CELEX: 51988PC0682
Language: en
Date: 1988-11-17
Title: Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of synthetic fibres of polyesters originating in Mexico, Romania, Taiwan, Turkey, the United States of America or Yugoslavia (presented by the Commission

ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES
DE LA COMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEE DES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM (88) 682
Vol. 1988/0224
 ---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) modifié en dernier
lieu par le règlement (UE) 2015/496 du Conseil du 17 mars 2015 (JO L79 du 25. 3.2015, 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 ou sont considérés déclassifiés
conformément aux articles 26(3) et 59(2) de la décision (UE, Euratom) 2015/444 de la
Commission du 13 mars 2015 concernant les règles de sécurité aux fins de la protection des
informations classifiées de l'Union européenne.
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 last amended by Council
Regulation (EU) 2015/496 of 17 March 2015 (OJ L 79, 27.3.2015, 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 or are considered declassified in conformity with
Articles (26.3) and 59(2) of the Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/444 of 13 March 2015
on the security rules for protecting EU classified information.
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), zuletzt geändert durch die
Verordnung (EU) Nr. 2015/496 vom 17. März 2015 (ABI. L 79 vom 25.3.2015, S. 1), ist dieser Akt
der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit erforderlich, wurden die Verschlusssachen in diesem Akt in
Übereinstimmung mit Artikel 5 der genannten Verordnung freigegeben; beziehungsweise werden
sie auf Grundlage von Artikel 26(3) und 59(2) der Entscheidung der Kommission (EU, Euratom)
2015/444 vom      13.   März 2015     über die   Sicherheitsvorschriften für den Schutz von  EU-
Verschlusssachen als herabgestuft angesehen.
 ---pagebreak--- COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
                                           COM(88 ) 682 final
                                           Brussels , 17 November 1988
                                Proposal for a
                           COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC )
   imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of synthetic fibres
       of polyesters   originating in Mexico, Romania , Taiwan , Turkey ,
                 the United States of America or Yugoslavia
                        ( presented by the Commission
                                               17   ÎR
                                    II                   J§
                                              SO ! SO
 ---pagebreak---                              EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
I .   PROCEDURE
By     notice    published  in   the     Official  Journal   of  the  European
Communities1 , the Commission announced the initiation of an anti-dumping
proceeding concerning Imports of polyester fibres originating in the USA ,
Mexico , Romania , Taiwan , Turkey and Yugoslavia .
By Regulation ( EEC ) No 1696/882 of 14 June 1988 the Commission Imposed a
provisional anti-dumping duty on 25wlmports of polyester fibres originating
In the above-mentioned countries .        This duty was extended for a maximum
period of two months by Regulation ( EEC ) No 3170/882 .
I I .  DUMP I NG
Where sufficient supporting evidence was submitted the Commission has
modified the provisionally established dumping margins of some exporters .
The dumping margins finally established are given in recital 15 of this
draft Council Regulation .
 1    OJ No C 173 , 01.07.1987 , p. 10 .
2     OJ No L 151 , 17.06.1988 , p. ^
3     OJ No L 282 , 15.10.1988 , p. 27 .
 ---pagebreak---                                            2
III .    INJURY
The Commission 's main findings are as follows .
1 .   Imports    of   polyester   fibres   from  the  above-mentioned    countries
      Increased by 64% from 1984 to 1986 and by 29% between 1986 and 1987 .
2.    The market share held in the Community by Imports from the countries
      under Investigation Increased from 9.6% In 1984 to 18% In 1987 .
3.    Price undercutting by the Imports in question were high .        They ranged
      from   15%    for   fibres  originating    In  the  USA ,  25%   for   fibres
      originating     In  Yugoslavia   and   to more   than  30%   for  the   other
      countries Involved In this proceeding .
The    effect   of   the   dumped  Imports   on the  Community   Industry   was   as
fol lows .
Despite a 12% increase In consumption In the Community between 1984 and
1987 , the market share held by Community producers decreased from 82% to
75% during the same period .
The    Imports    In question exerted significant      downward pressure on      the
prices prevailing on the Community market and on the profitability of
Community producers .
During the reference period , out of eight fibres producers , five were
making losses and three had suffered a decrease In their profitability .
 In conclusion ,      the growth of    dumped   imports deprived    the Community
 Industry of the benefits of increased consumption and had a depressive
effect on prices .       This led to both a fall in market share and to a net
worsening of the financial results of the Community industry .
 ---pagebreak---                                       - 3 -
As a result , the Commission considers that the dumped Imports of
polyester fibres from the six countries concerned have caused significant
material injury to the Community producers concerned . The Commission
also considers that the existing regional quantitative restrictions on
 Imports of polyester fibres originating In Romania and Imported Into the
Benelux and Italy are insufficient , as these Imports are concentrated In
the other Member States , and they have failed to prevent unfair pricing
practices by the Romanian exporter or to eliminate the injury being
suffered .
The Commission has therefore come to the conlusion that it is necessary
for a definitive anti-dumping duty to be Imposed on Imports originating
In the countries Involved In this proceeding .
IV .  COMMUNITY INTEREST
When imposing provisional duties the Commission considered that It was In
the Community 's interests to take action In order to prevent Injury being
caused   to   the Community producers     In view of    the particularly grave
difficulties facing them and of the relatively limited effect of these
measures on the production costs of the user Industry and a fortiori on
the price to the consumer .
In   this   respect , some   Importers   and  users   have  argued  that  their
Interests were not     taken   Into account   when  the provisional   duty was
imposed and that it is not in the Community 's Interests to              impose
definitive anti-dumping measures on Imports of polyester fibres .
Their main arguments concentrated mainly on the existence of a Community
cartel    which manifested    Itself , after the    imposition of provisional
duties , In the form of supply problems , high prices charged by the
Community producers and a partitioning of the Community polyester fibres
market .
 ---pagebreak---                                           4
Consequently ,    the Commission concludes      that   It  is   In  the Community 's
Interests    that   definitive   measures    be  Introduced    against     Imports  of
polyester fibres from the six countries Involved .
V.   DEFINITIVE MEASURES
The Commission considers       It  appropriate to      Impose a    definitive    anti ¬
dumping duty on these Imports on an ad valorem basis .
On   the basis of     the above facts ,     the Commission makes       the   following
proposals to the Council :
- the    Imposition    of  a  definitive     anti-dumping     duty   on    Imports  of
   polyester   fibres originating      In   the  USA ,  Mexico ,   Romania ,   Taiwan ,
   Turkey and Yugoslavia ;
- the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of provisional
   duty , either In their entirety or up to the maximum duty definitively
   imposed If the definitive duty Is lower than the provisional duty .
 ---pagebreak---                                    Proposai for a
                            COUNCIL REGULATION (EHC) , .
                    imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
                    imports of synthetic fibres of polyesters
                originating in Mexico , Romania, Taiwan, Turkey,
                    the United States of America or Yugoslavia
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community ,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on
protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members
of the European Economic Community , 1 , and in particular Article 12
thereof ,
Having informed the EEC-Turkey Association Council pursuant to Article
47(2) of the Additional Protocol to the Agreement establishing an
Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey , 2 and in
the absence of a decision by the said Association Council ,
Having notified the EEC-Yugoslavia Cooperation Council in accordance with
Articles 35 and 38 of the ESC-Yugoslavia Cooperation Agreement , 3
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, presented after
consultations within the Advisory Committee set up under the said
Regulation,
Whereas :
1         OJ No L 209 , 2.8.1988 , p . 1 .
2         OJ No L 293 , 29.12.1972 , p . 3 .
3         OJ L 41 , 14.2.1983 , p . 1 .
 ---pagebreak--- 1 . Under Regulation (EEC) No 1696/ 88“* the Commission imposed a provisional
anti-dumping duty on imports of synthetic fibres of polyesters c-rginating
in Mexico , Romania , Taiwan , Turkey , the United States of America or
Yugoslavia .   This duty was extended for a period not to exceed two months
by Regulation (EEC) No 3170/88 . 5
B. Subséquent procedure
2 . Following the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duty , Community
producers and a number of exporters , importers and users of the product in
question applied to be heard by the Commission and hearings were granted .
Community producers , most exporters and certain importers and users also
expressed their views on the Regulation imposing the provisional duty in
writing .
Certain exporters and importers asked the Commission to inform them of the
main facts and considerations on the basis of which the Commission proposed
to recommend definitive measures . The Commission complied with these
requests .
C. Dumping
( 1 ) Normal value
I. Overall method
3 . In the case of Mexico , Taiwan , Turkey and the United States , the normal
value was calculated definitively by the method used for the provisional
calculation of the value , namely on the basis of the domestic prices
4         QJ L 151 , 17.6.1988 , p. 47 .
5         OJ L 282 , 15.10.1988 , p. 27 .
 ---pagebreak---                                      - 3 -
charged      the producers which exporutd to the Community aul had. supplu ad
Sufficient information . It WAS e vtabisihed on a monthly basis and by type
of product .
Where there were no domestic sales of the type of product exported to the
Community during a given month , the weighted average of domestic sales for
the other months was used..
Where there were no substantial domestic sales of a given type of product ,
either the domestic price of the nearest type or the constructed value was
used . Where substantial quantities of the domestic sales of a given product
were made at a loss , constructed value was used as normal value . Constructed
value was calculated by adding together the cost of production and a reasonable
profit margin established on the basis of the overall profits made on sales
of similar produces by the producer concerned .
II . The specific cases below should be noted :
(a) United States
4 . In the case of some American dealers constructed value was calculated
definitively on the basis of the prices which the dealers actually paid the
producers , plus a reasonable margin to cover their expenses and a profit
margin established on the basis cf their sales of similar products .
(b) Mexico
5 . Hie normal value provisionally established for one exporter was adjusted
at his request on the basis of domestic prices net of all discounts and
rebates directly linked to the sales under consideration , pursuant to
Article 2(3 ) (a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 , after convincing evidence
had been produced .
 ---pagebreak---                                     - 4 -
( c) Romania
6 . In view of the fact that Romania is not a market economy , normal value
was calculated definitively from the normal value on the Turkish market .
The Romanian exporter raised objections about the choice of the Turkish
market , pointing to the level of market protection , differences in
production methods and higher wage costs in Turkey and , after the
imposition of the provisional duty , suggested that Yugoslavia should be the
reference country .
No significant differences were found between Romania and Turkey as regards
the production technique , scale of production or the types of product . On
the contrary , price levels and production costs in Turkey were found to be
in reasonable proportion .
On wage costs , the argument could not be taken into consideration   in
practice since any alleged advantage is difficult to quantify and    may be
negated by other disadvantages . Furthermore , in market economies   prices
are not set solely on the basis of production costs but also take    into
account demand .
Lastly , the choice of the Yugoslav market was not considered appropriate in
so far as Yugoslav prducers do not produce black fibres , which make up a
large proportion of Romanian exports to the Community .
Accordingly , the Council agrees with the choice of the Turkish market .
(d) Taiwan
7 . Two exporters opposed the choice of the constructed value rather than
the normal value of a similar product where there were no domestic sales of
the type of product exported . The constructed value was chosen in the case
 ---pagebreak---                                        р
of cne exporve ? hecause the Commission lacked sufficient information to
cheese a similar product .   The other exporter 's proposal to group sales of
fibres into four main categories was not adopted because this method wound
not have allowed the Commission to make a sufficiently detailed comparison .
(e) Yugoslavia
8 . Normal value was determined definitively on the basis of the prices paid
or payable for the product on the domestic market as shown in the firm 's
price lists . During the previous investigation it was established that
actual prices were in line with list prices .
9 . In general , export prices were established on the basis of the prices
actually paid cr payable for products sold for export to the Community .
Where products were exported through, subsidiaries established in the
Community , export prices were calculated on the basis of the price at which
they were resold to the first independent buyer , adjusted, to take account
of all costs - including , where appropriate , transport , insurance and
customs duties - incurred between import and resale , and a margin
considered reasonable to cover general expenses and profit , given the
profit margins of Irdependent importers of the product in question .
The Taiwanese exporters' request for adjustment of the exchange rates for
prices of exports to the Comunity was accepted , the evidence presented
having been found satisfactory .
 ---pagebreak--- 10 . The normal monthly value for each type of product was generally
compared , transaction by transaction , with the export prices of the
corresponding type of product at the ex-works stage . Any adjustments
provisionally allowed according to the circumstances to take account of
differences directly affecting price comparability were maintained .
The following specific cases should be noted :
(a) United States
11 . Certain requests for adjustment concerning transport pursuant to Article 2(10 )
( c)(i ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2423 / 88 were taken into consideration , convincing
supporting evidence having been presented . In the case of one dealer , an
adjustment was made in connection with the commissions paid in respect of
the sales under considération , pursuant to Article 2(10)(c)(v) of the
Régulation .
(b) Mexico and Yugoslavia
12 . Adjustments to take account of credit costs , pursuant to Article
2(l0)(c)(iii ) Of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 , were reconsidered following
requests accompanied by sufficient supporting evidence .
(c) Taiwan
13 . A further request was made for adjustment in respect of hedging of
exchange rates but no new arguments were presented The Council therefore
agrees with the Commission 's conclusions rejecting this request in recital
17 of Regulation (EEC) No 1696/88 .
(d) Turkey
14 . An adjustment to take account of credit costs , pursuant to Article
2(10)(c)(iii ) Of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 , was reconsidered ^ c. l lew - ng
requests accompanied by sufficient supporting evidence .
 ---pagebreak--- tL ovc/er , a new request from uno expc-.ter for an adjustment in respect of
 toe refinancing' by j nternational banks of e-urns owing to him abroad , when he
had already been accorded adjustments in respect of credit costs for :.-:txrt
sales , was net accepted . The request , made under Article 2(10)Cc)(Ld.) of
Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 was rejected on the grounds that the article
did not provide for adjustment on such grounds .
 (4 ) Dumping margins
15 . The dumping margin calculated for each exporter was equal to the
difference between normal value and the price on export to the Community ,
duly adjusted .
The weighted average dumping margins for each of the exporters concerned ,
adjusted to free-at-Comrnunity- frontier prices , are as follows :
United States of America
                   BASF Corp. , Williamsburg                         23.1%
                   E.I. Du Pont de Nemours 2? Co . , Wilmington       0 %
                   Eastman Chemical Products Inc . , Kinsport         9.9%
                   Celanese Fibers Inc . . Charlotte                  9.2%
           Dealers
                   William Barnet and Son Inc . , Arcadia             6.2%
                   Consolidated Textiles , Charlotte                  0 %
                   Leigh Fibers Inc ., Spartanburg                    5.4%
                   PSM Co . , Charlotte                               2.5%
                   Titan Textile Co . Inc ., Paterson                 4.5%
The dumping margin provisionally established for the R S’ M International
Sales Co . , Philadelphia , was not maintained since it had been calculated on
the basis of exports of fibres of Mexican origin not originating in the
United States .
 ---pagebreak---         Mexico
                Celanese Mexicana S . A . , México City              22 . 1%%
                Crisol Textil S.A. de C.V. , México City             10.?%
                Fibras Sintéticas S.A. de C.V. , México City         15.0%
                Kimex S.A. , México City                              9.5%
        Remania
                Ice Daxiubiana , Bucharest                           23.4%
        Taiwan
                Chung Shing Textile Co . Ltd , Taipei                15.8%
                Far Eastem Textile Ltd , Taipei                       5.1%
                Nan ya Plastics Corp . , Taipei                       6.3%
                Shinkorg Synthetic Fibres Corp . , Taipei             9 . 2%
        Turkey
                Sasa Artificial & Synthetic Fibres Inc . , Adana      6 . 8%
                Sonmez Filament , Bursa                              11.9%
        Yugoslavia
                Ghis Commerce , Skopje                               18.7%
For the exporters listed below which failed to cooperate satisfactorily
with the Commission investigation , the definitive dumping margin was
determined on the basis of available information .      The Commission
considered the results of its investigation to be the most appropriate
basis for determining the dumping margin and that the fixing of a margin
lower than the highest margin determined for an exporter which cooperated
with the investigation would reward failure to cooperate and make it
possible to evade duty . It accordingly applied the highest margin
determined to the following exporters :
                Tuntex Distinct Corp . , Taiwan                      15.8%
                Vartilen , Yugoslavia                                18.7%
 ---pagebreak---                                      - 9 -
In the case of Tuntex , the evidence presented after the imposition of
provisional measures in respect; of exports effected during tl :& reference
period was net considered sufficiently detailed or supported for carrying
out a proper calculation .
D. Injury:
16 . Since no new evidence concerning recitals 19 to 25 of Regulation (EEC)
No 1696/ 88 was forthcoming , the Council upholds the findings presented in
the said recitals .
The Commission considered whether Community producers having links with
United States exporters should be excluded when establishing injury ,
pursuant to Article 4(5 ) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 .
Since the purpose of this article is to exclude Community producers that
might complain about companies from which, they derived profit , the Council
notes that exporting companies concerned act as autonomous economic
entities , that the volume of exports to the Community is small and that
the Community producers concerned are not protected against the unfair
practices of other exporting companies .
For tliese reasons , and in view of the fact that the links beween certain
Community producers and exporting companies should not lead to these
producers being deprived of protection against unfair practices , the
Council finds that the Community producers concerned should not be excluded
from the proceeding .
 ---pagebreak---  17 . Exporters challenged the validity of the comparison made between the
polyester fibres produced by their companies and those of Community
producers , arguing that they were not similar products , that they were not
■used for the same purposes and that they were not interchangeable with
Community products or that they were not produced in the Community . These
arguments were not accepted since the Commission believes that the
 requirement that a product be similar to an imported product should not be
interpreted narrowly , and that only differences in quality or basic use are
grounds for considering that a product is not similar to another .
 In this case the physical characteristics of the products are very similar
and the use made of low-quality polyester fibres is not wholly different
 from the use made of those of supposedly better quality .
 The Council therefore considers that the alleged differences in quality and
use are not sufficient to justify a distinction being made between these
 products .
 It was also alleged that the Community producers made mainly branded
 fibres , which the imports in question were not , and that in these
 circumstances the imports could not be considered to be similar products .
 The Council considers that branded and non-branded products have the same
physical characteristics and uses and thus finds that they are similar
products .
 (2 ) Causality and other factors
 18 . In recitals 27 and 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1696/88 the Commission
established a causal link between the injury suffered by Community
producers and the imports sold at dumping prices .
 ---pagebreak---                                       - Il -
however , a lumber cf exporters argued, that their polyester fibre experts to
rbe Ccommity were either snail or diminishing in volume , and so oould nc J'
have contributed to the .Injury .
Onder the Regulation ( EEC ) No 2423 / 88 injury may still be caused even if the
volume of each individual exporter is very small . This argument does not therefore
justify the exclusion of these exporters from the proceeding .
A number of exporters , importers and users claimed that the difficulties
encountered by Community producers were caused not by the growth in the
volume of imports but by the chronic crisis in the industry .
It is true that the Community industry has suffered a crisis . To overcome
it , Community producers have taken a number of restructuring measures that
have improved their performance considerably . But the Community industry 's
return to profitability was jeopardized in the reference period by the
growth, in dumped imports . This had a negative effect on the performance of
Community producers , as explained in recital 24 of Regulation (EEC)
No 1696/ 68 .
In these circumstances , even if there were other reasons for the precarious
state of the industry in question , the Council considers that the effects
of imports an dumping prices , taken in isolation , have caused serious
injury .
The Council confirms therefore that the difficulties encountered by the
Community industry for reasons other than dumping do not constitute grounds
for depriving the Community industry of all protection against injury from
dumping .
 ---pagebreak---                                       1 O
In these circumstances , and in the absence of airy fresh evidence in respect
of tlie arguments set out in recitals 27 and 28 of Regulation (EEC)
No 1696/ 88 , the Council upholds the findings and conclusions presented by
the Commission in these recitals .
E. Quantitative restrictions and antidumping measures
19 . As regards the existence of quantitative restrictions on imports into
the Benelux countries and Italy of polyester fibres originating in Romania ,
it was suggested that the imposition of an anti-dumping duty on imports of
polyester fibres originating in Romania on top of these quantitative
rstrictions could not be justified legally .
The Council finds that ,  contrary to what was argued , neither Commuity law
nor international rules   - notably the MFA , prohibit the imposition of anti¬
dumping duties , customs  duties or any other measure affecting imports
subject to quantitative   restrictions provided it is established that injury
has been caused despite   the restrictions .
As to the wisdom of applying such measures in this case , the Council notes
that the quantitative restrictions cover only four Member States , namely
the Benelux countries and Italy , and that all imports into these countries
are prohibited . It also notes that over 80% of Romanian polyester fibre
imports go to Germany , a country not protected by quantitative
restrictions , and that in other Member States price undercutting of up to
38% has been recorded .
The quantitative restrictions in respect of the Benelux countries and Italy
do not therefore constitute adequate protection against the unfair
practices of the Romanian exporter and do not counterbalance the injury
suffered by the greater part of the Community . In any case , the Benelux
countries and Italy will not be affected by the anti-dumping duty .
The Council therefore believes that the imposition of anti-dumping
on imports from Romania is necessary .
 ---pagebreak---                                      - 13 -
F. Community Interest
20 . Some exporters , Importers and users claimed that it was not in the
Community 's interest to impose anti-dumping measures and advanced the
following arguments :
(1 ) Supply problems
21 . It was argued that when imports became more expensive following the
imposition of provisional anti-dumping measures , the Community producers
were not able or ready to meet increased demand from the processing
industry and users .
In reply , Community producers told the Commission that while there had
Indeed been same supply problems , they had been temporary and the result of
circumstantial factors , not their incapacity to meet demand ; they had much
under-used capacity that would enable them to meet any demand within the
usual commercial time-limits .
(2) TheJ3lgtL.prloes charged by Community producers
22 . Importers and users claimed that Community producers had taken
advantage of the higher Import prices resulting from the anti-dumping
measures to raise their prices substantially . As a result , supplies could
not be obtained on terms suitable for facing international competition. On
this point the Council notes that the rise in prices attributed to the
Imposition of provisional anti-dumping measures has in fact had little
impact on the increase in the actual prices of the fibre . This increase is
due mainly to the worldwide rise in the price of raw materials vised to make
the fibre , notably glycol ad paraxylene , which is affecting all fibre
producers .
 ---pagebreak--- Furthermore, the price advantage which certain users enjoyed previously was
derived from unfair practices and they have no permanent right to retain
this advantage .
Generally speaking, special interests have to be considered in relation to
the various effects in the Community, including on employment , which would
 result from the non-protection of the Community industry .
 ( 3 ) Existence of a cartel of Community producers
23 . Certain importers and users have argued that the Community producers behaved
as if they were members of a cartel , insofar as high prices were charged,
difficulties in obtaining supplies were noted, and a certain segmentation of the
Community fibres market was set up . However, no element of proof to support these
arguments has been advanced which would allow the Commission to open an investi ¬
gation under the Community competition rules .
24 . In these circumstances, the Council confirms that it is in the Community
interest to adopt definitive anti-dumping measures in respect of imports
originating in the exporting countries named in this proceeding . These measures ,
which would have a limited affect on the production costs of the user industry
and be without any market consequence for the consumers , should take the form
of a definitive anti-dumping duty .
G. Definitive duty
25 . The Council upholds the Commission 's conclusions concerning both the
method used for the establishment of the duty to be applied and the form of
the duty, as described in recitals 30 and 31 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1696 / 88 .
H. C ollection of the provisional duty
26 . In view of the dumping margins recorded and the injury caused, the Council
believes that the amounts secured by the provisional anti-dumping duty should
be definitively collected, either in their entirety or up to the maximum duty
definitively imposed if the definitive duty is lower than the provisional duty .
The balance remaining after the definitive duties have been covered shall be
released .
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION :
 ---pagebreak---                                  - 15 -
                              Article 1
1. A definitive antidumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of
   synthetic polyester fibres falling within CN code 5503 20 00
   originating in Mexico , Romania, Taiwan, Turkey , the United States
   of America or Yugoslavia .
2. The amount of the duty , calculated on the basi « of the free-at-
   Community-frontier price of the product , not cleared through
   customs , shall be :
            6.2% for polyester fibres originating in the United States
            of America, excluding those produced and sold for export to the
            Community by the following companies , which shall not be
            subject to such a duty :
                    BASF Corp . , Williamsburg
                    Consolidated Textiles , Charlotte
                    E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Co . , ffi lmington
                    Eastman Chemical Products Inc . , Kingsport
                    Celanese Fibers Inc . , Charlotte
                    Hoechst Celanese Inc ., Charlotte
                    Fibers Industry Inc ., Charlotte
            the following duties shall, be applicable to fibres produced
            and sold for export to the Community by the Companies listed below
                    Leigh Fibers Inc . , Spartanburg                5.4%
                    RSMCo ., Charlotte                              2.5%
                    Titan Textile Co . Inc ., Paterson              4.5%
            22.1% for polyester fibres originating in Mexico , but as
            follows for fibres of polyester produced and 'sold for the export
            to the Community by the companies listed below :
                    Fibras Sintéticas S.A. de C.V. , México City 15.0%
                    Crisol Textil S.A. de C.V. , México City        10.7%
                    Rbnex S.A. , Mexico City                         9.5%
            23.4% for polyester fibres originating in Romania ;
            15.8% for polyester fibres originating in Taiwan, but as
            follows for fibres of polyester produced and' sold for the export
            to the Community by the companies listed below :
                    Far Eastern Textile Ltd , Taipei                 5.1%
                                                                     5.1%
                    Nan Ya Plastics Corp. , Taipei                   6.3%
                                                                     6.3%
                    Shirikong Synthetic Fibres Corp. , Taipei        9.2%
                                                                     9.2%
 ---pagebreak---                                     - 16 -
                 11.9% for polyester fibres originating in Turkey , but as
                 follows for polyester fibres produced and sold for the export
                 to the Community by the company Listed below :
                   Sasa Artificial 8 Synthetic Fibres Inc ., Adana      6-8 %
                 18.7% for polyester fibres originating in Yugoslavia .
3.       The provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply .
4 . The securities lodged in respect of the provisional anti-dumping duty in
accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 1696/88 shall be definitively
collected , either in their entirety or up to an amount not exceeding the
rates specified in this Regulation . The balance of these securities after
coverage of the definitive duties shall be released .
                                   Article^ 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication
in the Official Journal of the European Commnltles .
This Regulation shall be hlndlng in its entirety and directly applicable in
all Member States .
Dane at Brussels ,                                For the Council