CELEX: 51997PC0185
Language: en
Date: 1997-05-02
Title: Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Council Regulation (EEC) n° 830/92 imposing a definitive anti- dumping duty on imports of certain polyester yarns (man- made staple fibres) originating in Taiwan, Indonesia, India, the People's Republic of China and Turkey

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
                                              Brussels, 02.05.1997
                                              COM(97) 185 final
                               Proposal for a
                     COUNCIL REGULATION (EC)
amending Council Regulation (EEC) N° 830/92 imposing a definitive
anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyester yarns (man-made
 staple fibres) originating in Taiwan, Indonesia, India, the People's
                    Republic of China and Turkey
                      (presented by the Commission)
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---                               EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
1. By Regulation (EEC) N° 830/92, the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on
   imports of certain polyester yarns originating, inter alia, in Turkey and Indonesia. This
   Regulation imposed a residual duty of 10.1% on Turkish exporters and of 11.9% on
   Indonesian exporters, which failed to cooperate or were unknown at the time of the
   original investigation.
2. In accordance with Article 11 (4) of Council Regulation (EC) N° 384/96, the Basic Anti-
   dumping Regulation, every new exporter has the right to request the calculation of his
   individual dumping margin. Such requests were made to the Commission by the Turkish
   producer Kipas A.S. (hereinafter referred to as "Kipas"), and the Indonesian producer
   P.T. World Yamatex Spinning Mills (hereinafter referred to as "Yamatex"), which both
   claimed that they were not in existence at the time of the original investigation.
3. Since the documentary evidence submitted by Kipas and Yamatex was considered
   sufficient, the Commission, after consultation of the Anti-dumping Advisory Committee
   and after the opportunity given to the Community industry to comment, opened, by
   Regulations (EC) N° 1284/96 and 2237/96, two "new exporter" reviews, repealed the
   anti-dumping duties imposed by Regulation (EEC) N° 830/92 with regard to imports of
   the product concerned, produced and exported by Kipas and Yamatex, and directed
   customs authorities, pursuant to Article 14(5) of the Basic Regulation, to take appropriate
   steps to register such imports. The reviews were limited to the question of dumping as no
   requests for a review of the findings on injury were received.
4. The investigations carried out resulted in the findings of no dumping. It is therefore
   proposed that the Council adopts the annexed draft Regulation which accordingly adapts
   the current measures in force for the two exporters concerned.
 ---pagebreak---                                  COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) N°
                                           of  .... 1997
       amending Council Regulation (EEC) N° 830/92 Imposing a definitive
       anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyester yarns (man-made
        staple fibres) originating in Taiwan, Indonesia, India, the People's
                                 Republic of China and Turkey
    THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
    Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
    Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) N° 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
    protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European
    Community^), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) N° 2331/96(2), and in
    particular Article 11 (4) thereof,
    Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the
    Advisory Committee,
    Whereas:
                                    A. PREVIOUS PROCEDURE
(1) By Regulation (EEC) N° 830/92(3), t n e Council imposed, inter alia, a definitive anti-
    dumping duty of 10.1% on imports of single, multiple (folded) or cabled yarn
    containing 85% or more by weight of polyester staple fibres, not put up for retail sale,
    and other yarns of staple fibres mixed mainly or solely either with artificial staple
    fibres or with cotton, not put up for retail sale, commonly referred to as certain
    polyester yarns (hereinafter the "product concerned" or "yarn"), currently classifiable
    within CN codes 5509 21 10, 5509 21 90, 5509 22 10, 5509 22 90, 5509 51 00 and
    5509 53 00, and originating in Turkey, with the exception of imports from two
    1
       OJN°L56, 6.3.1996, p. 1
    2
       OJ No L 317, 6.12.1996, p.l.
    3
       OJN°L 88, 3.4,1992, p.l
                                                                                       W
 ---pagebreak---     Turkish exporters specifically mentioned, which were subject to a lesser rate of duty,
    and of 11.9% on imports of the product concerned originating in Indonesia, with the
    exception of those imports from one Indonesian exporter specifically mentioned,
    which was subject to no duty at all.
(2) By Regulation (EC) N° 1168/95(4), the Council amended the above mentioned
    Regulation in further excluding seven Indonesian exporters from any anti-dumping
    duty.
                                 B. PRESENT PROCEDURES
(3) In October 1995, the Commission received from the Turkish producer Kipas A.S.
    (hereinafter referred to as "Kipas" or the "company") an application for a review of the
    measures currently in force, i.e. a request to initiate a "new exporter" review
    proceeding of Council Regulation (EEC) N° 830/92, pursuant to Article 11 (4) of
    Council Regulation (EC) N° 384/96 (hereinafter referred to as the "Basic
    Regulation"). Kipas claimed that it was not related to any of the exporters or
    producers in Turkey subject to the anti-dumping measures in force with regard to the
    product concerned. Furthermore, it claimed that it did not export the product
    concerned during the period of investigation on which the current measures in force
    were based with regard to the determination of dumping, i.e. the period from 1
    January to 31 December 1989 (hereinafter the "original investigation period"). Finally,
    Kipas also claimed that it had actually exported the product concerned to the
    Community and that it had also entered into irrevocable contractual obligations to
    export significant quantities of yarn to the Community.
(4) In June 1996, an Indonesian manufacturer, P.T. World Yamatex Spinning Mills,
    Indonesia, (hereinafter referred to as "Yamatex" or the "company") submitted a
    request to initiate a "new exporter" review proceeding of Council Regulation (EEC)
    4
      OJN°L 118, 25.5.1995, p.l
 ---pagebreak---     N° 830/92. Yamatex claimed to have no link or relation to any of the Indonesian
    exporters or producers subject to the anti-dumping measures in force with regard to
    the product concerned, that it had not exported the product concerned during the
    original investigation period, and that it had entered into irrevocable contractual
    obligations to export significant quantities of yarns to the Community.
(5) The Commission, after having verified the evidence submitted by Kipas and Yamatex,
    which was in both cases considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a review in
    accordance with the provisions of Article 11(4) of the Basic Regulation, after
    consultation of the Advisory Committee and after the Community industry concerned
    had been given the opportunity to comment, initiated two separate reviews of Council
    Regulation (EEC) N° 830/92 with regard to Kipas(5), and Yamatex(6) and
    commenced its investigations.
(6) In the Regulations initiating the two reviews, the Commission also repealed the anti-
    dumping duties imposed by Council Regulation (EEC) N° 830/92 with regard to
     imports of the product concerned, produced and exported by Kipas and Yamatex, and
    directed customs authorities, pursuant to Article 14(5) of the Basic Regulation, to take
     appropriate steps to register such imports.
     Since both new exporter reviews relate to Council Regulation (EEC) N° 830/92 it was
    decided to deal with them jointly.
(7) The product concerned covered by the present reviews is the same product as the one
    under consideration in Council Regulation (EEC) N° 830/92.
(8) The Commission officially advised both Kipas and Yamatex as well as the
    representatives of the respective exporting country. Furthermore, it gave other parties
    directly concerned the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to
    request a hearing. However, no such request has been received by the Commission.
     5
       Commission Regulation (EC) N° 1284/96 of 3 July 1996, OJ N° L 165, 4.7.1996, p.19
     6
       Commission Regulation (EC) N° 2237/96 of 22 November 1996, OJ N° L 299, 23.11.1996, p. 14
 ---pagebreak--- (9)   The Commission sent a questionnaire to Kipas and Yamatex and received, in both
      cases, a proper and timely reply. The Commission sought and verified all information
      it deemed necessary for the purposes of the investigations, and carried out, in the sole
      case of Kipas, a verification visit at the Kipas' premises in Turkey.
( 10) The investigation of dumping covered the periods :
      •       in the review proceeding carried out for Kipas, Turkey:
              1 July 1995 to 30 June 1996;
      •       in the review proceeding carried out for Yamatex, Indonesia:
              1 November 1995 to 31 October 1996.
(11) The same methodology as that used in the original investigation was applied in the
      present investigations where circumstances had not changed.
                             C.     SCOPE OF THE REVIEWS
(12) No request for a review of the findings on injury was made in any of the
      investigations. The investigations are therefore limited ta dumping.
                      D.     RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATIONS
1.    New exporter qualification
      Kipas
(13) The investigation confirmed that the Turkish exporter had not exported the product
      concerned during the original investigation period. Production of yarns by Kipas and
      its export to the Community started, in fact, only during the second half of 1994.
      Furthermore, it was established during the investigation that the company did not have
       any links, either direct or indirect, with any of Turkish exporters subject to the anti-
       dumping measures in force with regard to the product concerned.
       Accordingly, it is confirmed that Kipas should be considered as a new exporter in
       accordance with Article 11(4) of the Basic Regulation, and thus its individual
       dumping margin should be determined.
 ---pagebreak---      Yamatex
(14) The evidence submitted by the Indonesian exporter confirmed that it had not exported
     the product concerned during the original investigation period. Production of the
     product concerned started in 1994. Export activities in the form of irrevocable
     contractual obligations of Yamatex vis-à-vis Community customers for the product
     concerned only started, according to the documents provided, during the present
     investigation period (May 1996).
     Furthermore, according to documentary evidence submitted, Yamatex satisfactorily
     demonstrated that it did not have any links, either direct or indirect, with any of
     Indonesian exporters subject to the anti-dumping measures in force with regard to the
     product concerned.
     Accordingly, it is confirmed that also Yamatex should be considered as a new
     exporter in accordance with Article 11(4) of the Basic Regulation, and thus its
     individual dumping margin should be determined.
2.   Dumping
A.   Normal Value
     Kipas
(15) In accordance with Article 2 (2) of the Basic Regulation it was examined whether the
     volume of Kipas' sales of the like product on the Turkish domestic market in total
     reached at least 5% of the volume of its total exports of the product concerned to the
     Community. It was found that total domestic sales of the like product achieved a level
     considerably in excess of the aforementioned 5% threshold.
     For each of the types of yarn sold on the domestic market and found to be identical or
     directly comparable to types sold for export to the Community, the Commission then
     established whether domestic sales per type were made in sufficient quantities.
 ---pagebreak---      Domestic sales of each type were considered to have been made in sufficient
     quantities within the meaning of Article 2 (2) of the Basic Regulation as the volume of
     each type of yarn sold in Turkey during the investigation period represented 5% or
     more of the quantity of the comparable type of yarn sold for export to the Community.
     The Commission subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of each type of
     the product concerned exported to the Community have been made in the ordinary
     course of trade.
     Whether or not domestic sales were made in the ordinary course of trade was
     determined pursuant to Article 2(4) of the Basic Regulation. Since, per product type,
     the weighted average selling price was equal to or higher than the weighted average
     unit cost and as the volume of sales below unit cost represented less than 20% of the
     domestic sales, all domestic sales were regarded as having been made in the ordinary
     course of trade.
     In accordance with Article 2(1) of the Basic Regulation, normal value was therefore
     based on the weighted average prices of all domestic sales of the corresponding
     product types exported to the Community.
(16) Yamatex
     When establishing normal value for the Indonesian exporter, the same methodology as
     described under recital (15) was applied.
     It was concluded that comparable types of the product concerned, in relation to those
     exported to the Community during the investigation period, were sold on the domestic
     market, and that these sales were made in sufficient quantities in the ordinary course
     of trade.
     In accordance with Article 2(1) of the Basic Regulation, normal value was therefore
     based on the weighted average prices of all domestic sales of the corresponding
     product types exported to the Community.
 ---pagebreak--- B.    Export prices
(17) For both companies, Kipas and Yamatex, export prices were established on the basis
      of the prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned when sold for export
      to the Community, in accordance with Article 2 (8) of the Basic Regulation.
C.    Comparison
      Kipas
 (18) In accordance with Article 2(11) of the Basic Regulation, the weighted average
      normal value by product type was compared, on an ex factory basis, to the weighted
      average export price at the same level of trade.
      For the purpose of a fair comparison, due allowance in form of adjustments was made
      for differences which were claimed and demonstrated to affect price comparability.
      These adjustments were made, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the Basic
      Regulation, in respect of commissions, transport, insurance, handling and ancillary
      costs, credit costs, discounts and rebates.
(19) Yamatex
       The same methodology as described in recital (18) was applied for Yamatex.
D.    Dumping margin
 (20) The above comparison revealed that no dumping existed for exports to the
       Community of the product concerned made by both, Kipas and Yamatex, during the
       investigation period.
 ---pagebreak---             E.    AMENDMENT OF THE MEASURES BEING REVIEWED
(21) Based on the findings of no dumping made during the investigations, it is considered
       that no anti-dumping measure should be imposed on imports into the Community of
       the product concerned, produced and exported by Kipas and Yamatex. Council
       Regulation (EEC) N° 830/92 should therefore be amended accordingly.
              F.     DISCLOSURE AND DURATION OF THE MEASURES
(22) Kipas and Yamatex were informed of the facts and considerations on the basis of
        which it is intended to propose the amendment of Council Regulation (EEC) N°
        830/92, and were given the opportunity to comment. No comments were received.
 (23) The reviews carried out do not affect the date on which Council Regulation (EEC) N°
        830/92 will expire pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Basic Regulation,
 HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
                                            Article 1
 Article 1(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) N° 830/92 is hereby amended as follows: the
 following shall be added at the end of the text:
 " ,P.T. World Yamatex Spinning Mills, Indonesia (Taric additional code 8595),
    as well as Kipas A.S., Turkey (Taric additional code 8011) ".
 ---pagebreak---                                            Article 2
Customs authorities are hereby directed to discontinue registration pursuant to Article 3 of
Commission Regulations (EC) N° 1284/96 and N° 2237/96 respectively.
                                           Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official
Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels,                1997
                                                                     For the Council
                                                                     The President
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---                                                                   ISSN 0254-1475
                                                           COM(97) 185 final
                                              DOCUMENTS
EN                                                                       02   il
                                    Catalogue number : CB-C0-97-177-EN-C
                                                             ISBN 92-78-19047-0
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
L-2985 Luxembourg
                                                                          \0