CELEX: 51997PC0484
Language: en
Date: 1997-10-01
Title: Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of sacks and bags made of polyethylene or polypropylene originating in India, Indonesia and Thailand and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
                                                  Brussels, 1.10.1997
                                                  COM(97)484 final
                                   Proposal for a
                         COUNCIL REGULATION (EC)
 imposing a définitive anti-dumping duty on imports of sacks and bags made of
polyethylene or polypropylene originating in India, Indonesia and Thailand and
              collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed
                          (presented by the Commission)
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---                                 EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
By regulation (EC) 47/971, the Commission imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on
imports of sacks and bags from India, Indonesia and Thailand falling within CN codes
6305 32 81 and 6305 33 91.
Subsequently, interested parties were given the opportunity to make their point of view
known in writing and to request a hearing. Their comments were taken into account
where appropriate. The Commission continue to seek all information it deemed necessary
for its definitive findings.
Following the publication of the provisional regulation, it appeared that the product
concerned could in some instances also be reported under CN codes other than those
mentioned in this regulation. It is therefore proposed to include those codes in the
regulation imposing a definitive duty.
As regards dumping, as a result of the ample evidence submitted by some
producers/exporters in the countries concerned, the definition of definitive dumping
margins was fixed at a lower level than those provisionally established.
Whereas the definitive margins for Indonesia and Thailand were not a great deal different
from the provisional ones, see recitals (27) and (29), the Indian exporters have provided
elements which have allowed for a substantial reduction in their definitive dumping
margins, see recital (24).
Given the fact that as far as injury, causality and community interest are concerned, no
new arguments, leading to a change of the provisional conclusions, were submitted, it is
confirmed that the Community industry suffered from material injury caused by dumped
imports and that it is in the Community interest to adopt definitive measures.
As the injury margins found for the exporters of all the countries concerned were in all
instances higher than the relative dumping margins found, it is proposed that anti-dumping
duties be imposed at the level of the definitive dumping margins found as shown below :
-India:           margins from 0.0% to 36.0%
-Indonesia:       margins
                     'o'
                          from 23.5 % to 56.0%
-Thailand :       margins from 13.2% to 60.8%
    OJ NoL 12, 15/01/1997, p.8
 ---pagebreak---                            COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No
                                              of
    imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of sacks and bags made of
   polyethylene or polypropylene originating in India, Indonesia and Thailand and
                   collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European
Community1, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2331/962, and in particular
Article 9 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the
Advisory Committee
Whereas:
                              I. PROVISIONAL MEASURES
(1.) By Commission Regulation (EC) No 45/973 (hereinafter referred to as the
      provisional duty Regulation) provisional duties were imposed on imports into'the
      Community of sacks and bags falling within CN codes 6305 32 81 and 6305 33 91
      and originating in India, Indonesia and Thailand. The provisional anti-dumping
      duty was extended for a maximum period of three months by Commission
      Regulation (EC) 1168/974.
1
      OJ No L 56, 06.03.1996, p. 1.
2
      OJ No L 317:06.12.1996, p. 1
3
      OJ No L 12, 15.01.1997, p. 8.
4
      OJ No L 169, 27.06.1997, p. 14
                                                                                       y\ c u
 ---pagebreak---                            IL    SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE
 (2.) Following the imposition of provisional anti-dumping measures, several interested
      parties submitted comments in writing.
                            »
(3.) The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard by the
      Commission.
(4.) The Commission continued to seek and verify all the information 'it deemed,
      necessary for the purpose of its definitive findings.
(5.) Parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of
      which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping
      duties and the definitive collection of amounts secured by way of provisional
      duties. They were also granted a period within which to make representations
      subsequent to this disclosure.
(6.) The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered,
      and, where deemed appropriate, taken into account in the definitive findings.
                III. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
(7.) Some exporters contested the finding in the provisional duty Regulation that leno
      bags were considered as product concerned. They reiterated the arguments set .out
      in recital (8) of the provisional duty Regulation. In this respect it should be noted
      that the fact that leno bags are not completely interchangeable with all the other
      types of the product concerned is not required in order to consider them as a single
      product. Rather, it is sufficient that these product types have the same basic
      physical characteristics and the same basic uses. This is clearly the case for leno
      bags as compared with other types of polyolefin bags subject to investigation. The
      provisional conclusions concerning the description of the product concerned are
      therefore confirmed.
 ---pagebreak--- (8.) In addition, the allegation made by these exporters that the Community industry did
      not produce leno bags is unfounded. While it is recalled that it is not necessary for a
      product type to be produced by the Community industry in order to be covered by
      the scope of an anti-dumping proceeding, the investigation has revealed ,
      nevertheless, that three of the co-operating Community producers also manufacture
      and sell leno bags. Therefore, the Community industry does produce the like
      product as defined by Article 1(4) of Council Regulation No 384/96 (hereafter
      referred to as the basic Regulation.).
(9.)  One importer requested that flexible intermediate bulk containers of fabric
      weighing 120 g/m2 or less (so-called big bags) should not be covered by the
      proceeding. In this respect it was submitted that until the beginning of 1995 big
      bags could only be produced by using fabrics weighing 120 g/m2 or more.
      However, in the meantime, technological progress has meant that fabric weighing
      only 100 g/m2 can now be used for the production of big bags. Moreover, the
      importer in question pointed out that big bags weighing 120 g/m2 or less are easily
      identifiable because they.fall under a separate CN code.
(10.) This request could not be accepted. First, the complaint covered all bags made of
      polyethylene or polypropylene strip, not knitted or crocheted, of a fabric weighing
       120 g/m2 or less. It did not distinguish between big bags and other types of bag.
      Second, big bags and other types of bag subject to the investigation have the same
      basic physical/chemical characteristics and the same uses, i.e. they are made of the
      same raw material and used for packaging and transporting goods. In this respect it
      should be noted that even if a specific type of the product concerned did not exist or
      was not widely used during the investigation period, the definition of the product
      also covers product types which have been developed subsequently provided these
      types have the same basic physical/chemical/technological characteristics and the
      same uses.
 ---pagebreak--- (11.) The provisional duty Regulation mentioned in recital (6) that the product concerned
       falls within CN codes 6305 3281 and 6305 3391, However, the Commission
       became aware that the sacks and bags concerned in the present investigation can be
      classified under CN codes 3923 21 00, 3923 29 10 and 3923 29 90 while still
      meeting the description of the product concerned if made from a fabric which is
      either woven from a strip wider than 5 mm or laminated on both sides to an extent
      visible to the naked eye. Therefore, sacks and bags falling under the description of
      the product concerned and classified under CN codes other than those provisionally
      disclosed should also be covered by the present investigation. Therefore, the
      conclusions set out in the provisional duty Regulation concerning the definition of
      the product concerned and the like product are confirmed.
                                     IV. DUMPING
1.   Normal value
         a.     India
(12.) Three Indian exporting producers have objected to the methodology used to
      determine whether their sales had been made in the ordinary course of trade. They
      argued that since the cost of raw materials increased sharply during the period of
      investigation, the monthly cost of production, rather than the annual cost, should
      have been used to determine the volume of sales made at a loss. Considering that
      raw materials constitute the most important element of the total costs of production
      for the product concerned, the volume of sales below unit cost was recalculated on
      the basis of the monthly cost of production for the companies which provided such
      information.
(13.) Several Indian exporting producers objected to the way in which Article 2(4) of the
      Basic Regulation has been applied by the Commission. They requested that the
      weighted average sales prices should have been compared with the weighted
      average costs of the product types concerned without eliminating those sales which
      were made at a loss. Although some prices were below cost at the time of sale, the
      average selling price of the product concerned was above the weighted average
      cost.
 ---pagebreak---       It should be noted that it is consistent practice, in accordance with the third
      paragraph of Article 2(4) of the Basic Regulation, only to base normal value on all
      sales, including those made at a loss, if the following two conditions are
      cumulatively met, i.e.
      - the weighted average cost of production is lower than the weighted average
        selling price for a given product and
      - the domestic sales volume made at a loss is less than 20% of the total sales
        volume.
      As any other approach would be in conflict with Article 2(4), the request made by
      the Indian exporters therefore had to be refused.
(14.) One Indian exporting producer which sold the product concerned in insufficient
      quantities on its domestic market and which exported product types which were
      sold by other producers/exporters in the country concerned, argued that the
      calculation of normal value should have been constructed rather than based on the
      prices charged by other producers in India.
      In accordance with Article 2(1) of the Basic Regulation, normal value is normally
      based on domestic prices. If an exporter does not make sufficient domestic sales in
      the ordinary course of trade, normal value must be established on the basis of other
      exporters' sales prices for the comparable product, because it can be assumed that
      the use of other exporters' prices produces a more accurate normal value than
      construction from the cost of production. Only in the absence of representative
      domestic sales by other producers, or if such sales prices are not suitable, will
      normal value be constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the Basic
      Regulation. However, the exporter in question did not advance any argument as to
      why the use of other exporters' prices should not have been suitable.
 ---pagebreak---         b.      Indonesia
(15.) An Indonesian exporting producer claimed that the weighted average of the normal
      values established for the other Indonesian producers should not be applied to him
      since it was not representative for a certain type of bag and suggested that this
      product type be excluded from the calculation of normal value, or that the normal
      value be constructed. This claim could not be accepted for the same reasons as set
      out in recital ( 10) of the provisional duty Regulation.
        c.      Conclusion
(16.) The other findings made in recitals (14) to (24) of the provisional duty Regulation
      concerning the determination of normal value are hereby confirmed.
2.   Export price
(17.) No new arguments have been brought forward concerning the determination of
      export prices. The findings set out in recital (20) of the provisional duty Regulation
      are therefore confirmed.
 ---pagebreak--- 3.   Comparison
        a.      India
(18.) Four Indian exporting producers contested the inclusion of bank charges in the cost
      of credit for the adjustment of the export prices. They claimed that these charges
      were not taken into account by them when determining the export prices charged. It
      should be noted that in these cases the bank charges are intrinsically linked to the
      cost of credit and as such must therefore be taken into consideration when
      determining the cost of credit. Therefore, the claim could not be accepted.
(19.) A majority of producers/exporters claimed that insufficient allowance had been
      granted for duty drawback on the grounds that all domestically purchased raw
      materials bore import duties for which a duty drawback allowance should have
      been granted and that they would receive duty drawback whenever they exported
      the product concerned, irrespective of whether the raw materials used originated in
      the domestic markets of the countries concerned or were imported from third
      countries.
      In this respect it should be noted that the producers/exporters failed to submit
      conclusive evidence to substantiate the claim that' all polyethylene and
      polypropylene used for the production of sacks and bags, including those sold
      domestically, contained imported raw materials for which duties were paid in
      accordance with Article 2(10)(b) of the Basic Regulation. Therefore, as was set out
      in recital (24) of the provisional duty Regulation imposing a provisional anti-
      dumping duty, adjustment for duty drawback has only been granted where it was
      found that the like product and the materials physically incorporated therein sold by
      the producers/exporters in question on their domestic markets and intended for
      consumption within those countries, did bear import charges.
 ---pagebreak---          b.      Indonesia
(20.) The Indonesian exporting producers claimed that an allowance for duty drawback
       should be granted on the basis of past practice and the fact that the exemption of
       duties for polyethylene and polypropylene resin used in the production of exported
       bags is allegedly    reflected in the fact that import charges are borne by resin
       physically incorporated in the bags sold on the domestic market.
       The exporting producers failed to submit conclusive evidence to demonstrate that
       all polyethylene and polypropylene resins used for the production of sacks and-
       bags, including those sold domestically, contained imported raw materials for
       which duties were paid in accordance with Article 2(10)(b) of the Basic Regulation.
       Therefore, the adjustment for duty drawback has not been granted.
         c.      Thailand
(21.) The Thai exporting producers claimed that, in view of the significant price
       differences between the raw materials which originated, on the one hand, on the
     . domestic market and used for domestic sales of the product concerned and, on the
       other hand, those originating on the export market and used for exports to third
       countries, an allowance should be granted pursuant to Article 2(10)(k) of the Basic
       Regulation. The Thai exporting producers argued that the duty drawback system
       operated in Thailand resulted in a significant difference between the raw material
       costs for the exported product and those for the product sold domestically and thus
       affected price comparability between domestic sales prices and export sales prices.
     It should be noted that the adjustment requested is related to duty drawback and
     import charges and is exhaustively governed by Article 2(10)(b) of the Basic
     Regulation. However, the exporting producers failed to submit conclusive evidence
     to demonstrate that all polyethylene and polypropylene used for the production of
     sacks and bags, including those sold domestically, contained imported raw materials
     for which duties were paid in accordance with Article 2(10)(b) of the Basic
     Regulation.
 ---pagebreak--- 4.      Dumping margin
      a.   General
(22.) In the absence of any other new arguments concerning the determination of the
      dumping margin, the methodology set out in recitals (25) to (36) of the provisional
      duty Regulation is hereby confirmed.
      b.   India
(23.) One Indian exporting producer contested the conclusions of recital (27) of the'
      provisional duty Regulation whereby it was concluded that only one dumping
      margin should be established for two related companies. It was alleged that the
      company is a distinct economic entity, with separate production, administration and
      marketing, manufacturing a different product.
      However, in view of the facts set out in the provisional duty Regulation, most of
      which were not disputed by the company, and in order to avoid the risk of
      circumvention of the anti-dumping measures, the decision to establish only one
      dumping margin for the two Indian producers/exporters in question was
      maintained.
 ---pagebreak--- (24.) The weighted average dumping margins definitively established for the co-
      operating Indian producers/exporters, expressed as a percentage of the free-at-
      Community-frontier price are as follows:
                       Gilt Pack                                '''    0.0%
                       Neo Sack Ltd                                    0.0%
                       Buildmet Private Ltd                           15.6 %
                       Kanpur Plastipack                               4.3 %               ^
                       Polyspin Export Ltd and
                       Polyspin Private Ltd                           13.8%
                       Shankar Packaging Ltd                           6.1 %
(25.) The dumping margin definitively established for Indian exporters other than those
      co-operating in this investigation, expressed as a percentage of            the free-at-
      Community-frontier price, is 36.0%.
(26.) The Plastics and Linoleums Export Promotion Council in India contested the
      observation in recital (29) of the provisional duty Regulation that there was a high
      level of non-co-operation. Taking into account the fact that the co-operating
      exporters accounted for approximately 57% of total exports, it follows that 43% of
      the exporters did not co-operate. In line with consistent practice this is considered a
      high level of non-co-operation. This request could therefore not be accepted and the
      methodology set out in recital (29) of the provisional duty Regulation was
      consequently maintained.
                                                                                            10
 ---pagebreak---       c.     Indonesia
(27.) The dumping margins found for Indonesian producers/exporters as set out in
      recitals (31) to (33) of the provisional duty Regulation are hereby definitively
      confirmed. Accordingly the dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the free-
      at-Community-frontier price are as follows:
       (i)   for co-operating producers/exporters included in the sample :
                        PT Budi Indoplast Indah                             56.0%
                        PT Hardo Soloplast                                  28.4%
                        PT Kemilau Indah Permana Ltd                        31.0 %
                        PT Poliplas Indah Sejahtera                         38.0%
                        PT Simoplas                                         23.5 %
      (ii)   for co-operating producers/exporters not included in the sample :    28.3 %
      (iii) for Indonesian producers/exporters other than those co-operating in this
            investigation :    56.0 %
      d.     Thailand
(28.) One Thai exporting producer objected to the comparison of the weighted average
      normal value with the export price on a transaction-by-transaction basis pointing
      out that there were only a few transactions which differed considerably from the
      weighted average sales price, and that these few transactions concerned prices that
      were significantly higher than the weighted average export price. A review of the
      calculations confirmed this and the weighted average normal value was therefore
      compared with the weighted average export price. The method of comparison was
      also reviewed for the other Thai exporters and since a similar situation was found
      for two other companies it was decided to compare the weighted average normal
      value with the weighted average export price for these companies as well.
                                                                                       H
 ---pagebreak--- (29.) The weighted average dumping margins definitively established for the co-
      operating Thai producers/exporters, expressed as a percentage of the free-at-
      Community-frontier price are as follows:
                         Bangkok Polysack Co. Ltd                            13.2%
                         CP Poly-Industry Public Co. Ltd                     43.2 %
                         Laemthong Industry Co. Ltd                          60.8 %
                         Pacific Polysack Co. Ltd                             47.8%
                         Thai Coating Industrial Public Co. Ltd              21.5 %
                         Thai Plastic Products Co. Ltd                       15.8%
      The dumping margin definitively established for Thai exporters other than those co-
      operating in this investigation, expressed as a percentage of the free-at-Community-
      frontier price, is 60.8 %.
      e.     New exporters in India
(30.) Three Indian companies which did not export the product concerned to the
      European Community during the investigation period requested to be treated as
      newcomers. The Commission, after having examined that all the conditions
      provided for in Article 11 (4) were met, concluded that the weighted average
      dumping margin found for the co-operating Indian companies, i.e. 10,5 %, should
      be used for these three newcomer companies.
                                                                                        12
 ---pagebreak---                             V. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY
(31.) The Plastics and Linoleums Export Promotion Council in India (PLEPCI)
      questioned the standing of the complainants, on the grounds that from the eight
      original complainants only four of them and another one, which joined the
      complainant later on, responded to the Commission's questionnaire and claimed
      that the Commission did not provide a basis for its conclusion on the
      representativeness of the complaining industry as set out in recital (37) of the
      provisional duty Regulation.
(32.) This criticism was not supported by any substantiated evidence that the
      Commission's conclusions in this regard were wrong. As mentioned in recital (37)
      of the provisional duty Regulation, it had been examined in the course of the
      investigation whether the co-operating complainant Community producers still
      represented a major proportion of the total Community production of the product
      concerned within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Basic Regulation. This
      examination has shown that the co-operating producers, listed in recital (4) of the
      provisional duty Regulation, represented around 75% of the estimated total
      Community production of the like product. Consequently, the qualification of the
      complaining industry as the Community industry for the purposes of the present
      proceeding, as stated in recital (37) of the provisional duty Regulation, is
      confirmed.
                                                                                        13
 ---pagebreak---                                 VI. INJURY
(33.) PLEPCI questioned the fact that no figure for the number of employees dependent
      on the production of the product concerned was specified in the provisional duty
      Regulation and requested clarification on the decrease in employment of 16.9%
      mentioned in recital (51) of that Regulation. In response to this claim, it can simply
      be noted that the employment figure was established on the basis of replies to the
      questionnaires from the Community industry. Employment in the Community for
      the production of the like product fell from 767 in 1992 to 637 during the-
      investigation period, namely by 16.9%.
(34.) In the absence of any other argument concerning the injury suffered by the
      Community industry, the Council confirms the injury findings and the conclusion
      that this industry has suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3 of the
      Basic Regulation, as stated in recitals (38) to (52) of the provisional duty
      Regulation, in particular in view of the negative trends in production, capacity
      utilisation, market share, prices, profitability, investments and employment during
      the whole period covered by the injury examination.
                             VII. CAUSATION OF INJURY
(35.) PLEPCI claimed that the Commission had established a decrease of 3.9% in the
      weighted average selling price of the Community industry during the period under
      examination but had failed to explain the role played in this negative price
      evolution by the decrease in the price of raw materials for the production of the like
      product, arguing that raw material prices fell by more than one-third between 1991
      to 1993. In addition, it contended that there is a coincidence between the dramatic
      fall of raw material prices in 1993 and the losses incurred by the Community
      industry during that year.
                                                                                           14
 ---pagebreak---  (36.) During the course of the investigation, the available information did not show that
        the alleged evolution in prices of the caw materials played a significant role in the
        trend in selling prices in the Community market between 1992 and the first quarter
        of 1995, namely for the whole period under examination. As PLEPCI did not
        provide convincing evidence or information which would demonstrate otherwise,
        this claim cannot be taken into further consideration.
 (37.) Furthermore, it should be noted that contrary to the statement made by PLEPCI,
        any decrease in the, cost of raw material should have had, somehow or other, a
        positive impact on the profitability of the Community industry, considering in
       particular the fact that raw materials can represent up to one third of the total
       Community industry cost of production of the product concerned. The findings
       reported in recital (49) of the provisional duty Regulation, however, demonstrate
       that this was not the case.
(38.) PLEPCI also requested clarification on the findings of the Commission as regards
       stocks, sales and production of the complainant producers between 1994 and the
       investigation period, contending that it was inconsistent to state that the volume of
       sales and production by the Community industry had increased while stocks
       decreased during the same period.
       As regards this argument, it is confirmed that stocks slightly decreased between
        1994 and the investigation period. This is explained by the fact that sales made by
       this industry in the Community market were by and large stable (-46 tonnes)
       whereas sales intended for export outside the Community increased accordingly
       during the same period of time.
(39.) Finally, PLEPCI argued that the imports under investigation could not be
       considered to have caused any material injury suffered by the Community industry
       because between 1994 and the investigation period the prices and market share of
       the Community producers had increased whereas the importers under investigation
       were found to have lost a share of the market due to a slight increase in their import
       price.
                                                                                           15
 ---pagebreak---  (40.) In this respect, it has to be pointed out that the examination of injury covered the
        period from 1 January 1992 to 31 March 1995, namely a period of over three years.
       Therefore, any particular trend within a part of this period should be seen in the
        light of the global trend during the whole period under examination. As the
       conclusions of PLEPCI         are only based on a limited period within the injury
       examination period, regardless of the global trend during the whole period
       concerned, its argument has only a limited value.
(41.) It is confirmed that the Community industry market share increased by 0.2% and-
       that prices slightly increased during the investigation period compared with 1994.
       Nevertheless, the Community industry lost market share and its sales             prices
       decreased during the period considered for the examination of injury, i.e. 1992 to
       the end of the investigation period as stated in recitals (47) and (48) of the
       provisional duty Regulation. Furthermore, although the imports in question lost
        1.8% of the market share while their prices increased by'2.5% in the investigation
       period compared with 1994, it should be recalled that from 1992 to the
       investigation period, namely the whole period under examination for the
       assessment of injury, their market share gained 13.8 percentage points or increased
       by 46% and their import price decreased by 3.3%. Their argument, therefore, could
       not be accepted.
(42.) As no new material arguments were received in connection with the findings in
       recitals (53) to (72) of the provisional Regulation, the provisional conclusion on the
       causation of material injury to the Community industry is confirmed.
                                                                                            16
 ---pagebreak---                             VIII. COMMUNITY INTEREST
(43.) It should be recalled from recital (73), et seq, of the provisional duty Regulation
      that an appreciation of the various interests, including the interests of the
      Community industry, users and importers was made, and that there were no
      compelling reasons against the introduction of anti-dumping measures. Rather it
      was concluded that the Community's reasonable interests require that the
      Community industry be protected against the unfair trading practices of dumped
      imports originating in India, Indonesia and Thailand.
(44.) As no new arguments were received in connection with the Community interest
      analysis made in the provisional duty Regulation, the provisional findings are
      hereby confirmed.
                          IX. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
                A.     Level and form of the duties
(45.) Based on the above conclusions on dumping, injury, causal link and Community
      interest, it was considered what form and level of anti-dumping measures would
      have to be taken in order to remove the trade-distorting effects of injurious
      dumping and to restore effective competitive conditions to the Community market.
(46.) Since the level of prices at which the injurious effects of the imports would be
      removed was higher than the dumping margin of all the countries concerned in the
      investigation, the dumping margin was used in order to determine the level of the
      measures.
(47.) On the above basis, definitive duties, in the form of ad valorem duties, should be
      imposed.
                                                                                       17
 ---pagebreak--- (48.) Pursuant to Article 11(4) of the Basic Regulation, a new exporter's review to
       determine individual dumping margins cannot be initiated in this proceeding with
       regard to Indonesia as sampling was used in the original investigation. However, in
       order to ensure equal treatment between any new exporters and the companies co-
       operating in this investigation, it is considered that provision should be rriade for
       the weighted average duty imposed on the latter companies to be applied to any
       new exporters which would otherwise be entitled to a review pursuant to Article
       11(4).
                 X. COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTIES
(49.) In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found for the exporting producers
       and in the light of the seriousness of injury caused to the Community industry, it is
       considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping
       duties for transactions involving the product concerned should be definitively
       collected at the level of the definitive duties.
                                                                                          18
 ---pagebreak--- HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
                                       Article 1
1. Definitive anti-dumping duties are hereby imposed on imports of woven sacks and
   bags of a kind used for the packaging of goods not knitted or crocheted, obtained
   from a polyethylene or polypropylene strip or the like of woven fabrics, weighing
   120 gr/m2 or less and originating in India, Indonesia and Thailand. The product as
   described falls within CN codes 6305 32 81, 6305 33 91, ex 3923 21 00 (Taric code
   : 39232100*10), ex 3923 29 10 (Taric code : 39232910*10) and ex 3923 29 90 (
   Taric code: 39232990*10).
2. For the purpose of this Regulation, the rate of duty applicable to the net free-at-
   Community-frontier price before duty shall be as follows :
   (a)   36.0 % for sacks and bags originating in India (Taric additional code 8900)
         with the exception of imports manufactured by the following companies,
         which shall be subject to the following rates of duty:
         India:
                                                     Rate of duty      Taric additional code
                                                          (%)
           Buildmet Private Ltd                           15.6                  8944
           Gilt Pack                                       0.0                  8945
           Kanpur Plastipack                               4.3                  89*46
           Neo Sack Ltd                                    0.0                  8947
           Polyspin Export Ltd           and                                    8948
           Polyspin Private Ltd                           13.8
           Shankar Packaging Ltd                           6.1                  8949
           Aditya Bags (India) Limited                    10,5                  8424
           TPI India Limited                              10,5                  8424
           Virgo Polymers (India) Limited                 10,5                  8424
                                                                                    19
 ---pagebreak--- (b)  56.0 % for sacks and bags originating in Indonesia (Taric additional code
     8900) with the exception of imports manufactured by the following
     companies, which shall be subject to the following rates of duty:
                                                        >
     Indonesia:
                                                Rate of duty         Taric additional code
                                                    (%)
       P.T. Adhi Kara Suryatama                     28.3             8950
       P.T. Aster Dharma Industri                   28.3             8950
       P.T. Hardo Soloplast                         28.4             8951
       P.T. Kemilau Indah Permana Ltd               31.0             8952
       P.T. Peiasnal                                28.3             8950
       P.T. Poliplas Indah Sejahtera                38.0             8953
       P.T. Simoplas                                23.5             8954
       P.T. Wirapetro                               28.3             8950
(c)  60.8 % for sacks and bags originating in Thailand (Taric additional code
     8900) with the exception of imports manufactured by the following
     companies, which shall be subject to the following rates of duty:
     Thailand:
                                               Rate of duty         Taric additional code
                                                   (%)
    Bangkok Polysack Co Ltd                        13.2             8955
    CP Poly-Industry Public Co Ltd                 43.2             8956
    Thai Coating Industrial Public Co              21.5             8958
    Ltd
    Thai Plastic Products Co Ltd                   15.8             8959
    Pacific Polysacks Co Ltd                       47.8             8094
                                                                                 20
 ---pagebreak---  3.   Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customsduties" shall
     apply.
 4.  Where any Indonesian party provides sufficient evidence to the Commission that it
     did not export the goods described in Article 1(1) during the investigation period,
     that it is not related to any exporter or producer subject to the measures imposed by
     this Regulation and that it has exported the goods concerned after the investigation
     period, or that it has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a
     significant quantity to the Community, then the Council, acting by simple majority
     on a proposal submitted by the Commission, after consulting the Advisory-
     Committee, may amend Article l(2)(b) by attributing that party the duty applicable
     to co-operating producers / exporters not in the sample, i.e. 28.3 %.
                                          Article 2
The amount secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty under Regulation (EC)
No. 45/97 shall be definitively collected at the duty rate definitively imposed.
Amounts secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping duty and related to
imports of sacks and bags shall be released.
                                          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,                                                      For the Council
                                                                                         21
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---                                                                   ISSN 0254-1475
                                                           COM(97) 484 final
                                             DOCUMENTS
EN                                                                    02 11
                                    Catalogue number : CB-C0-97-494-EN-C
                                                             ISBN 92-78-24875-4
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
L-2985 Luxembourg
                                                                                2 Z