CELEX: 51983PC0029
Language: en
Date: 1983-01-20
Title: Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 3439/80 imposing a definitive antidumping duty on imports of certain polyester yarn originating in the United States of America (submitted to the Council by the Commission)

ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES
DE LA COMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEE DES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM (83) 029
Vol. 1983/0013
 ---pagebreak--- Disclaimer
Conformément au règlement (CEE, Euratom) n° 354/83 du Conseil du 1er février 1983
concernant l'ouverture au public des archives historiques de la Communauté économique
européenne et de la Communauté européenne de l'énergie atomique (JO L 43 du 15.2.1983,
p. 1), tel que modifié par le règlement (CE, Euratom) n° 1700/2003 du 22 septembre 2003
(JO L 243 du 27.9.2003, p. 1), ce dossier est ouvert au public. Le cas échéant, les documents
classifiés présents dans ce dossier ont été déclassifiés conformément à l'article 5 dudit
règlement.
In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 of 1 February 1983
concerning the opening to the public of the historical archives of the European Economic
Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ L 43, 15.2.1983, p. 1), as
amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1700/2003 of 22 September 2003 (OJ L 243,
27.9.2003, p. 1), this file is open to the public. Where necessary, classified documents in this
file have been declassified in conformity with Article 5 of the aforementioned regulation.
In Übereinstimmung mit der Verordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr. 354/83 des Rates vom 1.
Februar 1983 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Europäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI. L 43 vom 15.2.1983,
S. 1), geändert durch die Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr. 1700/2003 vom 22. September 2003
(ABI. L 243 vom 27.9.2003, S. 1), ist diese Datei der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit
erforderlich, wurden die Verschlusssachen in dieser Datei in Übereinstimmung mit Artikel 5
der genannten Verordnung freigegeben.
 ---pagebreak--- COMMISSION OF THE E U R O P E A N COMMUNITIES
                                                                        COM(83)     29      final
                                                                        Brussels,        20    January 1983
                                          Proposal       for    a
                                    COUNCIL REGULATION ( E E C )
 amending R e g u l a t i o n (EEC)     No 3 4 3 9 / 8 0 i m p o s i n g a d e f i n i t i v e   anti­
 dumping d u t y   on i m p o r t s  of  certain       polyester        yarn  originating           in
                                the   United     States      of   America
                   (submitted        to  the   C o u n c i l by t h e    Commission)
  COM(83) 29     final
 ---pagebreak---                                       EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
In    1980      the   CounciL       imposed a d e f i n i t i v e           anti-dumping            duty   of   16.4%    on
textured          polyester      yarn       from     the    USA.         The p r o d u c t s    of   nine    US c o m p a n i e s
were exempt           from    this      duty     s i n c e they        were     found not        to    have   been    dumping
during        the    reference        period.
F o l l o w i n g the    imposition           of   this     duty       the     Commission r e c e i v e d        requests
from      fourteen       United       States       producers           to   undertake         a   review     procedure
regarding          this   duty.         In    1982     the    Commission a l s o             received      a   request
from      the     International            Rayon and S y n t h e t i c           Fibers      Cofrtmi'ttee     (CIRFS)
representing            almost      all      Community        production             for   a  review      of   the   duty
i m p o s e d on t e x t u r e d    polyester           yarn.
This       request      contained          evidence        that      d u m p i n g was a g a i n      being    practised
by c e r t a i n     US e x p o r t e r s    of  the     yarn      c o n c e r n e d and t h a t      the  Community         industry
was b e i n g       injured     thereby.            The    Commission,             after     consultation,          re-opened
the      procedure       and    commenced i t s            investigation.                 This     investigation        has
shown t h a t        eight    of     the     exporters        previously             exempt     from     the   duty    had
been dumping, t h e           margins         being       as   follows:
 Burlington          Industries          Inc.                                        4.5%
 Carter,         Moore       Co I n c .                                            11.9%
 Collins         8 Aikman C o r p .                                                  2.5%
 Glen      Raven M i l l s     Inc.                                                 0
 International            Fiber      Industries           Inc.                       5.4%
 Macfield         Texturing        Inc.                                              4.1%
 Meyers        Fibers                                                                0
 Titan       Textile      Co.    Inc.                                                3.5%
 Unifi       Inc.                                                                     1.87%
 Uni-Tex         IriteVrtat'ional                                                    2.4%
 Certain         exporters       either        did    not    co-operate             in   the   investigation         or   did     not
 make t h e m s e l v e s    known        to   the     C o m m i s s i o n and f o r      these      companies      the
 Commission           considered it            would      be a bonus f o r n o n - c o o p e r a t i o n t o         determine
 a dumping margin              below        the    level     found        in    the     previous       investigation.
 ---pagebreak---                                        -  2   -
 As  regards       injury   the   Commission r e c e i v e d  no new e v i d e n c e t o  alter   its
 view   that     the   continued    application      of  the    existing     duty    was  a  requirement
 for  the    elimination       of  injury    and t h e  prevention       of  its    recurrence.
 On t h e  b a s i s of   these   facts,   therefore,       the    Commission proposes that          the
 Council     amend i t s     Regulation     (EEC)   N° 3 4 3 9 / 8 0 t o the   extent    that   the  above-
mentioned         companies'     exports   of   textured     polyester      yarn    previously     exempt
  from d u t y ,    be  subject   to  definitive      anti-dumping       duties     in accordance
  with   the   margins      found.
 ---pagebreak---                                Proposal f o r a
                       COUNCIL REGULATION ( E E C )
amending     R e g u l a t i o n ( E E C ) No 3 4 3 9 / 8 0 i m p o s i n g  a definitive     anti­
dumping     duty     on i m p o r t s     of   certain      polyester           yarn  originating
in   the   United      States         of   America
THE    COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN                   COMMUNITIES,
Having     regard      to     the    Treaty      establishing            the    European Economic
Community,
Having     regard      to     Council Regulation              EEC No 3 0 1 7 / 7 9     of 20  December
1979    on p r o t e c t i o n    against     dumped o r        s u b s i d i s e d imports  from
countries      not     members         of   the    European       Economic         Communityd)    as  amended
by   Regulation         (EEC)       No 1 5 8 0 / 8 2   (2),    and     in   particular     Article   12
thereof,
Having     regard      to     the     proposal       from    the    Commission,
After     consultations             within     the     Advisory        Committee      provided   for  by
the    said   Regulation,
 (1)   0J  No L 3 3 9 ,       31.12.1979,          p.   1
 (2)   0J  No L 1 7 8 ,       22.6.1982,         p.   9
 ---pagebreak---                                           -   2   -
Whereas        the     Council-      by R e g u l a t i o n     (EEC)       No   3439/80 ,imposed                 definitive
anti-dumping             duties     on i m p o r t s    of    certain         polyester        yarn      originating            in
the     United       States     of    America;
Whereas        this      Regulation         was    s u b s e q u e n t l y amended b y         Council          Regulation
 (EEC)      No 3 1 9 8 / 8 1    to    exclude        certain         types      of  yarn      from      imposition           of   the
duties;
Whereas         the     duties    i m p o s e d were       16.4      X for      textured        y a r n and 1 5 . 6        % for
 non-textured             yarn    except        for    the     non-textured           yarn      of    Eastman        Chemical
 International             Company f o r        which      the     rate      of   duty     was     13.7    %;
 Whereas        nine      exporters       of    textured          yarn      and t h r e e    exporters           of    non-textured
 yarn      were exempt         from     the     relevant          definitive         duty      since      sale      of    the    pro­
 ducts       concerned to          the     Community were n o t               made   at    dumped        levels;
  Whereas        the     Commission has           since       received          requests       from      fourteen          United
  States       companies to           review      the     duties         insofar     as t h e y      apply       to    them;
  Whereas        the     Commission          also     received           a   request      from      the    International
  R a y o n and S y n t h e t i c     Fibres       Committee           (CIRFS)      on b e h a l f     of     manufacturers
  accounting            for  almost      all     Community p r o d u c t i o n          for     a   review        of   the    duty
  i m p o s e d on t e x t u r e d    yarn,      together          with      evidence       that      d u m p i n g was      again
  being       practised        in    respect       of    these       imports       from     the     United        States      of
  Ameri c a ;
  Whereas         s i n c e the    said     information provided s u f f i c i e n t                  evidence          to    justify
a     review of         the  proceedings the               C o m m i s s i o n a c c o r d i n g l y announced by a                notice
   published          in   the   Official         Journal         of   the     European Communities                     a   review    of
   the     definitive         anti-dumping           duties        on i m p o r t s    of    polyester           yarn      origina­
   ting      in   the     United     States       of    America         and commenced an               investigation             of  the
   matter        at    Community        level;
       0J  No L 3 5 8 ,      31.12.1980,          p.     91
    2
       0J  No L 3 2 2 ,      11.11.1981,          P.     2
    3
       NIMEXE      Codes     51.01-29        and     30
    4
       NIMEXE       Codes    51.01-      ex    02,    ex     3 2 , ex      34,   ex  38,     ex    41    and ex       42
     5
       0J   No C 4 8 ,      23.02.1982,          P.    2
 ---pagebreak---                                        -    3   -
 Whereas t h e      Commission o f f i c i a l l y          so a d v i s e d t h e      exporters           and   importers
 known by     it    to    be  c o n c e r n e d as w e l l     as the        representatives                of  the    exporting
 country        and t h e     complainants;
 Whereas t h e      Commission has g i v e n t h e               parties         directly         concerned the          oppor­
 tunity    to   make      known t h e i r      views      in   writing         and t o      be h e a r d      orally;
 Whereas most         of   the    exporters          known t o       be    c o n c e r n e d and s e v e r a l       importers
 took  this     opportunity           to    present       written        and           oral     observations;
 Whereas t h e      request       for     the     review      made on b e h a l f          of   the     Community p r o d u c e r s
 referred     only to importsof                textured        polyester           yarn     from t h e       United     S t a t e s and
none  of   the    exporting         c o m p a n i e s known t o        be    concerned requested a                    review      of
 the  anti-dumping           duty     on n o n - t e x t u r e d   polyester           yarn;      whereas       the Commission
 accordingly         limited      its     investigation            to    a   review        of   the     duty    on    textured
 polyester       yarn;
 Whereas t h e      Commission sought                and v e r i f i e d     all     information            it  deemed t o        be
 necessary      for      the  purposes of            the    review       p r o c e d u r e and c a r r i e d      out   inves­
 tigations      at    the    premises of            the    following:
 EEC p r o d u c e r s :          Rhone-Poulenc              Fibres,               Lyon
                                  Deutsche          Rhodia AG,         Freiburg
                                  Enka B V / A G ,       Wuppertal
                                  Hoechst,          Frankfurt        am M a i n
                                  Anicfibre          SpA,     Milan
                                  Società         Italiana       Poliestere            SpA ( M o n t e f i b r e ) ,   Milan
                                  Snia      Fibre     SpA,      Milan
                                  Courtaulds          Ltd,      Coventry
                                  ICI     Fibres,        Harrogate
      Exporters:                  Burlington          Industries           Inc.,       G r e e n s b o r o , NC
                                  Carter       Moore & Co I n c . ,            New Y o r k , NY
                                  Collins         & Aikman,        Corp.,        G r a h a m , NC
                                  Glen      Raven M i l l s      Inc.,       G l e n R a v e n , NC
                                  International             Fiber      Industries           Ltd,      New Y o r k , NY
                                  Macfield          Texturing,         Inc.,       M a d i s o n , NC
                                  Meyers       F i b e r s , Willow        Grove, Pennsylvania
                                  Titan       Textile       Co I n c . ,     New Y o r k ,      NY
                                  Unifi       Inc.,     G r e e n s b o r o , NC
                                  Unitex       International,              New Y o r k ,      NY
      Importer:                   Pax     Yarn L t d . ,      Leicester
 ---pagebreak---                                               -    4   -
Whereas t h e          written          s u b m i s s i o n s of      certain          of  the      c o m p a n i e s which         had
requested that                their       p r o d u c t s be e x e m p t e d         from the         duty      currently           in
force     indicated             that      they       had n o t      exported           to  the      Community d u r i n g            the
reference           period;         whereas          a comparison of                 export       price      and n o r m a l        value
could     therefore             not     be made and f u r t h e r                investigation             as     regards         these
companies           was a c c o r d i n g l y not             undertaken;
Whereas t h e           Commission s e l e c t e d the                  period         from      1 J a n u a r y 1981         to    31
January        1982       as t h e       relevant           investigation              period;
Whereas         for     Burlington,                C o l l i n s 8 A i k m a n , G l e n Raven                ,   Ma field,
                                                                                                                        c             Titan
and U n i f i       normal        values         were e s t a b l i s h e d by t a k i n g             the    weighted average p r i c e s
of    their       domestic           sales;
Whereas B u r l i n g t o n            has c o n t e s t e d t h e         normal        values        established for                two
yarn     types;         whereas          for     one t y p e       they       contended that              the     normal         value
should       be e s t a b l i s h e d           by    reference          to     third     country         s a l e s because a
weighted           average        price         for    the      whole       investigation              period        would       be
inequitable             given that              the    export        sale       took      p l a c e towards           the      end o f     the
period        and t h e       domestic            sales       which took            place      at    that      time       involve
quantities            too      small       to    permit         a proper          c o m p a r i s o n ; whereas           for    the    second
type     the       company                      argued that            the      export       sale      s h o u l d be       compared       to
domestic           sales to          one p a r t i c u l a r       company w h i c h t o o k             place       at     the    same
time;         whereas          the     Commission r e j e c t e d              these      arguments           on t h e       grounds       that
 although          the     company was a b l e                to   show o v e r a l l       profitability                 on s a l e s
 of   textured polyester                     yarn       it    refused to            give    specific           cost        information
 regarding           the     two     types        in   question;            whereas,        therefore,             the Commission
 based      its      c a l c u l a t i o n of       normal        value       for     the   two      types       c o n c e r n e d on     the
 weighted          average         prices         for     the     full      p e r i o d of      investigation;               whereas
 the    Commission i s                satisfied,             having      taken        account of          prices          of   comparable
 yarns      of     the     producers i n v e s t i g a t e d ,              that      this     method o f           calculating
 normal       value        d o e s not        constitute           a bonus f o r          n o n - c o o p e r a t i o n ; whereas           in
 calculating            normal          value       the      C o m m i s s i o n a l s o e x c l u d e d s a l e s made by
 Burlington            to    companies s i t u a t e d              in   the U n i t e d       States       of    A m e r i c a but       which
 were d e s t i n e d        for      export;
 Whereas          Unifi       argued that             for      three     types        of   yarn       like      qualities          had not
 been     c o m p a r e d but         this       was     rejected         as t h e      company d i d not              provide         any
 evidence           to   support t h i s c l a i m ;             whereas         in    calculating           normal         values       the
  C o m m i s s i o n e x c l u d e d s a l e s made by U n i f i                  to   companies s i t u a t e d             in    the
  United       States         of    A m e r i c a but        which      were d e s t i n e d        for     export;
 ---pagebreak---                                         -   5   -
Whereas    Mac-field      has     contested          the     exclusion         of   transactions         from      the
calculation       of   a normal          value      where t h e        customer       supplied      the    raw
material      and p a i d   only       for    the     texturing          of   the   yarn;     whereas       the
Commission d i d       not    take        these     sales      into       account     since    it    considered
that    they    were n o t     in    the     normal       c o u r s e of     trade;      whereas     the   yarn    was,
 in   any  event,     not    destined          for    c o n s u m p t i o n on t h e     domestic      market;
 Whereas     since    Carter        Moore,        International             Fibers    and U n i t e x   did    not   sell any
 of   the  product      c o n c e r n e d on t h e      domestic          US m a r k e t  normal      values     were
 established       with     reference          to    the    prices         actually      paid   to    other     companies
  investigated,        these      prices        being      considered          representative          by    the
  Commission;
  Whereas     Meyers     Fibers'          normal      values        were     also    established        by    reference
  to   other    companies'         domestic          sales                               since   for    one    type
   sales   were made       at    a    loss     and f o r      the     other     type in     question      sales     involved
   quantities      too   small       to     permit      a proper          comparison;
   Whereas     for   Unitex       normal       values       for      certain      types     of  yarn     were    established
   with   reference       to    prices        for    the     product        for   sales     to  third      countries
    since   the   Commission i n             its    investigation             found    no s a l e s   of   a   comparable
    product    on t h e   US d o m e s t i c       market      and U n i t e x     is   not   a yarn      producer;
 ---pagebreak---                                               -  6   -
Whereas         in    e s t a b l i s h i n g the   profitability           of   the     domestic     sales     it   was
found t h a t        texturisers             in  certain        cases     paid   a higher        raw y a r n   price
when t h a t        yarn      was d e s t i n e d    for    sale     on t h e  d o m e s t i c market    in   its    tex­
tured      form than           when       it  was d e s t i n e d    for   export;       whereas,     therefore,
t h e h i g h e r raw y a r n c o s t was u s e d when v e r i f y i n g t h e p r o f i t a b i l i t y             of
d o m e s t i c s a l e s ; w h e r e a s t h i s r e f l e c t e d t h e a c t u a l c o s t s b o r n e by t h e p r o ­
d u c e r f o r t h e s e s a l e s ; w h e r e a s p r o f i t a b i l i t y was e s t a b l i s h e d i n a l l      relevant
 instances;
Whereas         export       prices         were d e t e r m i n e d  on t h e  b a s i s of     the  prices       actually
paid     or     payable        for      the   products exported             tothe      Community d u r i n g       the
period        of    investigation;
Whereas         in    comparing normal              value      with     export    p r i c e s , the  Commission        took
account         where       appropriate          of    differences         affecting         price   comparability;
whereas         all    c o m p a r i s o n s were made a t                ex-works        level;
Whereas t h e          above        examination         of   the     facts    showed t h e       existence      of
dumping t h e          margins          being equal        to    the    amount    by w h i c h    the  normal       value
as   e s t a b l i s h e d exceeded the             price      for    export    to    the      Community;
Whereas         these      margins          vary   according to          the   exporter;         whereas     the    weighted
average         margin       for      each of      the   exporters         investigated          was as    follows:
Burlington            Industries            Inc.           4.5 %
Carter,        Moore & Co I n c .                        11.9 %
Collins        & Aikman C o r p                            2.5 %
Glen     Raven Mi U s            Inc.                        0    %
International               Fiber       Industries         Inc.        5.4%
Macfield         Texturing            Inc.                 4.1    %
Meyers        Fibers                                         0    %
Titan     Textile          Co I n c .                      3.5 %
Unifi     Inc.                                              1.87     %
Unitex         International                                2.40 %
 ---pagebreak---                                            -    7    -
  Whereas        for      those      exporters           whoneither           replied         to    the     Commission's
  questionnaire               nor    made t h e m s e l v e s      known o t h e r w i s e        in    the     c o u r s e of      the
   review      investigation               the       Commission c o n s i d e r e d that              it    would        constitute
  a bonus f o r           n o n - c o o p e r a t i o n t o assume t h a t        the     dumping m a r g i n           for     these
  exporters          was a n y        lower       than     the   dumping m a r g i n          determined            with      regard
  to    them     following           the     original          investigation;
  Whereas        as     regards         injury        the   Commission r e c e i v e d           no new e v i d e n c e          to
  alter      its     view      that      the     continued         application            of   the      existing         duty      was
  a   requirement             for    the     elimination           of   injury       and t h e        prevention           of     its
  recurrence;
  Whereas        with       regard       to    exports        of   three     companies           investigated              in    the
  review       proceedings these                    three     exporters         and c e r t a i n       Community           importers
  and c o n s u m e r s o f        the    yarns        concerned a l l e g e d          that     some             yarns       exported
  from t h e s e       companies, a l b e i t              at   dumped p r i c e s , c a u s e d        no i n j u r y     to    the
  Community          industry          since        these     yarns     c o u l d not       be made a v a i l a b l e          by
  Community p r o d u c e r s ;
 Whereas,          for     each y a r n        concerned, the           C o m m i s s i o n was       satisfied          by     infor­
 mation        s u p p l i e d by t h e        Community p r o d u c e r s                                   that                    the
yarns      c o n c e r n e d were c u r r e n t l y       being produced by,                 had b e e n p r o d u c e d by            or
  c o u l d be p r o d u c e d by a Community t e x t u r i s e r ;             w h e r e a s f u r t h e r m o r e t h e Community p r o ­
 ducers        concerned a l l e g e d              that    where p r o d u c t i o n       of   a particular              yarn      for
 which       there       was demand had s t o p p e d t h i s                was due         to    the      inability         of     the
 Community p r o d u c e r s t o              compete         with    the    low p r i c e s       of    the     dumped        imports
 from      the     United         States       of     America;
 Whereas        two      US e x p o r t e r s ,      Burlington        and P l a c f i e l d ,    offered          price      undertakings
 regarding          future        exports          to   the    Community;         whereas,           after      consultation,             the
 Commission d i d              not     consider these             undertakings             acceptable;
 Whereas,         a c c o r d i n g l y , the        facts     finally      established              show t h a t       there       is
 dumping        and      injury        caused thereby             and the        interests          of     the     Community          call
 for      Community          intervention;              whereas      Regulation            (EEC)       No 3 4 3 9 / 8 0     s h o u l d now
 be    further        amended t o           impose d e f i n i t i v e      anti-dumping               duties       in    accordance
 with      the    above        findings.
 ---pagebreak---                                                           -   8   -
 HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
                                                        Article       1
 Regulation     (EEC)       No 3 4 3 9 / 8 0      is    hereby      amended as         follows:
 1.   Article     1(2)      (a)     is    r e p l a c e d by t h e       following:
      "a)  for    textured         yarn       falling         within      NIMEXE     Codes 5 1 . 0 1 - 2 9    and    30,
           16.4     % except         for     textured          yarn     exported      by B u r l i n g t o n   Industries
           Inc,     G r e e n s b o r o , North         Carolina        for   which     the   rate     of    duty   shall     be
           4.5   '/.,   Carter       Moore        and Co I n c ,       New Y o r k ,    NY f o r   which      the   duty    shall
           be  11.9            C o l l i n s and Aikman             C o r p , Graham, North          Carolina       for   which
           the   duty      shall       be 2 . 5      %, I n t e r n a t i o n a l  Fiber     Industries         Inc.    for
          which       the    duty      shall       be 5 . 4     %, M a c f i e l d  Texturing        Inc,     Madison,      North
           Carolina        for    which        the     duty     shall      be 4.1     %, T i t a n   Textile       Company
          Inc,     New Y o r k ,      NY f o r       which the         duty    shall     be 3 . 5    %, U n i f i    Inc,
          Greensboro,           North        Carolina         for    which     the    duty    shall      be   1.87    %,
          Unitex        International,               New Y o r k ,     NY f o r    which    the    duty      shall   be 2 . 4   %."
2.   Article    3(a)       is   r e p l a c e d by t h e        following:
     "a)  textured        yarn      exported          by G l e n     Raven M i l l s     Inc,    Glen Raven,          North
          Carolina        and M e y e r s        F i b e r s , Willow        Grove,    Pennsylvania"
                                                      Article       2
This  Regulation         shall     enter        into      force     on t h e     day   following        that    of    its
publication     in     the    Official          Journal        of   the     European      Communities.
This  Regulation         shall     be b i n d i n g       in   its   entirety        and d i r e c t l y   applicable       in
all  Member    States.
Done at   Brussels,                                                                           For    the     Council