 

Development of imports should measures be repealed 

(47)  Further to the determination of the existence of dumping during the RIP, the likelihood 
of continuation of dumping should measures be repealed was also investigated. 

(48) 

In  this  respect  the  following  elements  were  analysed:  the  volume  and  prices  of 
dumped  imports  from  India,  attractiveness  of  the  Union  market  and  other  third 
markets,  production  capacity  and  excess  capacity  available  for  exports  of  the  Indian 
producers. 

(49)  The analysis below was mainly based on verified questionnaire replies and the market 

intelligence study cross-checked with publicly available information. 

4.3.1.  Volume and prices of dumped imports from India  

(50) 

Imports  from  India  into  the  Union  doubled  over  the  period  considered  and  reached 
around 97,000 tonnes during the RIP representing 3.5% of the total EU consumption 
during the RIP. 

(51)  Throughout  the  period  considered,  imports  prices  were  fluctuating  and  followed  the 
same  trends  as  the  sales  prices  of  the  Union  industry  on  the  Union  market.  Overall, 
imports  prices  increased  from  2008  to  the  RIP  by  29%.  No  undercutting  was  found 
during the RIP.  

4.3.2.  Attractiveness of the Union market and other third markets 

(52)  During the RIP, Indian export prices to third countries were  generally lower than its 
domestic  prices.  This  price  difference  amounted  to  up  to  7.5%  of  the  export  price 
level.  

(53) 

Indian export prices to third countries were generally below the price of Indian exports 
to the Union which supports the conclusion that the Union market is attractive as the 
Union market may generate higher profits. However, due to this difference in pricing 
policy, it cannot be excluded that prices to the Union may decrease even further should 
measures be repealed.  

EN 

13 

   EN 

(54)  Following  disclosure,  an  exporting  producer  contended  that  the  assessment  of  the 
attractiveness of the Union market was influenced by the existence of an undertaking, 
which meant that it could only export when prices where high. However a comparison 
of  the  minimum  import  price  (MIP)  imposed  by  the  undertaking  with  the  ex-works 
price of exports to the Union during the eight months where the producer was found 
exporting  to  the  Union  reveals  that  the  export  price  to  the  Union  was  on  average 
significantly  higher  than  the  MIP,  indicating  that  the  pricing  policy  was  only 
marginally influenced by the undertaking, if at all. It follows that the existence of an 
undertaking in itself did not change the conclusion reached regarding the attractiveness 
of the Union market. Therefore, this argument was rejected.  

(55)  Production capacity and excess capacity available for exports of the Indian producers 

(56)  During  the  RIP,  India  had  a  production  capacity  of  700,000-900,000  tonnes  and  the 

excess of production capacity available for exports was of a 200,000-300,000 tonnes.  

(57)  According  to  the  information  collected  during  the  investigation,  Indian  capacity  is 
projected  to  increase  further  and reach  some  1,600,000  –  1,800,000  tonnes  by  2014. 
That  increase  is  expected  to  be  much  steeper  than  the  increase  in  domestic 
consumption. As a result, the excess of capacity over domestic demand is estimated to 
reach about 600,000-700,000 tonnes in 2014, which would represent around 21-25% 
of  the  total  Union  consumption  during  the  RIP.  It  is  also  noted  that  trade  defence 
measures  are  in  place  against  India  in  Turkey  and  South  Africa,  thus  potentially 
reducing the markets that could be available for Indian exports. 

(58)  There is a likelihood that exports to the Union would increase should the measures be 
repealed, given in particular the higher price levels in the Union market and the market 
size  with  the  high  consumption.  On  the  other  hand,  it  cannot  be  excluded  that  the 
exporting producers would decrease their export prices to the Union even further and 
that the dumping observed during the RIP would therefore be exacerbated. 

(59)  An exporting producer submitted that the production capacity available for exports in 
India  would  decrease  after  2014  and  therefore  the  current  situation  would  only  be 
temporary. It is noted that the alleged decrease of capacity available for exports after 
2014  was  found  in  line  with  the  projections  of  the  market  intelligence  report. 
Therefore  it  was  concluded  that  this  submission  was  not  of  a  nature  to  modify  the 
analysis  with  regard  to  the  development  of  capacity  available  for  exports.  After 
disclosure,  an  exporting  producer  claimed  that  important  temporary  excess  in 
capacities available for export were inevitable due to the fact that generally production 
capacity  increases  can  be done only in  large increments due to the minimum size of 
modern  PET  plants.  In  reply  to  this,  it  should  be  noted  that  during  between  the  RIP 
and the following year, production capacity extensions in the range of at least 150,000 
to  200,000  tonnes  were  made.  It  follows  that  the  invoked  reasoning  alone  cannot 
justify the excess in capacity available for exports quoted in recital (55) above. In any 
event,  in  this  context  the  cause  of  the  excess  capacity  available  for  exports  is 
irrelevant. Therefore the claim was rejected.  

(60)  Some parties claimed that the excess capacity available for exports developing in India 
could be absorbed also by other third countries and that therefore the excess capacity 
available  for  exports  as  calculated  by  the  Commission  was  not  properly  assessed.  It 

EN 

14 

   EN 

was  not  assumed  in  any  way  that  the  entirety  of  any  excess  capacity  available  for 
exports would be directed to the Union. Therefore the claim was rejected.  

(61)  An  exporting  producer  stated  that  Turkey  and  South  Africa  were  rather  unimportant 
export markets and objected to the existence of trade defence measures against India in 
these countries being interpreted by the Commission as an indication that India would 
dump  the  product  concerned  on  the  Union  market.  The  Commission’s  assessment  is 
that the trade defence measures in place in Turkey and  South  Africa  against  imports 
from  India  potentially  reduce  the  markets  that  could  be  available  for  Indian  exports. 
Moreover,  should  the  claim  that  Turkey  and  South  Africa  are  unimportant  export 
markets  be  true,  the  increasing  excess  capacity  in  India  implies  a  likelihood  of 
increased  exports  to  the  Union  even  in  the  absence  of  the  trade  defence  measures 
imposed by Turkey and South Africa. Therefore, the claim was rejected.  

4.3.3.  Conclusion on the likelihood of continuation of dumping 

(62)  On the basis of the above, and in particular in view of the continued dumping and the 
high excess capacity available, it can be concluded that significant volumes of imports 
from  India  are  likely  to  be  directed  to  the  Union  market  at  dumped  prices  should 
measures  be  allowed  to  lapse  and  therefore  there  is  a  likelihood  of  continuation  of 
dumping. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

5. 

Indonesia 

5.1. 

Preliminary remarks 

(63)  None  of  the  five  known  Indonesian  exporting  producers  cooperated  in  the 
investigation  and  therefore the analysis of the likelihood of continuation of dumping 
was based on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.  

(64)  According  to  Eurostat,  import  volumes  from  Indonesia  during  the  RIP  amounted  to 
253 tonnes representing close to 0% of total imports from the countries concerned by 
the current review and close to 0% in terms of Union market share. 

5.2. 

Dumping of imports during the RIP 

(65) 

In  view  of  the  lack  of  cooperation,  based  on  the  elements  in  the  request  for  review, 
imports  from  Indonesia  were  made  at  dumped  prices  with  a  dumping  margin  of 
10.8%. 

5.3. 

Development of imports should measures be repealed  

(66)  Further to the determination of the existence of dumping during the RIP, the likelihood 
of continuation of dumping should measures be repealed was also investigated. 

(67) 

In  this  respect  the  following  elements  were  analysed:  the  volume  and  prices  of 
dumped  imports  from  Indonesia,  attractiveness  of  the  Union  market  and  other  third 
markets,  and  production  capacity  and  excess  capacity  available  for  exports  of  the 
Indonesian producers. 

5.3.1.  The volume and prices of dumped imports from Indonesia 

(68) 

(69) 

Imports from Indonesia into the Union remained at a very low level during the entire 
period  considered.  No  imports  were  made  in  2008.  In  2009,  imports  amounted  to 
approximately  400  tonnes,  increased  in  2010  to  about  1000  tonnes  and  decreased 
again to 253 tonnes during the RIP. The corresponding market share of the total Union 
consumption  of  these  imports  was  close  to  0%  throughout  the  whole  period 
considered. 

In 2009 and 2010 Indonesian import prices were on average higher than those of the 
Union industry on the Union market. During the RIP, although the average Indonesian 
import  price  was  slightly  lower  than  the  one  of  the  Union  industry  on  the  Union 
market,  those  price  levels  could  be  considered  similar.  No  undercutting  was  found 
during the RIP.  

5.3.2.  Attractiveness of the Union market and other third markets 

(70)  Both  the  information  provided  in  the  review  request  and  official  Indonesian  trade 
statistics  website  covered  a  broader  product  scope  than  the  product  concerned. 
Therefore prices to third country export markets could not be reliably established.  

(71)  Due  to  the  absence  of  cooperation  it  was  also  not  possible  to  establish  a  domestic 

price. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

5.3.3.  Production capacity and excess capacity available for exports 

(72)  Given  that  there  was  no  cooperation  forthcoming  from  Indonesia,  the  evolution  of 
production  capacity  and  domestic  demand  was  established  on  the  basis  of  data 
contained in the request for review amended following a submission of the applicant 
received during the investigation stating that the only capacity extension plan forecast 
in the request for review would not materialise. The amended data was cross-checked 
with publicly available information such as public company web profiles. On the basis 
of  the  above,  production  capacity  in  Indonesia  appears  to  remain  at  the  same  level 
during  the  entire  period  considered  at  400,000-600,000  tonnes.  The  excess  capacity 
available for export during the period considered continuously decreased and reached 
65-70%  of  the  total  country  capacity  during the  RIP  representing  9-11%  of  the  total 
EU consumption. There is no increase in capacity forecast until at least 2014. At the 
same time, consumption in Indonesia is expected to increase. As a result, the portion 
of  the  production  capacity  available  for  exports  is  expected  to  decrease  and  to 
represent only a very minor part of the total Union consumption during the RIP. 

5.3.4.  Conclusion on the likelihood of continuation of dumping 

(73) 

In view of the above, in particular the findings concerning the expected evolution of 
capacity,  it  was  considered  that  there  is  no  likelihood  that  Indonesian  exporting 
producers  will  resume  exporting  injurious  quantities  at  dumped  prices  to  the  Union 
market in the short to medium term should measures be repealed.  

6. 

Malaysia 

6.1. 

Preliminary remarks 

(74)  Only  one  of  the  two  known  exporting  producers  cooperated  in  the  investigation  but 
was  found  not  to  export  to  the  Union  during  the  RIP.  This  producer  represented 
around  20%  of  the  total  production  capacity  in  Malaysia  during  the  RIP.  The 
information provided by the cooperating producer in Malaysia was used with regard to 
the  analysis  of  the  price  behaviour  on  the  Malaysian  domestic  market  as  well  as  to 
other third country markets. 

(75)  Findings were also based on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic 
Regulation,  i.e.  on  the  request  for  review  and  publicly  available  information  such  as 
public web company profiles. 

(76)  During  the  RIP,  imports  into  the  Union  from  Malaysia  amounted  to  17,000  tonnes 
representing 13% of total imports from the countries concerned by the current review 
and close to 0.6% of the Union market share. 

6.2. 

Dumping of imports during the RIP  

(77)  On the basis of the request for review, imports from Malaysia were made at dumped 

prices with a dumping margin of 6.7%.  

(78)  Since the cooperating producer did not export to the Union during the RIP, it was not 
possible  to  calculate  a  dumping  margin  for  that  company.  However  a  normal  value 
was calculated on the basis of its domestic sales and a comparison of this normal value 

EN 

17 

   EN 

with the price of imports from Malaysia to the Union as reported by Eurostat gives a 
figure that is consistent with the dumping margin referred to in recital (75).  

6.3. 

Development of imports should measures be repealed 

(79)  Further to the determination of the existence of dumping during the RIP, the likelihood 
of continuation of dumping should measures be repealed was also investigated. 

(80) 

In  this  respect  the  following  elements  were  analysed:  the  volume  and  prices  of 
dumped  imports  from  Malaysia,  attractiveness  of  the  Union  market  and  other  third 
markets,  and  production  capacity  and  excess  capacity  available  for  exports  of  the 
Malaysian producers. 

6.3.1.  The volume and prices of dumped imports from Malaysia 

(81) 

Imports  from  Malaysia  into  the  Union  increased  during  the  period  considered  from 
around 8,000 tonnes to 17,000 tonnes, after a steep decrease in 2009 and 2010. Despite 
the  overall  increase  of  imports  from  Malaysia,  market  shares  remained  close  to  0% 
except for the RIP where it reached 0.6%.  

(82)  Throughout  the  period  considered,  import  prices  were  fluctuating  and  followed  the 
same  trends  as  the  sales  prices  of  the  Union  industry  on  the  Union  market.  Overall, 
imports  prices  increased  from  2008  to  the  RIP  by  25%.  No  undercutting  was  found 
during the RIP. 

6.3.2.  Attractiveness of the Union market and other third markets 

(83)  During  the  RIP,  the  cooperating  exporting  producer  exported  300-500  tonnes  of  the 
like product to other third countries. The analysis of those sales shows that during the 
RIP Malaysian export prices to third countries were generally higher than its domestic 
prices. This price difference amounted to 5-10%. 

6.3.3.  Production capacity and excess capacity available for exports 

(84)  The total production capacity in Malaysia was around 100,000-300,000 tonnes during 
the  RIP  on  the  basis  of  the  review  for  request  cross-checked  with  publicly  available 
information  such  as  public  company  web  profiles.  The  excess  capacity  available  for 
exports during the period considered continuously decreased and reached around 52-
55%  of  the  total  country  capacity  during  the  RIP  representing  3-4%  of  the  total  EU 
consumption. According to the same sources, production capacity is forecast to remain 
at  this  level  at  least  until  2014  while  domestic  consumption  is  expected  to  increase. 
Consequently, the portion of the production capacity available for exports is expected 
to decrease and to represent 2-3% of the total Union consumption during the RIP. It is 
therefore  not  expected  that  the  import  volumes  from  Malaysia  would  significantly 
increase should the measures be repealed. 

6.3.4.  Conclusion on the likelihood of continuation of dumping 

(85) 

In view of the above, in particular the findings concerning the expected evolution of 
capacity,  it  was  considered  that  there  is  no  likelihood  that  Malaysian  exporting 
producers  will  resume  exporting  injurious  quantities  at  dumped  prices  to  the  Union 
market in the short to medium term should measures be repealed.  

EN 

18 

   EN 

7. 

Taiwan 

7.1. 

Preliminary remarks 

(86)  None  of  the  four  Taiwanese  exporting  producers  cooperated  in  the  investigation  and 
therefore the analysis of the likelihood of continuation of dumping was based on facts 
available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.  

(87)  During the RIP import volumes in the Union from Taiwan amounted to 12,000 tonnes, 
representing 9.7% of total imports from the countries concerned by the current review, 
and around 0.4% of Union market share. 

7.2. 

Dumping of imports during the RIP 

(88) 

In  view  of  the  lack  of  cooperation,  based  on  the  elements  in  the  request  for  review, 
imports from Taiwan were made at dumped prices with a dumping margin of 12%.  

(89)  Following  disclosure,  some  parties  claimed  that  for  the  purpose  of  calculating  a 
dumping margin, the Commission should have used the domestic and export prices of 
a  Taiwanese  PET  producer  which  was  the  applicant  of  a  ‘new  exporter’  review 
pursuant Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation18 for which the investigation period was 
overlapping with the RIP of the current proceeding. It must be noted, however, that the 
PET  producer  in  question  did  not  cooperate  in  this  expiry  review.  Information 
submitted in the context of an investigation can only be used for the purpose for which 
it was requested. Therefore, the information obtained in the said ‘new exporter’ review 
cannot  be  used  in  the  context  of  the  current  expiry  review.  In  addition,  it  is  the 
smallest PET producer in Taiwan and its export sales to the Union represented only an 
insignificant share of the total Taiwanese exports during the RIP. Therefore, the claim 
was  rejected.  It  was  claimed  that  overall,  imports  from  Taiwan  during  the  RIP  were 
not  dumped.  However,  it  is  recalled  that  none  of  the  Taiwanese  exporting  producers 
cooperated  and  therefore  dumping  could  not  be  determined  on  the  basis  of  data 
submitted  by  these  exporting  producers.  The  claim  that  dumping  did  not  exist  was 
therefore not substantiated by any evidence and was rejected.  

7.3. 

Development of imports should measures be repealed 

(90)  Further to the determination of the existence of dumping during the RIP, the likelihood 
of continuation of dumping should measures be repealed was also investigated. 

(91) 

In  this  respect  the  following  elements  were  analysed:  the  volume  and  prices  of 
dumped  imports  from  Taiwan,  attractiveness  of  the  Union  market  and  other  third 
markets,  and  production  capacity  and  excess  capacity  available  for  export  of  the 
Taiwanese producers. 

7.3.1.  The volume and prices of dumped imports from Taiwan 

(92) 

Imports  from  Taiwan  into  the  Union  increased  during  the  period  considered  from 
around 10,000 tonnes to 12,000 tonnes, after a decrease in 2009 and 2010. Despite the 

18 

OJ L 188, 18.7.2012, p.8  

EN 

19 

   EN 

                                                 
overall  increase  of  imports  from  Taiwan,  market  shares  remained  close  to  0%  and, 
during the RIP, reached 0.4% of the total Union consumption during the RIP.  

(93)  Throughout  the  period  considered,  imports  prices  were  fluctuating  and  followed  the 
same  trends  as  the  sales  prices  of  the  Union  industry  on  the  Union  market.  Overall, 
imports  prices  increased  from  2008  to  the  RIP  by  27%.  No  undercutting  was  found 
during the RIP.  

7.3.2.  Attractiveness of the Union market and other third markets 

(94)  Statistics  from  the  Taiwanese  Bureau  of  Foreign  Trade  indicate  that  sales  to  third 
countries  were  made  in  large  volumes,  accounting  for  around  60%  of  the  country's 
total production capacity during the RIP. 

(95)  A  comparison  of  the  average  export  price  available  from  the  same  source  with  the 
normal  value  contained  in  the  request  for  review  indicated  that  the  export  prices  to 
third  countries  were  generally  lower  than  its  domestic  prices.  This  price  difference 
amounted to up to around 12% of the export price level.  

(96)  Statistics from the Taiwanese Bureau of Foreign Trade showed that the average export 
price to third countries was below the price of the Union industry in the Union. The 
price  difference  amounted  to  around  7%  of  the  export  prices.  During  the  RIP,  the 
average  price  of  exports  to  the  Union  was  also  found  to  be  higher  than  the  average 
price of exports to other third countries. The difference amounted to up to 5.5% of the 
price of exports to other third countries. There is therefore an incentive to export to the 
Union where the prevailing price level of the Union industry is higher. This suggests 
that  if  measures  were  repealed,  and  in  connection  with  the  large  excess  capacities 
available for exports (see recitals (97) to (98) below), Taiwanese exporters are likely 
to export PET at dumped prices and at quantities above levels likely to cause injury to 
the Union.  

(97)  Following disclosure, one interested party contested the Commission's use of statistics 
of the Taiwanese Bureau of Foreign Trade on the basis that the product code allegedly 
did not coincide with the product concerned. It is true that Taiwan and the Union use 
different scales to measure viscosity, namely the 'intrinsic viscosity' in Taiwan and the 
'viscosity  number'  in  the  Union.  However,  using  the  mathematical  relationship 
between  both  scales,  it  can  be  concluded  that  the  Taiwanese  product  code  used 
corresponds to the product concerned. Therefore the allegation was rejected. 

7.3.3.  Production capacity and excess capacity available for exports 

(98)  Given  that  there  was  no  cooperation  forthcoming  from  Taiwan,  the  evolution  of 
capacity  and  domestic  demand  was  established  on  the  basis  of  data  contained  in  the 
review  request  cross-checked  with  publicly  available  information  such  as  public 
company web profiles.  

(99)  The  total  production  capacity  in  Taiwan  was  around  1,000,000-1,200,000  tonnes 
during the RIP. The excess capacity available for exports remained stable during the 
three  first  years  of  the  period  considered  and  increased  during  the  RIP  where  it 
represented around 80% of the total country capacity during the  RIP  and 28-33% of 
the  total  Union  consumption  during  the  RIP.  According  to  the  same  sources, 
production  capacity  is  forecast  to  increase  significantly  at  least  until  2014  while 

EN 

20 

   EN 

domestic consumption is expected to increase only slightly. Consequently, the portion 
of the production capacity available for exports is expected to increase to 1,200,000-
1,300,000 tonnes representing 42-47% of the total Union consumption during the RIP.  

(100)  This  demonstrates  that  Taiwanese  exporting  producers  of  the  product  concerned  are 
heavily  dependent  on  export  sales  and  that  there  is  a  likelihood  that  exports  to  the 
Union will increase should the measures be repealed. In particular, the price level of 
the Union industry on the Union market is higher than the export price of Taiwan on 
third  country  export  markets,  which  makes  the  Union  market  more  attractive  than 
other third country markets. On the other hand, it cannot be excluded that in order to 
gain  market  share,  some  exporters  may  decrease  their  export  prices  to  the  Union.  In 
addition,  trade  defence  measures  are  in  place  against  Taiwan  in  Turkey  and  South 
Africa. This reduces the free access to potential other markets available for Taiwanese 
exports. 

(101)  Some  interested  parties  argued  that  there  is  no  spare  capacity  in  Taiwan  that  would 
allow for a substantial increase of exports to the Union. In addition, it was argued that 
the main export markets of Taiwan's PET production are the Asia-Pacific region and 
the Americas. The CIF prices of imports of PET from Taiwan are higher than those of 
all other main sources of imports into the Union and the measures in force on imports 
of  PET  originating  in  Taiwan  are  very  low  and  their  expiry  would  not  result  in  a 
significant price difference.  

(102)  It  is  to  be  noted  that  none  of  the  Taiwanese  exporting  producers  cooperated  in  the 
present review. Moreover, the findings described in recitals (97) to (98) above point to 
the contrary. On these grounds the allegations made by the parties in question have to 
be rejected.  

(103)  Following  disclosure,  these  parties  reiterated  the  importance  of  the  Asia-Pacific  and 
South America regions as export markets and claimed that these markets would attract 
a  significant  proportion  of  the  projected  Taiwanese  increase  in  the  excess  capacity 
available for exports. In support of their claim, the parties provided the relative values 
of  production  capacity  and  domestic  demand  in  2012  and  2020  for  both  regions.  It 
should be noted that the situation in 2020 is irrelevant to the current expiry review and 
that using 2012 as one term of the comparison amounts to disregarding the important 
capacity extensions made during the RIP up to 2012. Therefore the claim was rejected. 

(104)  Moreover,  some  parties  claimed  that  the  excess  capacity  available  for  exports 
developing in Taiwan should take into account the increasing demand on other third 
markets. As a result they claimed that the excess capacity available for exports was not 
properly assessed. As already mentioned in recital (58) above, the investigation did not 
conclude that all capacity available for exports would be directed to the Union. It was 
not considered in any way that the entirety of any excess capacity available for exports 
would be directed to the Union. Based on the available data it is reasonable to consider 
that  given  the  attractiveness  of  the  Union  market  in  terms  of  price  and  size  and  the 
large  volumes  of  extra  capacity  available  for  exports,  the  quantities  likely  to  be 
directed to the Union market are expected to be above levels likely to cause injury. In 
addition,  it  is  recalled  that  none  of  the  Taiwanese  PET  producers  cooperated  in  the 
investigation and precise figures on actual production and capacity as well as domestic 
and export sales were not available. Therefore, conclusions with regard to continuation 
of dumping had to be based on the facts available as indicated in recital (84) above. In 

EN 

21 

   EN 

this  regard,  in  view  of  the  significant  quantities  available  for  exports  and  given  the 
analysis of the export price levels to other third countries as well as the price level in 
the Union in recitals (93) to (95) above, it is reasonable to consider that exports from 
Taiwan  will  be  re-directed  to  the  Union  at  dumped  prices  and  at  quantities  above 
levels likely to cause injury should the measures be repealed. Therefore the claim was 
rejected. 

(105)  Another party claimed that the ad-valorem duty applicable to Taiwan during the RIP is 
at very low levels and therefore it cannot be concluded that imports from Taiwan will 
be  made  at  dumped  levels  should  the  measures  be  repealed.  The  current  dumping 
margin in force is a minimum price based on an ad valorem duty of 12.4%. The fact 
the prices were higher during the RIP and that therefore the hypothetical ad valorem 
duty would be at a lower level, is irrelevant because it does not take into consideration 
likely price developments after the RIP should measures be repealed as shown above 
in recitals (94) and (98) above. This argument was therefore rejected. 

7.3.4.  Conclusion on the likelihood of continuation of dumping 

(106)  In  view  of  the  large  and  increasing  capacity,  the  attractiveness  of  the  Union  market 
and the measures in force in other third countries, it was concluded that it is likely that 
exports from Taiwan would be re-directed to the Union at dumped prices in quantities 
likely to cause injury should the measures be allowed to lapse.  

(107)  Following  disclosure,  one  party  claimed  that  the  alleged  low  level  of  dumping  duty 
during  the  RIP  should  have  been  taken  into  consideration  in  the  analysis  of  the 
likelihood of recurrence or continuation of dumping. However, it should be noted that 
none of the exporting producers in Taiwan cooperated and that therefore the claim that 
dumping margins during the RIP were at low levels was not substantiated and rejected. 
It is recalled that the dumping margins found during the RIP were 12% based on facts 
available.  As  mentioned  above  in  recital  (104),  the  analysis  of  the  likely  price 
development  of  Taiwanese  exports  should  measures  be  allowed  to  lapse  has  shown 
that continuation of dumping was likely. Therefore the claim was rejected. 

8. 

Thailand 

8.1. 

Preliminary remarks 

(108)  Cooperation was only forthcoming from one exporting producer which did not export 
PET to the Union during the RIP. The cooperating producer represented around 25% 
of the total production capacity of Thailand during the RIP. Three other producers are 
present  in  Thailand  which  did  not  cooperate.  Findings  were  therefore  also  based  on 
facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. 

(109)  During the RIP, exports to the Union amounted to 727 tonnes representing 0.6% of the 
total imports from the countries concerned by the current review and close to 0% of 
the Union market share. 

8.2. 

Dumping of imports during the RIP 

(110)  According to the review request, the imports in the Union were made at dumped prices 

with a dumping margin of 14.1%.  

EN 

22 

   EN 

(111)  Since the cooperating company did not export to the Union during the RIP, it was not 
possible  to  calculate  a  dumping  margin  for  that  company.  However  a  normal  value 
was calculated on the basis of its domestic sales and a comparison of this normal value 
with the price of imports from Thailand to the Union as reported by Eurostat gives a 
figure that is consistent with the dumping margin referred to in recital (108) above. 

8.3. 

Development of imports should measures be repealed 

(112)  Further to the determination of the existence of dumping during the RIP, the likelihood 
of continuation of dumping should measures be repealed was also investigated. 

(113)  In  this  respect  the  following  elements  were  analysed:  the  volume  and  prices  of 
dumped  imports  from  Thailand,  attractiveness  of  the  Union  market  and  other  third 
markets, and production capacity and excess capacity available for exports of the Thai 
producers. 

8.3.1.  The volume and prices of dumped imports from Thailand 

(114)  Imports from Thailand into the Union remained at a negligible level during the entire 
period  considered  with  no  imports  in  2009  and  2010.  During  the  RIP,  imports 
increased  from  around  500  tonnes  in  2008  to  around  700  tonnes  which  represented 
close to 0% of the total Union consumption during the RIP. 

(115)  During the period considered, the import prices increased from around 980 EUR/tonne 
in 2008 to around 1300 EUR/tonne during the RIP, i.e. by 32%. No undercutting was 
found during the RIP. 

8.3.2.  Attractiveness of the Union market and other third markets 

(116)  During the RIP, the average domestic price of the sole cooperating exporting producer 
was  found  to  be  lower  than  the  average  price  charged  by  the  Union  Industry  in  the 
Union. The price difference amounted to 9%.  

(117)  The cooperating exporting producer was found to export to third country markets other 
than  the  Union.  Its  average  export  price  to  those  markets  on  an  ex-works  basis  was 
lower than the normal value. The price difference amounted to 10.8% of the average 
export price.  

(118)  Exports from the cooperating exporting producer to other third countries were made at 
prices  below  the  Union  industry  price  level  in  the  Union.  The  price  difference 
amounted to 6.6% of the export prices to the third country markets.  

8.3.3.  Production capacity and excess capacity available for exports 

(119)  Production capacity in Thailand was established on the basis of the information in the 
request  for  review,  publicly  available  information  such  as  public  web  company 
profiles, and the questionnaire reply of the cooperating company.  

(120)  The  production  capacity  in  Thailand  increased  significantly  during  the  period 
considered  and  represented  more  than  three  times  the  domestic  consumption  in 
Thailand  during  the  RIP.  The  total  production  capacity  in  Thailand  was  between 
700,000-900,000 tonnes during the RIP. The excess production capacity available for 

EN 

23 

   EN 

exports  during  the  period  considered  continuously  decreased  and  reached  70-75%  of 
the  total  country  capacity  during  the  RIP,  representing  17-22%  of  the  total  EU 
consumption.  This  shows  that  Thailand  is  an  export  oriented  country  and  that  Thai 
producers  of  the  product  concerned  are  heavily  dependent  on  export  sales.  The 
investigation  has  shown  capacity  will  further  increase  by  2014  to  up  to  800,000-
1,000,000  tonnes.  At  the  same  time,  according  to  the  same  sources,  the  domestic 
demand will not increase in the same rhythm and will remain at a relatively low level. 
As  a  consequence,  the  excess  of  capacity  over  domestic  demand  is  expected  to 
increase  significantly  to  around  700,000-800,000  tonnes  in  the  near  future, 
representing 25-30% of the total Union consumption during the RIP. In addition, trade 
defence measures are in place against Thailand in Turkey and Malaysia thus reducing 
the free access to potential other third country markets available for exports. In view of 
the  significant  quantities  available  for  exports  and  given  the  analysis  of  the  export 
price levels to other third countries as well as the price level in the Union in recitals 
(114) to (116) above, it is reasonable to consider that exports from Thailand will be re-
directed to the Union at dumped prices and at quantities above levels likely to cause 
injury should the measures be repealed. 

(121)  Following  disclosure,  the  Thai  Department  of  Foreign  Trade  argued  that  the 
comparison of production capacity and domestic demand should have been considered 
at  the  level  of  the  ASEAN  region.  It  is  noted  that  the  Thai  government  does  not 
substantiate  its  claim,  and  therefore  there  is  no  justification  to  alter  the  conclusions 
reached on the basis the excess capacity available for exports in Thailand. 

8.3.4.  Conclusion on the likelihood of continuation of dumping 

(122)  In  view  of  the  large  and  increasing  capacity,  the  attractiveness  of  the  Union  market 
and the measures in force in other third countries, it was concluded that it is likely that 
exports  from  Thailand  would  be  re-directed  to  the  Union  at  dumped  prices  in 
quantities likely to cause injury should the measures be allowed to lapse.  

D. DEFINITION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY 

1. 

Union production and Union industry 

(123)  The like product is manufactured by 13 known producers in the Union. They represent 
the  Union  industry  within  the  meaning  of  Articles  4(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation  and 
will thereafter be referred as 'the Union industry'. 

(124)  Twelve known Union producers, represented by the complainant in the present case, 
cooperated and supported the investigation. One more known Union producer did not 
cooperate in the present review.  

(125)  All  available  information  concerning  Union  industry,  such  as  questionnaire  replies, 
Eurostat  and  request  for  review,  was  used  in  order  to  establish  the  total  Union 
production for the RIP. 

(126)  The Union market for PET is characterised by a relatively high number of producers, 
belonging  usually  to  bigger  groups  with  headquarters  outside  the  Union.  Between 
2000 and 2012 the Union PET industry has undergone through several transitions. The 
market is in a process of consolidation with a number of recent takeovers and closures. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

New products, such as recycled PET and bio PET continue to be developed together 
with a relatively recent spinoff of a recycling industry. 

(127)  Following  the  disclosure  some  parties  argued  that  the  description  of  the  situation  of 
the  Union  industry  was  inaccurate  as  five  producers  were  in  fact  belonging  to  one 
large transnational group and another three producers were related to PET packaging 
companies.  None  of  these  facts  contradict  the  description  provided  in  recital  (124) 
explicitly  stating  that  the  Union  producers  are  usually  belonging  to  bigger  groups  as 
disclosed.  The  impact  of  this  concentration  is  addressed  in  recital  (209)  below.  The 
assessment  of  the  impact  of  captive  market  is  analysed  in  recitals  (203)  to  (205) 
below. 

(128)  As indicated above, given the relatively high number of cooperating Union producers 
a  sample  of  four  Union  producers  was  selected,  representing  over  50%  of  the 
production and sales of the total Union production of the like product in the RIP.  

E. SITUATION ON THE UNION MARKET 

1. 

Union Consumption 

(129)  Union  consumption  was  established  on  the  basis  of  the  sales  volumes  of  the  Union 
industry  on  the  Union  market,  the  import  volumes  data  obtained  from  Eurostat  and, 
concerning  the  non-cooperating  Union  producer,  from  estimations  based  on  the 
request for review. 

(130)  After an initial increase in 2009 and 2010, the consumption showed a slight decrease 

of 2% in the RIP as compared to 2008, totalling to 2.802 million tonnes in the RIP. 

Table 1 
Consumption 

2008 

2009 

2010 

RIP 

Volume (tonnes) 
Consumption 
Index 

2,868,775 

2,934,283 

2,919,404  2,802,066  

100  

102  

102  

98  

Source: Questionnaire replies, Eurostat, review request 

2. 

Imports from countries concerned  

2.1. 

Cumulation 

(131)  In the expiry review concluded in 2007, imports of PET originating in India, Taiwan, 
Thailand,  Malaysia  and  Indonesia  were  assessed  cumulatively  in  accordance  with 
Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation. It was examined whether a cumulative assessment 
was also appropriate in the current investigation.  

(132)  In  this  respect,  it  was  found  that  the  dumping  margins  established  for  imports  from 
India, Taiwan, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia were above the de minimis level. As 
regards  the  import  volumes  to  the  Union  market,  these  were  above  negligible  levels 
only  for  India.  In  the  case  of  Taiwan,  Thailand,  Indonesia  and  Malaysia  the  imports 
volumes  were  below  de  minimis  levels.  A  prospective  analysis  of  the  likely  export 
volumes by each country, should the measures be repealed, was therefore performed. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
It  revealed  that  imports  from  Taiwan  and  Thailand,  unlike  Indonesia  and  Malaysia, 
would likely increase to levels above those reached in the RIP and likely exceed the 
negligibility threshold, if measures were repealed (see recitals (102) and (118)). As to 
Indonesia  and  Malaysia,  it  was  found  that  imports  into  the  Union  were  negligible  in 
the  period  considered  and  the  prospective  excess  capacity  available  for  exports  was 
found  to  be  very  low.  It  is  thus  not  very  likely  that  this  situation  will  change  in  the 
short term.  

(133)  Given the fact that the volume of dumped imports from Indonesia and Malaysia during 
the RIP was negligible and that it is not likely to increase as explained in recital (130) 
above, it was considered that the criteria set out in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation 
were not met with regard to imports from Malaysia and Indonesia.  

(134)  Regarding  imports  from  India,  Taiwan  and  Thailand,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  PET  is  a 
commodity  based  product  with  similar  chemical  and  technical  characteristics 
regardless  of  the  origin.  In  that  light,  it  is  considered  that  the  imported  PET  was 
interchangeable with the types of PET produced in the Union. In addition, they were 
marketed  in  the  Union  during  the  same  period.  Therefore,  it  is  considered  that  the 
imported PET originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand competed with PET produced 
in the Union.  

(135)  On the basis of the above, it is considered that the criteria set out in Article 3(4) of the 
basic  Regulation  were  met  with  regard  to India,  Taiwan  and  Thailand.  Imports  from 
these  three  countries  were  therefore  examined  cumulatively.  Since  the  criteria  set  in 
Article  3(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation  were  not  met  with  regard  to  Malaysia  and 
Indonesia, imports originating in these two countries were examined individually.  

(136)  Following the disclosure one party objected the cumulation of imports from Thailand 
with imports from India and Taiwan while the imports from Malaysia and Indonesia 
were decumulated. It was argued that Thailand was in a similar position to Malaysia 
and  Indonesia  and  thus  should  have  been  treated  in  a  similar  way.  It  is  recalled  that 
given the excess capacities available for exports  found in Thailand (see recital (118) 
above)  the  criteria  of  Article  3(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation  were  fulfilled.  No  parallel 
could  have  been  drawn  between  Thailand  and  Malaysia  and  Indonesia  since  the  last 
two  countries  did  not  have  excess  capacities  available  for  exports  similar  to  those 
found in Thailand. The comment of the party was therefore dismissed.  

3. 

Imports from India, Taiwan and Thailand 

3.1. 

Volume, market share and prices of imports 

(137)  Despite  the  measures  in  place,  the  imports  from  India,  Taiwan  and  Thailand  have 
nearly  doubled  over  the  period  considered.  This  is  mainly  due  to  the  increase  of 
imports from India which increased  from 46,313 tonnes in  2008 to 96,678  tonnes in 
the RIP out of a total of 109,633 for the three countries in question.  

(138)  The market share of imports from India, Taiwan and Thailand rose accordingly from 
2% in 2008 to 3.9% in the RIP. Imports from India reached a market share of 3.5% in 
the  RIP,  significantly  above  the  market  share  established  in  the  last  expiry  review 
(0.3%) 

EN 

26 

   EN 

(139)  The  average  price  stood  at  1,290  EUR/tonne  in  the  RIP.  This  reflects  an  increase  of 
23% over the period considered, which was acquired after an initial decline of 20% in 
2009.  

Table 2 
Imports from India, Taiwan and Thailand  

Volume  of  imports  from  India, 
Taiwan and Thailand (tonnes) 

Index (2008 = 100) 

Market  share  of 
India, Taiwan and Thailand  

imports  from 

Index (2008 = 100) 

Price of imports (EUR/tonne) 

Index (2008 = 100) 

Source: Eurostat. 

3.2. 

Price undercutting 

2008 

2009 

2010 

RIP 

57,178

54,173

90,154 

109,633

100

2.0%

100

1,049

100

95

1.8%

93

838

80

158 

3.1% 

155 

1,031 

98 

192

3.9%

196

1,290

123

(140)  In  view  of  the  absence  of  cooperation  by  the  Taiwanese  exporting  producers,  price 
undercutting  regarding  imports  from  Taiwan  had  to  be  established  on  the  basis  of 
import statistics (Eurostat). Given that the cooperating Thai exporter did not export to 
the Union during the RIP, in this case also, the price undercutting regarding imports 
from  Thailand  had  to  be  established  on  the  basis  of  import  statistics  (Eurostat).  For 
India,  the  calculation  was  based  on  the  data  collected  and  verified  on  spot.  The 
relevant  sales  prices  of  the  Union  industry  were  those  to  independent  customers, 
adjusted where  needed  to ex-works level. In the RIP, no undercutting was found for 
any of the countries concerned.  

4. 

Imports from Malaysia and Indonesia  

4.1. 

Volume, market share and prices of imports 

(141)  The  import  volumes  from  Malaysia  doubled  over  the  period  considered  despite  a 
decline  of  70%  until  2010.  The  imports  from  Indonesia  remained  negligible.  The 
import volumes for both countries remained below de minimis level. 

(142)  The market share of Malaysia increased accordingly from 0.3% to 0.6%. The market 

share of Indonesia remained close to 0% over the period considered. 

(143)  The average unit price for Malaysia stood at 1,299 EUR/tonne in the RIP. This reflects 
a 25% increase which was acquired in the last two years of the period considered, after 
an initial decline of 28% between 2008 and 2009. The average unit price for Indonesia 
stood at 1,304 EUR/tonne in the RIP. This reflects a 34% increase between 2009 and 
the RIP. Indonesia did not export to the EU in 2008.  

Table 3 
Imports from Malaysia 

2008 

2009 

2010 

RIP 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
  
  
Volume of imports (tonnes) 
Index (2008 = 100) 
Price of imports (EUR/tonne) 
Index (2008 = 100) 
Market share of imports  
Source: Eurostat data 

8,213 
100 
1,038 
100 
0.3% 

2,028 
25 
751 
72 
0.1% 

308 
4 
942 
91 
0.0% 

16,628 
202 
1,299 
125 
0.6% 

Table 4 
Imports from Indonesia 

2008 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

2009 
408 
100 
973 
100 
0.01% 

2010 
991 
243 
1,222 
126 
0.03% 

RIP 
253 
62 
1,304 
134 
0.01% 

Volume of imports (tonnes) 
Index (2009 = 100) 
Price of imports (EUR/tonne) 
Index (2009 = 100) 
Market share of imports  
Source: Eurostat data 

4.2. 

Price undercutting 

(144)  In  view  of  the  absence  of  cooperation  by  the  Indonesian  exporting  producers,  price 
undercutting  regarding  imports  from  Indonesia  had  to  be  established  on  the  basis  of 
import  statistics  (Eurostat).  Given  that  the  cooperating  Malaysian  exporters  did  not 
export  to  the  Union,  in  this  case  also,  the  price  undercutting  regarding  imports  from 
Malaysia had to be established on the basis of import statistics (Eurostat). The relevant 
sales  prices  of  the  Union  industry  were  those  to  independent  customers,  adjusted 
where needed to ex-works level. In the RIP, no undercutting was found for any of the 
two countries.  

5. 

Imports from other third countries 

5.1. 

Imports from China, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Iran and Pakistan  

(145)  Imports from other third countries with anti-dumping measures in place decreased by 
69%  over  the  period  considered  despite  an  increase  of  49%  in  2009.  Only  imports 
from China remained stable.  

(146)  The market share of the countries in question was reduced from 8.2% in 2008 to 2.6% 
in the RIP including mainly the UAE (1.7% in RIP) and China (0.6% in RIP). 

(147)  The average price amounted to 1,258 EUR/tonne in the RIP, 5.5% below the unit price 
of the Union industry. This reflects a 24% increase over the period considered which 
was acquired in the RIP after an initial decline of 22% in 2009. 

Table 5 
Imports from China, the UAE, Iran and Pakistan 

2008 

2009 

2010 

RIP 

Volume of imports from China, the 
UAE, Iran and Pakistan (tonnes) 
Index (2008 = 100) 

235,913

351,798

188,776 

72,054

100

149

80 

31

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
Market share of imports from China, the 
UAE, Iran and Pakistan  

8.2%

12.0%

6.5% 

2.6%

Index (2008 = 100) 

Price of imports (EUR/tonne) 

Index (2008 = 100) 

Source: Eurostat  

100

1,016

100

146 

789

78

79  

949 

93 

31 

1,258

124

5.2. 

Imports from other third countries without any measures  

(148)  Volumes of imports from other third countries without any measures including Oman, 
South  Korea,  Russia,  Mexico  and  Saudi  Arabia  increased  by  59%  over  the  period 
considered, after a growth of 71% in 2009. Between 2009 and RIP, Oman became the 
largest exporting country in the Union.  

(149)  The market share of the countries in question rose from 9.7% in 2008 to 15.8% in RIP, 
mainly  due  to  the  gain  of  4.3%  of  imports  from  Oman.  The  market  share  of  South 
Korea stood at 4% in the RIP, 5% below its highest level reached in 2009.  

(150)  The average price amounted to 1,273 EUR/tonne, 4.3% below the average unit price 
of the Union industry. This reflects a 10% increase over the period considered which 
was  acquired  in  2010  and  RIP  after  an  initial  decline  of  24%  in  2009.  The  average 
price  of  imports  from  Oman  stood  at  1,310  EUR/tonne  in  RIP,  1.5%  below  the  unit 
price of the Union industry. The average price of imports from South Korea stood at 
1,294 EUR/tonne, 2.7% below the unit price of the Union industry.  

Table 6 
Imports from other third countries 
2009 

2008 

2010 

RIP 

Volume of imports from other third 
countries (tonnes) 
Index (2008 = 100) 

279,188

478,570

469,753 

442,692

100

171

168 

159

Market share of imports from other third 
countries 

9.7%

16.3%

16.1% 

15.8%

Index (2008 = 100) 

Price of imports (EUR/tonne) 

Index (2008 = 100) 
Main exporters (tonnes) 
Oman 
South Korea 
Russia 
Mexico 
Saudi Arabia 
Others 

Source: Eurostat  

100

1,156

100

168 

879

76

165  

997 

86 

0
177,341
546
2,650
230
98,422

52,632
254,451
546
1,879
20,454
148,609

95,646 
183,801 
3 
29,039 
50,108 
111,156 

162 

1,273

110

120,286
114,346
50,427
29,409
24,756
103,468

EN 

29 

   EN 

  
  
  
  
  
(151)  Following disclosure, some parties argued that the Commission omitted to assess the 
impact  of  imports  from  South  Korea.  It  is  recalled  that  the  measures  against  South 
Korea expired in 2012. Before expiration of the duties, over 99% of imports from this 
country  were  entering  with  0%  duty  rate.  For  these  reasons  the  imports  from  South 
Korea  are  included  in  the  analysis  together  with  the  imports  from  other  countries 
without  any  measures  (recitals  (202)  and  (212)  below).  The  claim  was  rejected  as 
unsubstantiated.  

6. 

Economic situation of the Union industry  

(152)  Pursuant  to  Article  3(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  all  economic  factors  and  indices 
having a bearing on the state of the Union industry during the period considered have 
been examined. 

(153)  For  the  purpose  of  the  injury  analysis,  the  injury  indicators  have  been  established  at 

the following two levels:  

– 

– 

the  macroeconomic  indicators  (production,  production  capacity,  capacity 
utilisation,  sales  volume,  market  share,  growth,  employment,  productivity, 
magnitude of dumping margins and recovery from the effects of past dumping) 
were  assessed  at  the  level  of  the  whole  Union  production  for  all  Union 
producers,  on  the  basis  of  the  information  collected  from  the  Union  industry, 
the review request as well as publicly-available statistics;  

the microeconomic indicators (stocks, average unit prices, wages, profitability, 
return on investments, cash flow, ability to raise capital and investments) were 
assessed  at  the  level  of  the  sampled  Union  producers  on  the  basis  of  the 
information they submitted.  

(154)  One  sampled  Union  producer  divested  one  of  its  production  facilities  in  June  2010. 
The  latter  was  acquired  by  another  Union  producer.  Since  the  analysis  of  macro-
economic  indicators  is  based  on  data  collected  from  all  Union  producers  the 
divestment had no impact on the scope or individual indicators of the injury analysis.  

(155)  As  a  preliminary  point  to  the  analysis  it  should  be  explained  that  certain  global 
economic  events  in  late  2010  and  early  2011  had  an  impact  on  the  situation  on  the 
Union market, in particular on the prices and sales volumes of the like product. In this 
period  the  cotton  supply  fell  resulting  in  an  increased  demand  for  polyester  fibre  on 
the Asian market. PET and polyester fibre are largely dependent upstream on the same 
raw material, i.e. purified terephthalic acid (PTA). The increased demand for polyester 
fibre resulted in insufficient supply of PTA, pushing the prices of PET up. Since the 
producers  of  PET  in  the  Middle  East  also  depend  on  PTA  from  Asia,  this  caused 
sudden fall in imports of PET in the Union. At the same time, the main PTA suppliers 
in  the  Union  declared  a  'force  majeure'  resulting  in  additional  restrictions  of  the 
domestic PET production. 

7. 

Comments of the parties 

(156)  Some parties challenged the validity of the injury analysis on the grounds that it was 
based  on  deficient  information,  which  in  turn  also  affected  the  rights  of  defence  of 
interested parties. In particular, the below-mentioned arguments were raised. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

(157)  Some  parties  claimed  that  the  information  collected  from  Union  producers  did  not 
comply with the instructions for completion of the questionnaire, which requested data 
from  different  companies  not  to  be  aggregated.  It  was  therefore  claimed  that  the 
collected  information  was  inaccurate  and  incomplete  given  that  the  reported  figures 
were  aggregated  per  sampled  entity.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  information  was  duly 
collected  and  verified  on-spot.  The  information  collected  was  found  to  provide 
sufficiently accurate picture of the Union industry and therefore the above-mentioned 
claim  had  to  be  rejected.  Following  disclosure  the  parties  reiterated  their  claim.  No 
new arguments or evidence were presented. Same parties reiterated their claim that the 
data provided by one sampled company were incomplete as they did not relate to the 
entire group but selected entity within the group. This comment was addressed at the 
sampling stage as explained in recital (20) above. 

(158)  The  same  parties  argued  that  the  Commission  attempted  to  fix  the  claimed 
insufficiencies  of  the  collected  information  by  sending  additional  questionnaires.  In 
this  respect  it  should  be  clarified  that  the  Commission  indeed  sent  additional 
questionnaires, but addressed them only to the non-sampled Union producers in order 
to collect information on macro-economic indicators relevant to the injury assessment 
therefore this was done to supplement the information provided by the sampled Union 
producers. Following disclosure some parties reiterated the claim without bringing any 
new  arguments  or  presenting  new  evidence.  The  claim  of  the  parties  was  therefore 
dismissed.  

(159)  In  addition,  the  same  parties  also  claimed  that  the  information  provided  by  the 
sampled  producers  was  also  contrary  to  obligations  in  Article  19  of  the  basic 
Regulation  because  information  which  was  not  confidential  in  nature  had  been 
provided  as  confidential  information  and  thus  excluded  from  the  open  file.  In  this 
respect it is to be noted that the information was classified as limited in line with the 
request  of  the  submitting  party.  Upon  the  request  of  interested  parties  the 
confidentiality  status  of  the  submitted  information  was  reconsidered  and  where 
appropriate,  the  information  was  reclassified  as  open  for  inspection  by  interested 
parties  after  consultation  and  approval  of  the  companies  concerned.  Also  this  claim 
was therefore dismissed. 

(160)  Some  parties  argued  that  the  methodology  used  to  assess  injury  was  in  violation  of 
Article  11(9)  of  the  basic  Regulation  because  while  the  injury  determination  carried 
out  in  the  original  investigation  concluded  in  1999  was  based  on  cumulative 
assessment  of  imports  from  six  countries,  the  current  assessment  does  not  include 
imports from South Korea which was claimed to be the largest supplier to the Union 
and the country with largest export capacity and lowest export prices as compared to 
other countries concerned by the present review. 

(161)  In  this  context  it  is  to  be  noted  that  under  the  expiry  review  concluded  in  2007  the 
non-dumped  imports  from  South  Korea  were  already  decumulated  given  that  it  was 
found  that  not  all  conditions  of  Article  3(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation  were  met  in 
respect of these imports. Moreover, it is noted that the current review does not cover 
the imports from Korea as the measures against South Korea has expired. Finally, it is 
considered that there is no change in methodology since the cumulative assessment is 
used under the current review for the imports from all the countries that meet criteria 
for  such  assessment  in  accordance  with  Article  3(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  The 
argument of the parties has to be therefore dismissed.  

EN 

31 

   EN 

8. 

Macroeconomic indicators 

8.1. 

Production 

(162)  In line with the loss of market share by the Union industry (discussed in recital (164) 
below)  the  Union  production  decreased  by  11%  between  2008  and  the  RIP.  The 
decline  of  the  Union  production  was  only  interrupted  in  2010  when  it  raised  in 
comparison to 2009 but remained nevertheless 4% below its level of 2008. It further 
decreased in the RIP.  

Table 7 
Total Union production 
2009 

2008 

2010 

RIP 

Production (tonnes) 
Index (2008=100) 
Source: Questionnaire replies, review request 

2,327,169 
100 

2,107,792
91 

2,239,313  
96  

2,068,717 
89 

8.2. 

Production capacity and capacity utilisation 

(163)  The  production  capacity  of  the  Union industry  decreased  by  23%  between  2008  and 
the RIP. This trend relates to the closure of several manufacturing facilities which was 
partly offset by the launch of new factories.  

(164)  Capacity utilisation increased from 75% in 2008 to 86% in the RIP. Increased capacity 
utilisation is to be seen in the context of the restructuring efforts of the Union industry 
explained in recital (124) above.  

Table 8 
Production capacity and capacity utilisation 

2008 

2009 

2010 

RIP 

Production capacity (tonnes) 
Index  
Capacity utilisation 
Index 
Source: Questionnaire replies, review request  

3,118,060 
100 
75%
100 

2,720,326
87 
77%
104 

2,625,244  
84  
85% 
114  

2,393,516 
77 
86%
116 

8.3. 

Sales volume 

(165)  The  sales  volume  of  the  Union  industry  on  the  Union  market  followed  the  same 
development as production, with a contraction of 6% over the period considered.  

Table 9 
Total sales of the Union industry in the Union 

2008 

2009 

2010 

RIP 

Sales (tonnes) 
Index  

2,288,283 
100 

2,047,305
89 

2,169,423  
95  

2,160,807 
94

Source: Questionnaire replies, review request  

8.4. 

Market share 

EN 

32 

   EN 

  
  
 
  
  
(166)  After an initial drop of 13% in 2009, the Union industry regained part of the market 
share  lost  by  UAE,  South  Korea,  Iran  and  Pakistan  despite  increasing  volumes  of 
imports  from  India,  Oman  and  other  third  countries  (Russia,  Mexico  and  Saudi 
Arabia) over the same period. Overall, the market share of the Union industry declined 
by 3% during the period considered.  

Table 10 
Union industry market share 

2008 

2009 

2010 

RIP 

Union industry market 
share 
Index  

80%
100 

70%
87 

74% 
93 

77%
97 

Source: Questionnaire replies, review request and Eurostat  

8.5. 

Growth 

(167)  The market stagnated over the period considered. There was no growth for the Union 
industry  to  benefit  from,  on  the  contrary,  despite  the  restructuring  efforts,  the  Union 
industry  lost  further  market  share  to  the  growing  imports,  in  particular,  from  the 
countries without any measures. The slight decline of the consumption in the RIP is to 
be seen against the background of temporary shortage of the raw material (PTA) in the 
Union as well as in the global market. 

8.6. 

Employment and productivity 

(168)  The employment level of the Union industry showed a decrease of 41% between 2008 
and the RIP. The decline was constant over the period concerned, including in 2010 
when  the  production  increased  (see  recital  (161)  above).  In  the  light  of  the  growing 
productivity, this drop is a reflection of the restructuring efforts by a number of Union 
producers. 

(169)  Productivity  of  the  Union  industry’s  workforce,  measured  as  output  (tonnes)  per 
person  employed per  year, increased by 50 % in the period considered. This reflects 
the fact that production decreased at a slower pace than the employment level and is an 
indication of increased efficiency by the Union industry. This is particularly obvious 
in  2010  when  production  increased  while  the  employment  level  decreased  and  the 
productivity was 37 % higher than in 2008. 

Table 11 
Employment and productivity 

2008 

2009 

2010 

RIP 

Number of employees 
Index  

2,060 
100 

Productivity(tonne/employee) 
Index  
Source: Questionnaire replies, review request 

1,130 
100 

1,629 
79 

1,294 
115 

1,449  
70  

1,545  
137  

1,218 
59 

1,698 
150 

8.7. 

Magnitude of the actual dumping margin  

(170)  As concerns the impact on the Union industry of the magnitude of the actual dumping 
margin  of  imports  from  the  countries  concerned,  given  the  price  sensitivity  of  the 
market for this product, this impact cannot be considered to be negligible. It should be 

EN 

33 

   EN 

  
  
  
  
noted that this indicator is more relevant in the context of the likelihood of recurrence 
of injury analysis. Should measures lapse, it is likely that the dumped imports would 
come  back  at  such  volumes  and  prices  that  the  impact  of  the  magnitude  of  the 
dumping margin would be significant. 

8.8. 

Recovery from the effects of past dumping 

(171)  While  the  indicators  examined  above  show  some  improvement  in  some  economic 
indicators  of  the  Union  industry,  further  to  the  imposition  of  definitive  antidumping 
measures  in  2000,  they  also  provide  evidence  that  the  Union  industry  is  still 
vulnerable. 

9. 

Microeconomic elements 

9.1. 

Stocks 

(172)  The  level  of  stocks  was  24%  higher  in  the  RIP  in  relation  with  their  levels  in  2008. 
However, the stocks have remained at previously established levels in relation to the 
output, i.e. between 5% and 6%.  

Closing stocks 
Index  

Source: Questionnaire replies  

9.2. 

Price development 

2008 

51,495
100 

Table 12 
Stocks 

2009 

2010 

RIP 

54,808
106

54,314 
105 

64,069
124

(173)  As regards the price development, after an initial drop in 2009 (-16%), mainly caused 
by the economic crisis, the prices came close to 2008 level in 2010. This was followed 
by a sharp rise of the average unit price in RIP, bringing the increase over the period 
considered to 25%.  

(174)  The sudden price increase in the RIP should be read in the context of the unexpected 
market developments at the end of 2010 and in the first quarter of 2011 on the cotton 
market.  As  mentioned  above  (recital  (153)  above),  the  record  cotton  prices  caused  a 
switch  to  polyester  fibre  that  competes  for  the  same  raw  material  as  PET.  The 
increased  demand  for  the  raw  material,  in  particular,  PTA,  pushed  up  the  prices  of 
PET  in  Asia  and  Middle  East  with  a  spill  over  effect  on  the  prices  of  PET  in  the 
Union. The price increase in the Union at that time was further amplified by the short 
term scarcity of PTA in the Union due to the declared force majeure of one of the PTA 
producers in the Union.  

Table 13 
Unit Sales Price in the Union 

Unit Sales Price in the EU (EUR/tonne) 

Index (2008 = 100) 
Source: Questionnaire replies 

9.3. 

Factors affecting sales prices 

2008 

2009 

2010 

RIP 

1,066 

100

891 

84 

1,045  

1,330 

98  

125 

EN 

34 

   EN 

  
  
 
 
 
 
(175)  The  sales  prices  of  PET  normally  follow  the  price  trends  of  its  main  raw  materials 
(mainly PTA and monoethylene glycol — MEG) as they constitute up to 90 % of the 
total cost of PET. PTA is an oil derivative, the price of which fluctuates on the basis of 
prices of crude oil. This causes high volatility of the prices of PET. 

(176)  In addition, PET competes for the same raw material as polyester fibre, the production 
of which relies to the same extent as PET on the availability of PTA. Since polyester 
fibre  is  an  alternative  to  cotton  for  the  textile  industry,  the  price  of  PET  is  therefore 
also sensitive to the developments on the cotton market. 

9.4.  Wages 

(177)  The average wages decline by 7% over the period considered. This reduction occurred 
in the RIP and amplified the productivity gains observed see recital (167) above.  

Table 14 
Wages 

2008 

2009 

2010 

RIP 

54,512 
100 

56,014 
103 

54,876  
101  

50,784 
 93 

Wages (average per person) 
Index  

Source: Questionnaire replies  

9.5. 

Profitability and return on investment 

(178)  The profitability and returns on investment improved significantly between 2008 and 
RIP. The profit on sales in the Union market increased from -7.9% in 2008 to 5.3% in 
RIP while return on investment improved from -9.6% to 10.6%. 2008 was affected by 
the  particularly  poor  performance  of  one  Union  producer.  Nevertheless,  the 
improvement of the financial situation of the Union industry in 2009 and 2010, when 
prices  were  below  their  2008  levels,  evidences  the  loose  relationship  between  prices 
and  profitability.  On  the  contrary,  the  improvement  of  profitability  appears  closely 
correlated  to  the  improvements  in  capacity  utilisation  and  to  the  productivity  gains 
observed above.  

(179)  Thanks to the global market developments at the break of 2010/2011, coupled with the 
restructuring efforts and efficiency gains described above, the Union industry was able 
to improve its profitability in 2010 and to reach the level of 5.3% in the RIP.  

(180)  One interested party argued that this development was unexpected and extraordinary, 
not to be considered representative of the overall situation of the Union industry.  

(181)  In  this  respect  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  Union  industry  was  able  to  benefit  from  the 
PET price increase at the end of 2011 and beginning of 2012 as it had fixed the PTA 
price  before  the  described  market  events  occurred.  Based  on  the  statistical  sources 
concerning the post-RIP development, submitted by the parties, the profit margins of 
PET producers went substantially down in 2012. This confirms that the profitability in 
2011  (RIP)  was  indeed  largely  influenced  by  unexpected  and  temporary  global 
economic  events  (recital  (153)  that  are  unlikely  to  recur  and  cannot  be  considered 
permanent and representative of the situation of the Union industry. 

Table 15 
Profitability and Return on Investments 

EN 

35 

   EN 

  
Profitability Union 
sales 
Index  
Return on investment 
Index  
Source: Questionnaire replies  

2008 

2009 

2010 

RIP 

-7.9%
100 
-9.6%
100 

1.6%
221 
2.3%
224 

4.8% 
261  
8.9% 
292  

5.3%
267 
10.6%
310 

9.6. 

Cash flow and ability to raise capital 

(182)  The  cash  flows  improved  significantly  over  the  period  reflecting  the  recent 

improvement of the profitability of the Union Industry.  

Table 16 
Cash flow 

Cash flow (EUR) 
Index (2008 = 100) 
In % of turnover 
Index (2008 = 100) 

Source: Questionnaire replies 

2008 

2009 

2010 

RIP 

- 59,419,394 
100 
-5.9%
100

40,940,883 
269 
4.5%
176

96,614,649  
363  
8.3% 
242 

103,761,169 
375 
7.5%
229 

(183)  There were no particular indications that the Union industry would have encountered 
difficulties in raising capital, mainly as the Union producers are incorporated in larger 
groups. 

9.7. 

Investments 

(184)  The level of investments was overall reduced by 35% over the period considered. The 
initial  investments  made  in  2008  were  cut  sharply  in  2009  and  have  not  fully 
recovered since.  

Table 17 
Investments 

2008 

72,341,598 
100 

2009 

5,404,705 
7 

2010 

RIP 

15,994,659   47,217,003 
65 

22  

Investments (EUR '000) 
Index  
Source: Questionnaire replies 

10. 

Conclusion on the situation of the Union industry 

(185)  The analysis of the macro-economic data showed that the Union industry decreased its 
production  and  sales  volumes  during  the  period  considered.  The  Union  industry's 
market  share  has  not  fully recovered  since  the  initial  drop  in  2009  and  it  showed  an 
overall  decrease  of  3  percentage  points  over  the  period  considered  (to  77%  in  RIP). 
The decline in employment and capacity is a result of the on-going restructuring and is 
to be seen in the context of increasing capacity utilisation and productivity. 

(186)  At  the  same  time  most  of  the  relevant  micro-economic  indicators  showed  signs  of 
improvements. The profitability, return on investment and cash flow rose significantly, 
in particular in 2010 and in the RIP. The investments, on the other hand, plummeted in 
2009 and have not recovered since. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

  
  
  
(187)  Overall,  the  economic  situation  of  the  industry  has  improved.  However,  these 
improvements  are  relatively  recent  and  to  some  extent  based  on  unforeseen  and 
temporary  market  developments  at  the  break  of  2010/2011  (see  recital  (153)  above). 
This appears to be supported by the information available on the developments of the 
margin of the Union industry in 2012 (see recital (179) to above) that show a decline 
as compared to RIP. 

(188)  In view of the above analysis, the situation of the Union industry has improved and no 
material  injury  appears  to  be  taking  place.  Nevertheless,  despite  apparent  positive 
trends and the significant restructuring efforts, the Union industry is still fragile.  

(189)  Following the disclosure some parties contested the conclusion that the Union industry 
was  still  fragile  claiming  that  the  Union  industry  was  in  a  healthy  state  and  has 
substantially  transformed  since  1999.  It  is  noted  that  as  explained  above  (recital 
(185)), despite the overall improvement and consolidation, not all economic indicators 
developed  positively  over  the  period  considered.  For  example,  production  and  sales 
volumes  as  well  as  market  share  decreased.  Moreover,  the  improvements  were 
relatively recent and with a fall of profitability in 2012 appeared short-lived. On this 
basis it was considered that while no material injury proved to exist in RIP, the Union 
industry was still in a fragile state. The argument was therefore rejected. 

(190)  Following  the  disclosure  some  parties  contested  the  use  of  data  referring  to  period 
beyond  RIP  for  the  analysis  of  the  economic  situation  of  the  Union  industry.  In 
response  to  this  claim  it  is  confirmed  that  the  situation  of  the  Union  industry  was 
assessed for the period considered and on this basis no material injury was established. 
However, the development of profitability of the Union industry beyond RIP is in this 
case  relevant  mainly  in  the  context  of  the  extraordinary  nature  of  the  global  market 
developments at the break of 2010/2011. It also illustrates the volatility of the profit 
levels  typical  for  this  sector  (see  recital  (260)  below).  The  argument  is  therefore 
rejected. 

F. LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRENCE OF INJURY  

1. 

Impact  of  the  projected  volume  of  imports  and  price  effects  in  case  of  repeal  of 
measures 

(191)  The  investigation  has  shown  that  the  imports  from  India,  Taiwan  and  Thailand 
continued  to  be  dumped  and  there  are  no  indications  that  the  dumping  would  be 
reduced or discontinued in the future.  

(192)  A  prospective  analysis  of  the  likely  export  volumes  from  these  three  countries 
revealed  that,  given  the  excess  capacity  available  for  exports  (see  recitals  (55),  (97) 
and  (118)  above),  the  domestic  prices  as  well  as  price  levels  on  the  third  countries 
markets  and  in  the  Union  together  with  the  attractiveness  of  the  Union  market  the 
imports from India, Taiwan and Thailand are likely to increase to the levels likely to 
cause injury above those reached in RIP if the measures were lifted. With the planned 
capacity  expansions  in  these  three  countries,  the  combined  excess  capacity  available 
for exports is estimated to reach between 2.3-2.8 million tonnes, i.e. over 83-87% of 
the Union consumption (in RIP) in the near future.  

(193)  As regards the expected price development of the imports from the three countries, the 
imports  from  these  countries  are  expected  to  enter  at  dumped  prices,  should  the 

EN 

37 

   EN 

measures  against  India,  Taiwan  and  Thailand  be  lifted.  Also,  as  the  exporters  from 
these  countries  will  have  to  compete  against  low  priced  imports  from  other  third 
countries, it cannot be excluded they would have to lower their prices further in order 
to increase their market share on the Union market.  

(194)  On  this  basis,  the  Union  industry  is  likely  to  be  exposed  to  substantial  volumes  of 
imports from India, Taiwan and Thailand at dumped prices below its average prices, 
undermining its recently improved economic situation. As a result, the material injury 
is likely to recur should the measures against India, Taiwan and Thailand be lifted. 

2. 

Production capacity and excess capacity available for exports of countries concerned 

(195)  As  indicated  above,  the  exporting  producers  in  India,  Taiwan  and  Thailand  have  the 
potential to increase their export volumes to the Union market. All three countries had 
a  significant  growth  in  their  production  capacity  over  the  period  considered. 
According  to  market  forecasts,  it  is  expected  that  the  gap  between  domestic 
consumption and production capacity will grow to between 2.3 to 2.8 million tonnes in 
the near future. Such excess capacity available for exports in the near future has to be 
considered  as  significant  as  it  represents  over  83-87%  of  the  Union  consumption  (in 
RIP).  

(196)  Therefore, although the imports from the three countries to the Union were relatively 
low,  a  risk  exists  that  significant  export  volumes  could  be  diverted  to  the  Union 
market should the measures be lifted.  

(197)  Following  the  disclosure  some  parties  claimed  that  the  likelihood  of  recurrence  of 
injury based on excess capacity available for exports has to include the assessment of 
the  growth  in  demand  in  the  export  markets  of  India  and  Taiwan.  The  same  parties 
stated that Thailand was irrelevant because it is controlled by one group present on the 
Union  market.  The  claim  regarding  the  assessment  of  excess  capacity  available  for 
exports  is  dismissed  for  the  reasons  explained  in  recitals  (58)  to  (59)  and  (101)  to 
(102) above. The relevance of the statement made regarding the situation on the Thai 
market was not substantiated. For this reason the claims were dismissed. 

3. 

Loss of export markets  

(198)  The trade defence measures against imports of PET from India, Taiwan and Thailand 
are currently in place in Turkey. Furthermore, measures against the imports from India 
and Taiwan exist in South Africa and measures against Thailand exist in Malaysia.  

(199)  Following the disclosure some parties contested the conclusions regarding the loss of 
export markets for India and Taiwan. It was claimed that both markets were marginal 
export  market,  therefore  no  significant  export  volumes  from  these  markets  could  be 
redirected to the Union if the measures were lifted. It is noted that mere existence of 
the trade defence on some markets excludes any meaningful comparison of the relative 
importance of the markets with and without measures for a given country. In addition, 
contrary  to  the  claim,  it  was  not  considered  that  the  export  volumes  from  these 
markets  would  be  redirected  to  the  Union  market.  Instead,  The  Commission’s 
assessment  is  that  the  trade  defence  measures  in  place  in  Turkey  and  South  Africa 
against  imports  from  India  and  Taiwan  potentially  reduce  the  markets  that  could  be 
available  for  Indian  and  Taiwanese  exports.  Moreover,  should  the  claim  that  Turkey 
and  South  Africa  are  unimportant  export  markets  be  true,  the  increasing  excess 

EN 

38 

   EN 

capacity  available  for  export  in  India  and  Taiwan  implies  a  likelihood  of  increased 
exports  to  the  Union  even  in  the  absence  of  the  trade  defence  measures  imposed  by 
Turkey  and  South  Africa.  (see  recital  (59)  above).  This  argument  was  therefore 
rejected.  

(200)  The existence of trade defence measures in other third countries is also an indication 
that the pricing behaviour of India, Taiwan and Thailand is likely to replicate on the 
Union market. 

4. 

Attractiveness of the Union market 

(201)  The  Union  market  is  attractive  in  terms  of  its  size  and  price,  being  the  third  largest 
market in the world, with a structural need for imports and higher prices as compared 
to other markets. In case of India, Taiwan and Thailand, the import prices to the Union 
tend  to  be  higher  than  the  prices  to  other  third  countries,  which  points  to  the 
attractiveness of the Union market for the exports from these three countries.  

(202)  The  attractiveness  of  the  Union  market  is  also  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  the  Union 
industry lost market share to the rising imports from the countries without measures. 
This is in particular true in case of South Korea that significantly increased its exports 
to the Union market in 2012 after the measures against the country have expired. 

5. 

Other factors 

(203)  The impact of imports from other third countries with measures, on the situation of the 
Union  industry  was  considered  low,  due  to  the  low  import  volumes  and  substantial 
decrease of their market share in the RIP.  

(204)  The  volume  of  imports  from  other  third  countries  without  any  measures  increased 
during the period considered, however, the respective average import price remained 
close to the Union industry average price. Therefore, the impact of the imports from 
these countries on the situation of the Union industry is considered limited.  

6. 

Captive market  

(205)  Following  the  disclosure  some  parties  claimed  that  due  to  the  vertical  integration 
between  PET  producers  and  converters,  a  considerable  part  of  PET  was  sold  for 
captive use that did not compete with imports. It was also claimed that share of captive 
market was significant, affecting the results of the analysis. 

(206)  Based  on  the  information  collected  at  the  level  of  sampled  Union  producers  the 
proportion of captive sales was found not to be significant (below 10%). It has to be 
underlined that the parties in question expressed the presence of PET producers in the 
packaging  business  in  terms  of  the  installed  production  capacity  of  PET  and  not  in 
terms  of  their  market  share  in  packaging.  Therefore,  the  claim  on  significant 
proportion of captive use was found unsubstantiated. As regards the price levels, the 
prices of related and unrelated sales were found to be within the same range.  

(207)  On these grounds it was concluded that the distinctive analysis of the impact of captive 

sales was not necessary and the claims of the parties were rejected.  

7. 

Comments of the parties 

EN 

39 

   EN 

(208)  Some parties argued that the injury due to imports from India did not exist during the 
RIP as evidenced by the relative economic health and profits of the Union industry. It 
has  to  be  note  that,  indeed,  no  continuation  of  injury  has  been  established  in  the 
present  case,  and  therefore  the  claim  of  the  parties  corresponds  to  the  investigation 
findings.  

(209)  Some parties claimed that other factors, such as structural inefficiencies of the Union 
industry and lack of investment as well as seasonal and conjunctural factors (e.g. bad 
weather, economic crises) could have an impact on the situation of the Union industry. 
Concerning the first point raised, it is to be noted that the restructuring of the Union 
industry  is  already  taking  place  and  the  efficiency  gains  obtained  suggest  that  the 
claim  of  the  parties  is  unfounded.  As  to  the  conjunctural  factors,  although  the 
economic crises did have an impact on the situation of the Union industry in 2009, as 
mentioned above, the relevant effects do not appear to be currently present anymore; 
concerning  the  effect  of  bad  weather,  this  could  partly  explain  the  shrinking 
consumption in the RIP, however, on the one hand, its alleged impact on the situation 
of the Union industry has not been substantiated and, on the other hand, the slight drop 
in 2011 appears to be rather linked to temporary scarcity of raw materials due to the 
global  market  developments  in  2011.  Therefore,  none  of  these  claims  is  justified  in 
view of the findings of the investigation. 

(210)  Furthermore, some parties argued that the recurrence of injury in this case is unlikely 
if  the  measures  were  to  expire,  given  that  thanks  to  its  structure  (concentration  and 
vertical  integration)  the  Union  industry  is  shielded  from  the  effects  of  the  imports. 
Moreover,  it  has  been  argued  that  a  shift  to  imported  PET  is  neither  desired  nor 
possible in the near future, in particular as purchasing contracts and policies as well as 
homologation  process  of  large  brand  owners  (downstream  users)  makes  changes  of 
PET  suppliers  cumbersome.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  based  on  the  findings  of  the 
investigation  the  Union  industry  continued  to  lose  market  share  to  the  benefit  of 
imports  during  the  period  considered;  this  shows,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the  Union 
industry is not shielded from the effects of the imports and, on the other hand, that the 
switch  to  imports  is  not  hypothetical  but  is  actually  already  taking  place.  The 
arguments had to be therefore dismissed.  

(211)  Following the disclosure some parties reiterated the claim that the Union industry was 
shielded  from  the  potential  competition  of  imports  due  to  its  structure.  Firstly,  as 
regards the claim on dominant position of one of the producing groups in the Union 
market controlling five producers, it is noted that the Union market is an open market 
with  other  eight  producers  operating  outside  this  group  and  growing  competition  of 
imports  from  third  countries  –  with  and  without  any  measures  in  place.  Secondly, 
concentration  is  typical  for  this  type  of  business  based  on  commodity  product  that 
relies  on  economies  of  scale  for  its  competitiveness.  Thirdly,  no  price  leader  was 
found  to  exist  on  the  Union  market.  Finally,  parties  reiterated  that  the  impact  of  the 
imports  from  the  three  countries  concerned  in  the  light  of  the  vertical  integration  of 
some Union producers with the packaging industry or with producers of PTA was not 
analysed. As established in recital (207) above these aspects were indeed analysed and 
found unsubstantiated. Moreover, the verification of companies concerned by vertical 
integration  with  producers  of  raw  materials  confirmed  there  was  no  comparative 
advantage as the transfers were made at market price. Based on the above, the claim 
that the Union industry would be shielded from the competition was rejected.  

EN 

40 

   EN 

(212)  Next,  some  parties  argued  that  no  elements  support  a  conclusion  that  the  Indian, 
Taiwanese  and  Thai  export  capacity  may  target  the  Union  market  at  ‘cheap  prices’ 
given  that  (i)  the  domestic  demand  in  India,  Taiwan  and  Thailand  is  growing  and  is 
expected to continue to grow; (ii) PET in excess of domestic consumption exists, yet 
competition  in  export  markets  has  not  resulted  in  exports  at  dump  or  otherwise 
abnormally  low  prices;  (iii)  increases  in  production  capacity  in  Asia  responds  to  the 
increase  in  demand  expected  worldwide.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  findings  in  the 
present  investigation  demonstrate  that  the  projected  growth  of  capacity  shows  a 
growing  excess  of  the  production  capacity  over  domestic  demand.  In  addition,  the 
prices of India, Taiwan and Thailand on third markets were lower as compared to their 
import  imports  prices  to  the  Union.  Based  on  the  findings  described  in  recitals  (60), 
(104)  and  (120),  above  it  is  likely  that  the  dumped  imports  from  the  countries 
concerned will target the Union market at volumes likely to cause injury and below the 
average price of the Union industry should the anti-dumping measures be allowed to 
lapse. On these grounds the arguments of the parties are dismissed. 

(213)  Finally,  some  Taiwanese  producers  argued  that  for  the  reasons  spelt  out  in  recitals 
(101)  to  (103)  above,  there  was  no  likelihood  of  recurrence  of  injury  due  to  the 
imports of PET originating in Taiwan. As noted in the respective recitals, for reasons 
of  non-cooperation,  none  of  the  claims  made  in  this  respect  could  be  verified. 
Moreover, the findings described in recitals (86) to (98) above point to the contrary. 
On these grounds the allegations made by the parties in question have to be rejected.  

(214)  Following the disclosure one party claimed that the Commission failed to include the 
imports from South Korea in the injury assessment. Contrary to this claim, the imports 
from South Korea were included in the injury analyses (see  recital (202) above) and 
were  analysed  together  with  the  imports  from  other  third  countries  without  any 
measures  (see  recital  (148)  above).  Contrary  to  the  claim,  South  Korea  was  not  the 
main exporting country to the Union (RIP). In addition, it is noted that although South 
Korea  represented  substantial  part  of 
import  volumes  declined 
significantly over the period considered. The claim of the party was therefore rejected.  

imports, 

its 

8. 

Conclusion on the recurrence of injury 

(215)  On  the  basis  of  the  foregoing  it  is  concluded  that  in  respect  of  India,  Taiwan  and 
Thailand substantial volumes of dumped imports likely to cause injury from would be 
redirected  to  the  Union  should  anti-dumping  measures  be  repealed.  Thanks  to 
continued dumping, the prices of these imports would most likely undercut the Union 
industry  prices.  Also,  it  cannot  be  excluded  that  the  prices  of  imports  from  India, 
Taiwan  and  Thailand  would  decrease  even  further  should  the  exporting  producers 
from the countries concerned try to increase their market shares. Such price behaviour, 
coupled with the ability of the exporting producers in India, Taiwan and Thailand to 
sell significant quantities of PET on the Union market, would in all likelihood have the 
effect  of  reinforcing  the  price  pressure,  with  an  expected  negative  impact  on  the 
situation of the Union industry. 

(216)  During  the  period  considered  the  situation  of  the  Union  industry  improved,  in 
particular in terms of productivity and capacity utilisation and profit margins reached 
in the RIP at the level close to the target profit established in the original investigation. 
It can therefore be concluded that the Union industry, albeit still in a fragile situation, 
did  not  suffer  material  injury  during  the  RIP.  However,  given  the  likely  substantial 

EN 

41 

   EN 

increase  of  dumped  imports  from  India,  Taiwan  and  Thailand  which  are  likely  to 
undercut the Union industry’s sales prices, it was concluded that the situation would 
very  likely  deteriorate  and  the  material  injury  would  recur,  should  measures  be 
allowed to lapse. 

(217)  As far as imports from Malaysia and Indonesia are concerned, given, in particular, the 
lack of significant excess capacities in the near future, no likelihood of continuation of 
dumping was established. Therefore, it is concluded that lifting the measures against 
Malaysia and Indonesia would in all likelihood not result in the recurrence of injury to 
the Union industry. 

(218)  Following  the  disclosure  one  party  invoked  that  the  extension  of  the  duties  against 
Thailand was discriminatory in comparison with Malaysia and Indonesia given that all 
three countries were in a similar situation. This argument was rejected considering that 
while  excessive  capacity  was  found  in  case  of  Thailand  and  thus  likelihood  of 
recurrence  of  dumping  was  found,  no  such  findings  were  established  in  case  of 
Malaysia and Indonesia.  

G. UNION INTEREST 

(219)  In  accordance  with  Article  21  of  the  basic  Regulation,  it  was  examined  whether  the 
maintenance  of  the  existing  anti-dumping  measures  would  be  clearly  against  the 
interest of the Union as a whole. The determination of the Union interest was based on 
an appreciation of all the various interests involved. All interested parties were given 
the  opportunity  to  make  their  views  known  pursuant  to  Article  21(2)  of  the  basic 
Regulation.  

(220)  It  should  be  recalled  that  the  adoption  of  measures  was  considered  not  to  be  clearly 
against  the  interest  of  the  Union  neither  in  the  original  investigation  nor  in  the  last 
expiry  review.  Furthermore,  the  analysis  in  the  last  expiry  review  was  carried  out  in 
the  situation  where  the  measures  had  been  already  in  place  and  thus  the  assessment 
took into account any undue negative impact on the parties concerned by the measures 
in question.  

(221)  On this basis, it was examined whether despite the conclusions on the continuation of 
dumping and likelihood of recurrence of injury, any compelling reasons existed which 
would  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  it  is  clearly  not  in  the  Union  interest  to  maintain 
measures in this particular case. 

9. 

Interest of the Union industry 

(222)  The  continuation  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  on  imports  from  India,  Taiwan  and 
Thailand  would  help  the  Union  industry  to  continue  the  on-going  restructuring  and 
enhance its only recently improved economic situation, as it would help avoiding that 
the  Union  industry  is  exposed  to  the  substantial  volumes  of  dumped  imports  from 
India, Taiwan and Thailand which the Union industry could not withstand. The Union 
industry would therefore continue to benefit from the maintenance of the current anti-
dumping measures.  

(223)  Accordingly,  it  is  concluded  that  the  maintenance  of  anti-dumping  measures  against 

India, Taiwan and Thailand would be in the interest of the Union industry.  

EN 

42 

   EN 

10. 

Interest of unrelated importers in the Union 

(224)  None of the unrelated importers cooperated in the present review.  

(225)  Despite the measures in force the imports from India, Taiwan and Thailand continued 
and nearly doubled over the period considered. The imports from other third countries 
without any measures were also available and reached significant market share during 
the  RIP  (see  recital  (147)  above).  Therefore,  even  with  the  measures  in  place, 
importers had access to alternative sources of supply.  

(226)  Bearing  in  mind  that  there  is  no  evidence  suggesting  that  the  measures  in  force 
considerably affected importers, it is concluded that the continuation of measures will 
not be against the interest of the Union importers.  

11. 

Interest of the suppliers of the raw materials in the Union 

(227)  The raw material for the manufacturing of the product concerned is PTA/MEG. Two 
out of five  known suppliers of  raw  material  (one  supplier  of  PTA  and  one  of  MEG) 
cooperated with the investigation by submitting the questionnaire reply. Both suppliers 
of the raw material expressed their support for the continuation of the measures.  

(228)  The investigation showed that the cooperating PTA producer represented a substantial 
part of the PTA purchases of the sampled Union producers in the RIP. Given that PTA 
has no other use in the Union than the production of PET, it is reasonable to assume 
that PTA producers are largely dependent on the PET industry.  

(229)  As to the cooperating MEG supplier, MEG represented relatively small part of its total 
turnover  in  the  RIP.  With  regard  to  MEG,  PET  is  not  its  only  or  major  possible 
application  and  MEG  producers  are  less  dependent  on  the  situation  of  the  PET 
industry.  Consequently,  it  is  considered  that  the  continuation  of  measures  against 
dumped  imports  of  PET  from  India,  Taiwan  and  Thailand  would  have  a  positive, 
although likely limited, impact on the suppliers of MEG.  

(230)  It was alleged that the suppliers of raw material do not depend on the Union producers 
of PET; in particular, as it was argued that two out of four sampled Union producers 
were in fact importing the raw materials. 

(231)  In  relation  to  this  claim  the  investigation  has  shown  that  the  imported  material  was 
predominantly  MEG  that  can  also  be  used  for  other  than  PET  applications.  No 
indications were gathered showing more than negligible imports of PTA to the Union. 
Therefore, this claim does not affect the conclusions taken as regards the dependency 
of PTA producers on PET production in the Union.  

(232)  Consequently,  it  is  considered  that  the  continuation  of  measures  against  dumped 
imports  of  PET  from  India,  Taiwan  and  Thailand  would  benefit  the  PTA  producers 
and  also,  although  to  a  lesser  extent,  the  MEG  suppliers.  As  a  consequence  the 
continuation of measures against imports from India, Taiwan and Thailand would not 
be against the interest of the raw material suppliers. 

(233)  Following  the  disclosure  some  parties  claimed  that  PTA  was  exported  and  therefore 
the PTA producers were claimed not to be dependent on Union industry. No evidence 

EN 

43 

   EN 

supporting  this  claim  was  presented.  Therefore  the  argument  of  the  parties  was 
dismissed as unsubstantiated. 

(234)  Moreover, the same parties claimed that lifting the measures will not have any impact 
on the PTA producers as the cooperating users will allegedly not switch to imports and 
will  continue  to  source  PET  from  the  Union  industry.  Therefore,  the  level  of  PTA 
consumption  in  the  Union  will  remain  the  same.  Based  on  the  findings  of  the 
investigation  the  Union  industry  continued  to  lose  market  share  to  the  benefit  of 
imports  during  the  period  considered.  This  shows  that  the  switch  to  imports  is  not 
hypothetical  (see  recital  (164)  above).  The  argument  of  the  parties  was  therefore 
dismissed. 

12. 

Interest of PET recycling industry 

(235)  The Union industry argued that the situation of the recycling industry depends on the 
sustainable price of virgin PET (non-recycled PET) on the Union market. Their claim 
was  substantiated  by  a  press  release  of  an  association  of  plastic  recyclers  in  Europe, 
according  to  which  a  potential  lifting  of  the  measures  on  virgin  PET  could  further 
worsen the situation of the recycling industry. 

(236)  Some interested parties contested that the situation of the recycling industry depends 
on the sustainable price of virgin PET on the Union market arguing that the prices of 
virgin  PET  and  recycled  PET  were  unrelated.  It  was  claimed  that  recycled  PET  is 
mainly used for the production of polyester fibre and therefore cannot be linked to the 
price developments of virgin PET. In addition, it was noted that the recycled PET is 
entirely  supported  by  bottle-fillers  and  thus  the  industry  does  not  depend  on  PET 
producers. Finally, it was also noted that recycling industry did not come forward as 
an interested party in the present investigation. 

(237)  Since  the  recycling  industry  did  not  come  forward  in  this  investigation,  none  of  the 
above-mentioned  allegations  could  have  been  verified  against  the  actual  figures. 
Therefore, it is considered that in overall the measures in force would not be against 
the interest of the recycling industry in the Union. 

13. 

Interest of the users 

(238)  The  product  concerned  is  predominantly  used  to  produce  bottles  for  water  and  other 
soft  drinks.  Its  use  for  the  production  of  other  packages  (foodstuff,  sheets,  etc.) 
remains relatively limited. Bottles of PET are produced in two stages: (i) first a pre-
form  is  made  by  mould  injection  of  PET,  and  (ii)  later  the  pre-form  is  heated  and 
blown into a bottle. Bottle making can be an integrated process (i.e. the same company 
buys PET, produces a pre-form and blows it into the bottle) or limited to the second 
stage  (blowing  the  pre-form  into  a  bottle).  Pre-forms  can  be  relatively  easily 
transported as they are small and dense, while empty bottles are unstable and due to 
their size very expensive to transport. 

(239)  On  this  basis,  two  main  groups  of  downstream  users  have  been  established  for 
studying  of  the  impact  of  the  measures  in  force:  (i)  converters  and/or  bottle  makers, 
converting  PET  chips  into  pre-forms  (or  bottles)  and  selling  them  for  downstream 
processing;  and  (ii)  bottlers,  filling  (and  blowing)  the  bottles  out  of  pre-form;  this 
group  represents  mostly  the  producers  of  mineral  water  and  soft  drinks.  The  bottlers 
are often involved in the PET business either via integrated bottle making operations 

EN 

44 

   EN 

or  via  tolling  agreements  with  subcontracted  converters  and/or  bottle  makers  for 
whom  they  negotiate  the  PET  price  with  the  producer  (soft  tolling)  or  even  buy  the 
PET for their own bottles (hard tolling).  

(240)  Seventeen  (five  converters  and  twelve  bottlers)  cooperated  in  the  investigation  and 
provided  information  collected  by  the  questionnaire.  The  cooperating  converters 
represented  22.7%  and  bottlers  13%  of  the  total  consumption  of  PET  in  the  Union. 
The  replies  of  bottlers  came  from  various  branches  of  the  multinational  companies 
(known as brand-owners).  

(241)  In total, all independent users that came forward expressed their opposition against the 
measures. However, one user, vertically integrated with a PET producer, came forward 
expressing  its  support  for  the  continuation  of  the  measures  on  the  grounds  that  the 
measures in force help to ensure stability of supply of PET on the Union market and to 
establish a fair competition.  

(242)  It has been established that the cooperating users sourced PET predominantly from the 
Union producers and only a small proportion was sourced from imports. The imports 
from India, Taiwan and Thailand represented roughly half of these imports and thus a 
minimal  proportion  of  the  sourced  PET.  Nevertheless,  the  imports  from  other  third 
countries  without  any  measures  were  also  available  and  reached  significant  market 
share  during  the  RIP  (recital  (147).  Therefore,  even  with  the  measures  in  place,  the 
users had access to alternative sources of supply.  

14. 

Arguments of the users' industry 

(243)  Users claimed to be significantly affected by substantial increases in the price of PET 
in  recent  years  which  cannot  be  transferred to  retailers  and  consumers  in  the  current 
economic  environment.  It  is  claimed  that  these  price  increases  have  resulted  from 
accumulation  of  many  years  of  application  of  trade  defence  measures,  which  have 
protected the Union producers from the competition of imports at the time when the 
Union PET industry became more concentrated and integrated. As a result, the users 
claimed that the measures in place, through their alleged impact on the price of PET, 
are responsible for the deterioration of the downstream industry's employment, R&D 
and  competitiveness  on  export  markets,  with  a  more  acute  impact  on  SMEs.  It  was 
also claimed that the job losses due to the measures in force exceeded the number of 
people currently employed by the Union PET industry. 

14.1. 

Price sensitivity and cost structure of the users 

(244)  As regards the PET price sensitivity of converters, PET was found to represent around 
80% of the total costs. PET is therefore considered a critical cost component for this 
type of activity. In addition, the converters' industry was found to be rather fragmented 
with  a  relatively  weak  negotiating  position  against  large  bottlers  and  inherent 
structural problems typical for the commodity based industry. As a result, this sector 
showed  an  increasing  tendency  to  vertical  integration  with  bottlers  and  the  use  of 
tolling  agreements  on  the  basis  of  which  the  conversion  fees  are  guaranteed  and  the 
PET  price  is  ultimately  negotiated  and  paid  by  the  bottlers.  It  is  estimated  that 
substantial  part  of  PET  purchases  on  the  Union  market  is  controlled  directly  by  the 
large  bottlers.  Since  the  contracts  for  pre-forms  often  include  a  mechanism  for 

EN 

45 

   EN 

reflecting the variation of PET prices, the convertors are increasingly neutral towards 
the developments of PET prices.  

(245)  Following the disclosure some users contested the conclusion on the increased use of 
tolling  and  price  formulas.  The  information  in  the  file  confirmed  existence  of  such 
trend. The claim was therefore dismissed. 

(246)  It was claimed that the measures in place would not cause damage to the converters, if 
similar measures were applied on imports of preforms into the Union. It was argued 
that in the areas close to the Union border with third countries, in which there are no 
measures against imports of PET from India, Taiwan and Thailand there are incentives 
to  delocalise  the  production  of  preforms  and  import  them  free  of  anti-dumping 
measures  on  PET  into  the  Union.  It  is  acknowledged  that  to  some  extent  there  is  an 
economic rationale for this process to be happening. However, given the transportation 
cost, the delocalisation is likely to occur only within limited distances. In overall, the 
claimed negative impact of the measures in question on some converters is therefore 
considered to be marginal. 

(247)  As regards the PET price impact on bottlers, based on the reported figures, the PET is 
estimated  to  represent  on  a  weighted  average  basis  9%  of  total  costs  of  bottled  soft 
drinks and 12% of the total costs of bottled mineral water. This shows that PET is not 
the main cost component for the bottling industry.  

(248)  In addition, the investigation has established that PET was the preferred although not 
the  exclusive  packaging  material  of  bottlers.  PET  products  represented  75%  of  the 
turnover  of  water  bottlers  and  50%  of  the  turnover  of  producers  of  soft  drinks. 
Furthermore,  the  investigation  showed  that  contracts  between  many  large  bottlers 
(brand  owners)  and  PET  producers  were  based  on  a  formula  whereby  the  price  was 
adjusted  to  reflect  fluctuation  of  prices  of  raw  materials  for  PET.  This  confirms  the 
existing negotiating power of the large and thus the most representative bottlers over 
the conversion margin of the PET producers.  

(249)  Following the disclosure some users reiterated their argument that PET is a basic cost 
component for converters, soft drink and bottled water industries and the findings in 
this  respect  were  inaccurate  and  not  based  on  the  reported  data.  It  is  noted  that  the 
situation  of  converters  was  analysed  separately  and  this  comment  is  in  their  case 
unfounded (see recital (244) above). As regards the assessment of the situation of the 
bottlers it is confirmed that the cost ratios established in the investigation are based on 
the figures reported by the cooperating bottlers following a methodology available to 
all  parties.  The  established  cost  ratios  were  in  line  with  the  findings  of  previous 
investigations  concerning  the  same  product  concerned19.  The  claims  of  the  parties 
were therefore considered unsubstantiated. 

(250)  Following the disclosure some users claimed that the essence of the company specific 
data and information provided by them was not reflected in the analysis of the Union 
interest.  It  is  confirmed  that  the  data  was  used  as  reported  by  the  users  in  their 
questionnaire  replies.  The  calculation  methodology  was  made  available  to  all  parties 
concerned. On this ground the claim was rejected. 

19 

E.g. Commission Regulation No 473/2010; Council Regulation No 192/2007. 

EN 

46 

   EN 

                                                 
(251)  The  investigation  has  also  established  that  based  on  the  expected  and/or  desired 
decrease  of  PET  prices  estimated  by  the  verified  bottlers  themselves,  lifting  the 
measures  would  result  in  negligible  cost  reduction  for  the  bottlers.  Based  on  these 
estimates  of  PET  price  decrease  and  the  established  cost  ratios,  the  respective  cost 
reduction  was  calculated  to  be  within  the  range  of  0.3-0.7%  of  the  total  costs  of  the 
bottlers for their PET-related activities.  

(252)  Following the disclosure some users disputed this conclusion arguing that any saving 
in  costs  would  be  significant.  Some  users  put  forward  new  estimates  in  their 
submissions without providing any new evidence. It is emphasised that the prospective 
savings are hypothetical, as was also admitted by some users themselves. As regards 
the  converters,  no  quantification  of  prospective  saving  was  put  forward  for  this 
segment. As regards the bottlers, it was considered that should the alleged PET price 
decrease  materialise,  in  the  light  of  the  costs  structure  of  the  bottlers,  saving  within 
0.3%-0.7%  of  total  costs  cannot  be  considered  'significant'.  Since  no  new  evidence 
was provided, the claim was dismissed as unsubstantiated.  

(253)  It  was  claimed  that  some  bottled-water  producers  have  inherent  vulnerabilities 
stemming  from  legal  requirements  imposed  for  the  source  water  to  be  bottled  at  the 
source and limited extraction volumes. The sector is being dominated by SMEs, which 
has  an  impact  on  the  cost  structure  of  the  companies  in  questions.  Also,  variations 
have  been  observed  in  the  price  levels  of  final  products  across  Member  States 
depending  on  the  purchasing  power  of  the  local  population.  On  these  grounds  it  is 
considered that the impact of an eventual decrease of PET prices, if the measures were 
lifted, would be more pronounced for this part of the bottling industry. 

14.2.  Alleged premium prices and profits of Union industry 

(254)  Some parties alleged the existence of premium prices and premium margins practised 
by PET producers in the Union, claiming that these would be at the origin of the price 
increases  in  2011.  This  claim  was  also  supported  by  the  comparison  made  between 
PET  prices  and  spread  over  the  raw  material  in  the  Union  to  the  situation  on  Asian 
market  and  in  the  USA.  It  was  claimed  that  this  situation  results  from  the 
accumulation of trade remedies.  

(255)  It is to be noted that the increase of the prices of PET in 2011, as well as its decline in 
2009,  was  a  worldwide  phenomenon  driven  by  the  evolution  of  the  cost  of  raw 
materials  (see  recital  (153)  above).  Data  submitted  by  the  parties  systematically 
showed a very close correlation between the evolution of PET prices in Europe, Asia 
and  the  USA.  Nevertheless,  there  are  indeed  differences  in  the  prices  of  PET  across 
the world which are related to various reasons, in particular the specific cost structure 
in each region. As regards the argument on existing premium margin in the Union, it is 
noted that even under exceptional circumstances in  late 2010 and beginning of 2011 
the Union industry has merely reached the profitability considered reasonable for this 
type of industry. No evidence of premium profit was found. Therefore, the argument 
on existing 'premium' prices and 'premium' margins on the PET in the Union that are 
due to the existence of the measures in question has to be rejected.  

(256)  Following  the disclosure some parties reiterated their argument that the prices in the 
Union were unjustifiably high reflecting the impact of accumulation of anti-dumping 
measures  operating  in  a  market  with  concentration  among  Union  producers,  vertical 

EN 

47 

   EN 

integration  and  limited  production  unable  to  satisfy  the  consumption.  It  was  also 
claimed  that  the  price  data  also  showed  that  the  higher  prices  in  the  Union  are  not 
reflecting  the  higher  costs  of  raw  materials.  It  is  noted  that  the  arguments  on 
concentration,  vertical  integration  and  production  capacity  of  Union  industry  were 
addressed  in  recitals  (204)  and  (265)  respectively.  As  regards  the  claimed  impact  of 
these  factors  on  the  PET  price  in  the  Union  it  is  recalled  that  the  PET  price 
development is driven by the price of raw materials that account for up to 90% of cost 
of PET (see recital (173 above). Also, the increase in PET prices in 2010/2011 was a 
worldwide  phenomenon  (see  recital  (153)  above).  The  claims  of  the  parties  were 
therefore found unsubstantiated. 

(257)  As regards the argument concerning the gap between the Union PET price and prices 
in Asia and US, and in addition to findings already stated in recital (255) above, it was 
found  that  the  difference  in  prices  between  US  and  Union  market  was  volatile,  yet 
moderate.  Union  prices  were  not  systematically  higher  as  claimed.  Union  and  Asian 
market were found to be very different in terms of cost structures linked in particular 
to  the  size  of  the  market  and  economies  of  scale,  access  to  the  raw  materials  and 
capacity. Therefore, comparing the average prices between these two markets was not 
meaningful. The argument of the parties was therefore found unsubstantiated. 

(258)  Also, some parties claimed that the prices in the Union reflect a higher spread over the 
cost of raw materials as compared to US or Asia. The comparison of spreads follows 
the same logic as comparison on prices on various regional markets with the difference 
that  the  variations  of  prices  of  raw  materials  between  various  regional  markets  are 
accounted  for.  Nevertheless,  the  existing  structural  differences  between  the  markets 
can justify the difference in conversion fees. The extraordinary profits made by Union 
industry at the break of 2010/2011 were explained in recital (179) above. In none of 
the situations the measures were found to play a role. Therefore the argument of the 
parties was rejected. 

(259)  The  same  parties  also  claimed  that  the  largest  producer  in  the  Union  charged  higher 
prices in the Union than on other markets and recorder higher revenues in 2010 in the 
Union  than  elsewhere.  In  this  context,  it  is  considered  that  it  is  economically 
justifiable that a transnational company would have different cost structures and thus 
different  prices  on  different  regional  markets.  The  exceptional  profitability  levels  at 
the  break  of  2010/2011  were  explained  in  recital  (179)  above.  On  these  grounds  the 
argument was rejected. 

14.3. 

Economic situation of users and claimed impact of the measures 

(260)  Further  claims  were  made  as  regards  the  worsening  economic  situation  of  the  user's 
industry, such as closing facilities and reducing employment. It was alleged that this 
was  the  result  of  the  PET  price  increase.  In  addition,  it  was  claimed  that  the 
competitiveness of European leading brands has been eroded as their exports in third 
countries  were  in  direct  competition  with  bottled-products  that  benefit  from  PET  at 
international prices.  

(261)  It should be noted, that based on the information submitted by the cooperating users, 
the users segment was not found to be loss-making even though there was a decline in 
the  overall  profitability  level  in  RIP.  The  profit  margin  of  the  users'  industry 
established  on  the  basis  of  the  questionnaire  replies  according  to  the  methodology 

EN 

48 

   EN 

made  available  to  all  parties  was  found  to  be  at  similar  level  as  the  profitability 
established  for  the  Union  industry  in  RIP.  The  two  verified  companies  (bottlers) 
reported further expansions in production volumes and increased profitability over the 
period  considered.  Some  converters  were  found  operating  on  tight  margins,  in  some 
cases  facing  structural  and  financial  difficulties.  However,  no  direct  link  with  the 
measures  in  place  could  have  been  established  in  this  respect.  Similarly,  certain 
decline in the economic situation of the bottlers was linked to the squeeze caused in 
2011  by  the  sudden  increase  of  PET  price  that  could  have  not  been  passed  on  to 
retailers under the current economic downturn. However, while it has been established 
that the situation of the users industry deteriorated to certain extent in 2011, the link 
between  the  decline  and  the  existence  of  the  measures  was  not  demonstrated, 
especially given that the measures were in places since 2000.  

(262)  Following  the  disclosure  some  parties  disagreed  with  the  conclusion  that  the  users' 
industry was not loss making. The parties also claimed that the profit margins of users 
were lower than those of the Union industry. As regards the assessment of profitability 
of  the  users'  industry,  the  information  collected  from  the  cooperating  users 
contradicted  this  claim.  Although  some  cooperating  users  could  have  been  loss 
making,  the  user's  industry  was  overall  found  to  be  profitable.  In  any  event,  if  the 
increase of PET prices was found to be one element affecting the profitability of the 
users, no link between the measures and the profitability of the companies in question 
was demonstrated. As regards the comparison of profit margins of users and the Union 
industry, this claim was not substantiated. Due to the volatility of the profitability of 
the Union industry (see recitals (176) to (179) above) the comparison between the two 
segments  was  not  considered  conclusive.  In  any  event,  the  both  segments  showed 
similar profitability levels during the RIP (see recital (259). In this light, the comments 
of the parties were rejected as unsubstantiated.  

(263)  As  regards  the  alleged  erosion  of  the  competitiveness  of  the  exports  of  the  Union 
producers  of  bottled  mineral  water/soft  drinks,  this  claim  was  neither  substantiated, 
nor  has  a  link  to  the  existence  of  the  measures  in  place  been  in  this  context 
demonstrated.  

(264)  Following  the  disclosure  the  parties  reiterated  that  the  rising  PET  prices  have  a 
negative  impact  on  the  competitiveness  of  exports  of  bottled  water.  It  is  recognised 
that  the  PET  price  increase,  among  other  things,  can  have  a  negative  impact  on  the 
competitiveness  of  exports  of  bottled  water.  Nevertheless,  since  no  link  between  the 
PET  price  increase  and  the  measures  in  question  was  found  as  the  PET  prices 
primarily derive from the prices of raw materials, the claimed impact of the measures 
on the eroded competitiveness was rejected.  

(265)  Finally, as to the claimed effect of the measures on the employment, the investigation 
revealed that the verified job losses of the users industry were predominantly linked to 
the  productivity  and  efficiency  gains  and  a  part  concerned  the  reduction  of  the 
temporary staff.  

(266)  Following the disclosure some parties disputed this finding on the grounds that it did 
not  reflect  the  situation  of  the  entire  sector.  In  addition  to  the  findings  described  in 
recital (265) above, it is noted that total jobs reported by the converters significantly 
increased and none of them reported job losses. Bottlers claimed job losses as a result 
of  increased  PET  price.  However,  the  increase  in  PET  price  being  a  worldwide 

EN 

49 

   EN 

phenomenon,  no  link  between  job  losses  and  the  measures  was  established. 
Furthermore, 90% of the job losses reported by the users’ questionnaires replies were 
concentrated on three companies. One of them, a verified user representing substantial 
part  of  the  reported  job  losses,  increased  substantially  its  volumes  over  the  period 
considered  and  such  losses  are  therefore  associated  to  productivity  gains.  As  for  the 
remaining  two  companies,  they  were  found  to  have  the  profitability  margins  among 
the highest of the cooperating parties in their segment and above the target profit of the 
Union industry in this case. The claims were therefore dismissed. 

14.4.  Other arguments 

(267)  Following  the  disclosure  some  parties  argued  that  the  Union  producers  do  not  have 
sufficient  capacities  to  meet  the  existing  demand.  It  is  noted  that  the  Union  industry 
operated at 86% of its production capacity in RIP and has sufficient spare capacity to 
cover  total  domestic  consumption  of  PET.  In  addition,  imports  from  other  countries 
with  and  without  measures  continue  to  exist  and  have  an  increasing  tendency.  Also, 
the current measures expired in case of South Korea and are lifted for imports of the 
product concerned from Malaysia and Indonesia. In addition, PET recycling industry 
may constitute further source of PET to cover the PET demand in the Union. For these 
reasons, the alleged problems faced by users due to the claimed insufficient production 
in the Union were not considered substantiated.  

(268)  Following the disclosure some users claimed the analysis did not address the claimed 
adverse  impact  of  the  accumulation  of  anti-dumping  measures  on  the  product 
concerned under the  present  review. In  response  to this argument  it is noted that the 
anti-dumping  measures  merely  remedy  the  injurious  effect  of  established  dumping. 
The  existence  of  the  claimed  'accumulated'  effect  was  not  demonstrated.  On  the 
contrary, despite the measures in place, the imports from countries with ant-dumping 
measures  continue  and  their  volumes  even  increased  during  the  period  considered. 
Also, imports from countries without any measures are available with a growing trend 
and at substantial volumes. Finally, the termination of the measures against Malaysia 
and Indonesia, as well as expiry of the measures against South Korea, contribute to the 
openness of the Union Market. The argument of the parties was therefore dismissed.  

15. 

Conclusion on the Union interest 

(269)  To conclude, it is expected that the extension of the anti-dumping measures on imports 
from India, Taiwan and Thailand would provide an opportunity for the Union industry 
to  improve  and  to  stabilise  its  economic  situation  following  the  the  investments  and 
consolidation made in the recent years.  

(270)  It is also considered that an improved economic situation of the Union industry may be 
in the interest of PTA producers and, to a lesser extent, MEG producers in the Union.  

(271)  The  economic  situation  of  some  users  has  worsened  since  the  last  review  and  in 
particular  smaller  bottle-water  producers  were  found,  among  other  reasons,  to  be 
negatively  affected  especially  it  seems  by  the  recent  PET  price  increase  since  they 
were unable to pass it on to retailers under the current economic climate. However, the 
exceptional price and margin developments of 2011 of Union industry were found to 
be  a  global  phenomenon  primarily  driven  by  the  increase  in  the  prices  of  raw 
materials.  Therefore,  the  allegations  on  existing  'premium'  prices  and  'premium' 

EN 

50 

   EN 

margins linked to existence of the measures in question were found unjustified. At the 
same  time,  Union  market  continues  to  be  an  open  market  with  existing  alternative 
sources of supply from other third countries without any measures.  

(272)  Against  this  background,  no  link  between  the  PET  price  increase  and  the  existing 
measures was demonstrated. Economic situation of converters was found to be stable 
despite the measures in force. The weight of PET in the total cost of the bottlers was 
found  to  be  limited.  Furthermore,  no  link  between  the  PET  price  variations  and  the 
measures  was  demonstrated.  On  these  grounds,  the  measures  were  found  not  have 
disproportionate effect on the users. 

(273)  Taking  into  account  all  of  the  factors  outlined  above,  it cannot  be  clearly  concluded 
that it is not in the Union interest to maintain the current anti-dumping measures. 

H. RELATION BETWEEN ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES 

(274)  For  one  exporting  country,  namely  India,  a  parallel  investigation  on  the  expiry  of 
countervailing measures has been carried out (see recital (8) above). That investigation 
confirmed  the  necessity  to  continue  the  application  of  such  measures  at  unchanged 
levels.  The  present  investigation  also  concluded  that  anti-dumping  measures  on 
exports  from  India  should  be  kept  in  force  at  unchanged  levels.  In  that  respect, 
reference is made to recital (125) of Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000. As the measures 
currently  proposed  for  exports  of  PET  from  India  remain  unchanged,  it  follows  that 
Article  14(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation  and  Article  24(1)  of  the  basic  anti-subsidy 
Regulation are complied with. 

J. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 

(275)  All  parties  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the  basis  of 
which  it  is  intended  to  recommend  that  the  existing  measures  be  maintained  on 
imports  of  the  product  concerned  originating  in  India,  Taiwan  and  Thailand  and  be 
terminated  with  regard  to  imports  originating  in  Indonesia  and  Malaysia.  They  were 
also granted a period to make representations subsequent to this disclosure. 

(276)  It  follows  from  the  above  that,  as  provided  for  by  Article  11(2)  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  the  anti-dumping  measures  applicable  to  imports  of  PET  originating  in 
India,  Taiwan  and  Thailand  should  be  maintained.  Conversely,  the  measures 
applicable to imports from Indonesia and Malaysia should be allowed to lapse. 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 
A  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  is  hereby  imposed  on  imports  of  polyethylene 
terephthalate  having  a  viscosity  number  of  78  ml/g  or  higher,  according  to  ISO  Standard 
1628-5,  currently  falling  within  CN  code  3907  60  20  and  originating  in  India,  Taiwan  and 
Thailand. 

The  rate  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  the  product  described  in 

2. 
paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies below shall be as follows: 

EN 

51 

   EN 

Country 

Company 

Anti-dumping 
duty (EUR/tonne) 

TARIC 
additional code 

India 

Reliance Industries Ltd 

Pearl Engineering Polymers Ltd 

Senpet Ltd 

Futura Polyesters Ltd 

Dhunseri Petrochem & Tea Limited 

All other companies 

Taiwan 

Far Eastern New Century Corporation  

Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corp. 

Lealea Enterprise Co., Ltd 

All other companies 

Thailand 

Thai Shingkong Industry Corp. Ltd 

Indo Pet (Thailand) Ltd 

All other companies 

132.6 

87.5 

200.9 

161.2 

88.9 

153.6 

36.3 

67.0 

0 

143.4 

83.2 

83.2 

83.2 

A181 

A182 

A183 

A184 

A585 

A999 

A808 

A809 

A996 

A999 

A190 

A468 

A999 

In cases where the goods have been damaged before the entry into free circulation and, 
3. 
therefore,  the  price  actually  paid  or  payable  is  apportioned  for  the  determination  of  the 
customs value pursuant to Article 145 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 
1993  laying  down  provisions  for  the  implementation  of  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No 
2913/92  establishing  the  Community  Customs  Code20,  the  amount  of  anti-dumping  duty, 
calculated  on  the  basis  of  the  amounts  set  above,  shall  be  reduced  by  a  percentage  which 
corresponds to the apportioning of the price actually paid or payable.  

Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2, the definitive anti-dumping duty shall not apply 

4. 
to imports released for free circulation in accordance with Article 2. 

Unless  otherwise  specified,  the  provisions  in  force  concerning  customs  duties  shall 

5. 
apply. 

6. 
The  review  proceeding  concerning  imports  of  polyethylene  terephthalate  having  a 
viscosity  number  of  78  ml/g  or  higher,  according  to  ISO  Standard  1628-5,  currently  falling 
within CN code 3907 60 20 and originating in Indonesia and Malaysia is hereby terminated. 

20 

OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1. 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Article 2  

1. 
Imports shall be exempt from the anti-dumping duties imposed by Article 1 provided 
that they are produced and directly exported (i.e. invoiced and shipped) to a company acting 
as  an  importer  in  the  Union  by  the  companies  whose  names  are  listed  in  Decision 
2000/745/EC,  as  from  time  to  time  amended,  declared  under  the  appropriate  TARIC 
additional code and that the conditions set out in paragraph 2 are met.  

2. 
When  the  request  for  release  for  free  circulation  is  presented,  exemption  from  the 
duties shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member State 
concerned  of  a  valid  Undertaking  Invoice  issued  by  the  exporting  companies  from  which 
undertakings are accepted, containing the essential elements listed in the Annex. Exemption 
from  the  duty  shall  further  be  conditional  on  the  goods  declared  and  presented  to  customs 
corresponding precisely to the description on the Undertaking Invoice. 

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 

53 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX  

Elements to be indicated in the Undertaking Invoice referred to in Article 2(2): 

1. The Undertaking Invoice number. 

2. The TARIC additional code under which the goods on the invoice may be customs-cleared 
at Union borders (as specified in the Regulation). 

3. The exact description of the goods, including: 

— the product reporting code number (PRC) (as established in the undertaking offered by the 
producing exporter in question), 

— CN code, 

— quantity (to be given in units). 

4. The description of the terms of the sale, including: 

— price per unit, 

— the applicable payment terms, 

— the applicable delivery terms, 

— total discounts and rebates. 

5. Name of the company acting as an importer to which the invoice is issued directly by the 
company. 

6.  The  name  of  the  official  of  the  company  that  has  issued  the  undertaking  invoice  and  the 
following signed declaration: 

‘I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for direct export to the European Union of the goods 
covered by this invoice is being made within the scope and under the terms of the undertaking 
offered  by  …  (name  of  company),  and  accepted  by  the  European  Commission  through 
Decision 2000/745/EC. I declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete and 
correct.’  

EN 

54 

   EN