CELEX: 51991PC0334
Language: en
Date: 1991-09-09
Title: PROPOSAL FOR A COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) COLLECTING DEFINITIVELY THE PROVISIONAL COUNTERVAILING DUTY ON IMPORTS OF POLYESTER FIBRES AND POLYESTER YARNS ORIGINATING IN TURKEY

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
                                        C0M(91) 334 final
                                        Brussels,  9 September 1991
                           Proposal for a
                     COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC)
      collecting definitively the provisional countervailing duty
              on Imports of polyester fibres and polyester
                       yarns originating In Turkey
                   (presented by the Commission)
 ---pagebreak---                           EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
1. Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1432/91 Imposed a provisional
   countervailing duty on Imports of polyester fibres and polyester yarns
   originating In Turkey.
2. The Government of Turkey has offered an undertaking which the
   Commission considered acceptable.
3. Examination of the facts finally established has shown that imports of
   the subsidized Turkish products have caused material Injury to the
   Community industry.
4. Accordingly, pursuant to Article 12 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC)
   No 2423/88, the Commission Is putting before the Council a draft
   Regulation collecting definitively the provisional countervailing duty
    imposed on the above-mentioned products at the level of the net
   countervailing duty established.
5. The Advisory Committee has been consulted on this proposal and no
   negative comments have been received.
 ---pagebreak---                                     - 1 -
                             Proposal for a
                  COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No.          /91
                          Of                  1991
       collecting definitively the provisional countervailing duty
                on imports of polyester fibres and polyester
                         yarns originating In Turkey
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 Commun Ity< 1 ), and in particular Article
12 thereof,
Having regard to the Additional Protocol<2) to the Agreement
establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and
Turkey, and In particular Article 46 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after
consultation within the Advisory Committee as provided for under the
above Régulât Ion,
(1) OJ No L209, 2.8.1988, p.1
(2) OJ No L 293, 29.12.1972, p.4.
 ---pagebreak---                                    - 2 -
Whereas :
             A.  PROVISIONAL MEASURES AND SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE
1.  The Commission, by Regulation (EEC) No 1432/91<2> (hereinafter
    referred to as the Commission Regulation) Imposed a provisional
    countervailing duty on Imports of polyester fibres and polyester
    yarns originating In Turkey.
2.  Following the Imposition of the provisional countervailing duty, the
    Turkish Government, three exporters and one importer made written
    submissions making known their views on the findings. The Turkish
    Government and one exporter who so requested were granted an
    opportunity to be heard by the Commission.
3.  The oral and written submissions and comments of the parties were
    considered and, where appropriate, the Commission's findings were
    modified to take account of them.
                          B. LENGTH OF PROCEEDING
4.  The initiation of this proceeding was announced in a notice published
     in the Official Journal of 09.02.89. The Investigation of subsidies
    covered the period 1 July 1987 to 31 December 1988. The investigation
    exceeded the normal time period because of the volume and complexity
    of the data initially gathered and examined.
(2) OJ No L137, 31.5.91, p.8
 ---pagebreak---                                     - 3 -
    The Turkish Government and one Turkish exporter argued that the
    Commission has exceeded a reasonable period to finalize this
    proceeding and that some data was therefore out of date.
     In this regard the Council has noted that for a considerable period
    of time before the imposition of countervailing duties, the
    Commission had, in vain, discussed with the Turkish authorities the
    possibility of an undertaking.
    The Council confirmed the explanation of the Commission as outlined
    In Recital 6 of the Commission Regulation.
                              C. SUBSIDIZATION
5.  The Council considered in this specific case whether it would be
    appropriate to countervail subsidy schemes which were abolished after
    the Investigation period.
    The Council, taking Into account evidence supplied by the Turkish
    Government and being convinced that no further benefits will accrue
    after the abolition of these subsidy schemes and In the understanding
    of the non re-introductIon of these subsidies, considered it
    unnecessary to Impose countervailing duties against such schemes.
Specific schemes
6.  The Commission Identified eleven subsidy schemes, of which a number
    were considered counterva 11 able.
    Specific arguments were made on the following schemes by the Turkish
    Government and the Turkish exporters.
 ---pagebreak---                                      - 4 -
Corporate tax exemption
7.   The Turkish Government and one Turkish exporter did not challenge the
     fact that this subsidy is contingent upon export performance, but
     contested the basis on which the Commission had calculated the level
     of counterva I lab 11Ity of this scheme.   The Turkish Government
     proposed to use as a basis the exemption rate (14 %) which will apply
     to export earnings In 1992, but will not come Into effect until 1993.
     The corporate tax exemption scheme exempted from corporate taxation
     20% of the export earnings of manufacturing companies In 1989 and 18%
     of export earnings In 1990.    This percentage has been lowered to 16 X
     In 1991, but It will not come Into effect until 1992. The Turkish
     Government has further reduced the exemption rate to 14 X of export
     earnings In 1992, which will come Into effect in 1993. The Commission
     considered that, as the present cost to the Turkish Government and
     the benefit to the companies concerned was based on the companies
     1990 export earnings, the 18X exemption rate which is applicable In
     1991,  should form the basis for calculating the level of
     counterval IablIIty of this scheme.    It would not be justified at this
     stage to anticipate a further reduction In the cost and benefit of
     this scheme in future years.    The Council confirmed this finding.
Low Interest credit for Investment purposes
8.   The Turkish Government and one Turkish exporter have stated that this
     scheme was abolished In January 1990. As adequate proof was given
     and considered acceptable by the Council, this scheme was considered
     to be no longer countervail able.
 Incentive premium
9.   The Turkish Government and one exporter have stated that this scheme
     was abolished in November 1989. Leaving aside the fact that the
     Commission had not been informed of this fact when Imposing
     provisional countervailing duties, the actual benefit accruing to the
 ---pagebreak---                                    - 5 -
    companies which availed of this scheme was negligible and therefore
    did not and will not have any effect on the duties. The Council did
    not take Into account the benefits of this scheme.
Investment Incentive a Ilowance
10  The Turkish Government and one Turkish exporter alleged that the
    Commission used for this scheme, as well as for the customs
    exemption, a  depreciation period which was not representative of the
    normal depreciation period in Turkey. They claimed that the normal
    depreciation period in Turkey is from 8 to 10 years, with companies
    free to choose their own period.
11  In this respect the Commission based its findings on Information
    obtained during the verification visits which showed the normal
    depreciation period in the industry concerned to be four years.
12  In addition, one Turkish exporter noted that if the benefit from this
    scheme was calculated on the basis of polyester fibre and yarn
    Investments only, rather than on all Investments, a lower subsidy
    amount would accrue to them. The exporter was unable to quantify
    satisfactorily the amount of subsidy relating solely to Investments
    in polyester fibre and yarns and therefore the Commission's
    calculations have been based on the only reliable evidence provided
    by the company concerned, I.e. on all Its investments benefiting from
    this scheme.
    In these circumstances, the Council confirmed all methods of the
    Commission's basis of calculating the countervaiI able amount of
    subsidy for this scheme.
customs exemption
13  The Turkish Government and one Turkish exporter have stated that the
    customs duty rate on which exemption is claimed was reduced from 30 X
    to 5 X in November 1989. Satisfactory evidence has been provided to
    that effect. The Council has taken account of this fact In
    calculating the countervaiI able amount of this subsidy.
 ---pagebreak--- Other schemes
14  The Council confirmed the Commission's findings not to take measures
    against the Resource Utilisation Support Fund (Recital 9 of
    Commission Regulation), the Rebate of Indirect Taxes (Recitals 10 and
    11), because these two schemes ended before the end of the
     Investigation period; against the Support and Price Stabilisation
    Fund (Recital 17) because the products Involved are not eligible for
    payments from this Fund and against the Low Interest Credit for
    Operational Phase (Recital 29), because its benefits were negligible.
                               p. SPECIFICITY
15  The Turkish Government and one Turkish exporter have further advanced
    the argument that domestic subsidies can only be countervaiI able if
    they have been provided in a specific manner to the benefiting
     industry.  The Turkish Government claimed the domestic subsidies
    which the Commission has found countervaiI able are, however all
    granted under generally available incentive schemes.
16  The Council noted the way domestic subsidies are granted in Turkey.
    A company must obtain an Incentive certificate from the State
    Planning Organisation (S.P.O.). To assist this decision, the S.P.O.
    has established a list of non-eligible Industries for domestic
     Incentive schemes. In addition the S.P.O. carries out on a case-by-
    case basis, an analysis of each investment application which Is
    normally accompanied by a so-called feasibility study, and decides
    subsequently whether and if a company obtains one or any of the
    subsidies under the domestic schemes described.
    Under these circumstances, there is every reason to believe that the
    allocation of the subsidies In question was not carried out In
    accordance with neutral and objective criteria.
    The Commission requested the Turkish authorities to submit conclusive
    evidence as to the general availability of the subsidies In question,
    which however was not supplied.
 ---pagebreak---                                   - 7 -
   Under these circumstances, the Council shares the Commission's
   conviction that the Turkish system does not entitle the applying
   companies to obtain automatically the subsidies they claim once the
   crIter la are met.
17 The consequence of these arguments is that the Council cannot accept
   the allegations that these schemes are generally available.
   Consequently the Council considered these schemes to be specifically
   granted.
18  In addition, even those domestic subsidies which were allocated
   according to the state of development of the region In which the
   benefiting company was located, were found to have been granted
   specifically and In all cases, In the most developed regions of
   Turkey.
19 Therefore it was clear that there was no effective general
   availability of these subsidies between companies, nor between
   regions where differing eligible percentages have been established
   according to the state of development of the region.   The Council
   considered them countervaiI able.
                      E. TOTAL AMOUNT OF SUBSIDIES
20 The total amounts of countervaiI able subsidies determined by the
   Council are as follows :
   SASA                 9.99 X
   SONMEZ FILAMENT      9.13 X
   SONMEZ ASF           9.35 X
   SI FAS               9.39 X
   POLYLEN              8.79 X
   POLYTEKS            10.16 X
   The Individual amounts of countervaiI able subsidies found by scheme
   have been notified to each of the companies concerned. For reasons of
   confidentiality they are not published here.
 ---pagebreak---                                   - 8-
                                F. INJURY
21 In Its provisional Regulation, the Commission found that four
   products were concerned by these proceedings and that the Community
   Industry was manufacturing like products.   As far as the assessment
   of the effect of the subsidized imports was concerned, it was however
   argued that the polyester fibres and yarns exported by the Turkish
   companies and those of the Community producers were not similar
   products since they were of different qualities. These Imports could,
   therefore, not have caused material Injury on the Community
   production of like products.   The Commission did not accept these
   arguments in its Regulation since these differences In quality
   between Turkish and Community products, if any, were so minor, that
   no clear product distinction between them could be made. This
   conclusion was further supported by the similarity of the end uses of
   these products.
22 The Council confirmed that in this case the basic physical
   characteristics of the exported and Community-produced products and
   their uses were Identical. In addition, the end users are the same
   and the only decisive element of distinction between the imported and
   the Community-produced products are the prices.   These prices are,
   however, largely Influenced by the subsidization by the Turkish
   Government. In these circumstances, there Is no clear and decisive
   element of distinction between these products.
23 The Council confirms therefore the Commission findings that the
   Community production has to be considered as like to the Imported
   subsidized products.
24  In Its provisional findings, the Commission concluded that the
   Community fibres and yarn Industry had experienced material Injury
   due to the subsidized imports from Turkey.
 ---pagebreak---                                     - 9-
25  These Injury    findings were based mainly on the following facts :
    As far as the volume of the subsidized Imports was concerned, the
    Commission established In Its Regulation that Imports of yarn
    Increased from 233 T in 1984 to 13.315 T In 1988; an increase in
    market share from 0 X to 5 X, and that that of fibres fluctuated
    around 4 X and was 3.3 X In 1988.    In this respect, it has to be
    recalled that in June 1988, provisional antidumping duties were
    Imposed^ 3 ), on the imports of most of the products concerned  which
    probably had effects on the import volumes.    No comments were
    submitted in this respect.
26  The market share of the Community industry decreased for fibres from
    79 X in 1984 to 75 X in 1988 and for yarns from 81 X In 1984 to 69.8
    X In 1988.    As far as prices were concerned between 1985 and the
     investigation period, considerable price depressions from 5 X for
    textured yarn, 12 X for polyester filament yarn, 20 X for fibre and
    26 X for POY were established.
     In addition, it was found that the majority of the Community industry
    suffered heavy losses in 1988, in some Instances up to 26 X for
    fibres and 15 X for yarns.
27  The Council confirms therefore the findings of the Commission as
    given in recitals 50 to 53 of Its Regulation.
28  The Commission has further established that during the Investigation
    period the prices In the Community of Turkish Imported products were
    on average lower than the corresponding prices of the Community
    manufactured like products by the following percentages : for fibres
    18 to 22 X; for    Turkish polyster filament yarn : 65 X; for Turkish
    POY : 30 X, and for Turkish textured yarn between 25 to 43 X .
(3) Provisional duty : O.J. no L 151, 17.06.1988, p. 39 and 47
 ---pagebreak---                                   - 10 -
29  In this respect, the Turkish Government and one Turkish exporter
    argued that the price undercutting margins were not correct, since no
    adjustments of the Turkish prices have been made in order to take
    account of the alleged differences In physical characteristics
    between the Turkish and the Community products.  However, no effect
    on prices of these alleged differences was proven to the satisfaction
    of the Commission, neither by the Turkish Government nor by the
    exporter concerned.  Accordingly, this claim was rejected.
30  In addition, it has to be recalled that, even if the alleged
    differences were to  have a certain effect on the prices and thus on
    the price  comparability of the products, this effect would never be
    such as to compensate for the huge undercutting margins established
    and verified by the Commission.  The Council therefore confirmed the
    price-undercutting analysis of the Commission.
Conclusion
31  in the light of the Commission's finding as shown In recital 53 of
    its Regulation and the above-mentioned considerations, the Council
    confirmed that the Turkish exporters had considerably Increased their
    market presence, reverted to price undercutting and that Community
    industry Is suffering material injury.
                               G.CAUSALITY
32  As already shown In recital 54 of the Commission Regulation, the
    markets concerned were highly price-sensitive and transparent.   The
    huge price undercutting of the Turkish exports, which to a large
    extent was covered by the substantial subsidy margin, had thus
    clearly an effect on the prices of the Community industry.
 ---pagebreak---                                   - 11 -
   In this respect, the Turkish Government alleged that with a small
   market share, the Turkish exports could not have an Injurious effect
   on the prices of the Community Industry.   However, In this particular
   market, where only a relatively limited number of suppliers exist and
   the price situation Is transparent, low prices charged by exporters
   which have only a relatively small market share can nevertheless have
   a considerably detrimental effect on the general price level, and
   force the Community producers to align their prices to these low-
   priced imports at the expense of their profitability.
33 It was further argued that the price depression, which as such is not
   contested,   was mainly caused by falling raw material costs.  The
   Council was however of the opinion, that while falling raw material
   prices may have had a decreasing effect on prices, this does not
   explain the fact that the Community Industry was prevented from
   selling at profitable prices.   Thus, the price undercutting by the
   subsidized Imports increased the price depressing effect, and forced
   the prices down beyond the normal price development due to cost
   reductIons.
34 The Turkish Government and one Turkish exporter argued that the
   material Injury of the Community Industry had been caused by other
   factors, either by the dumped imports from several countries against
   which ant I-dumping duties are in force, or by low prices of fairly
   priced Imports.
   In this respect, the Council was aware that it had Imposed anti-
   dumping duties on imports of three of the investigated products from
   several countries.   These measures were supposed to eliminate the
   injury caused by the dumping of these exports.   However, apart from
   the fact that the findings In the ant I-dumping cases related to a
   different reference period, the ant I-dumping duties were for most
   Turkish companies and most products based on the dumping margins
   found for Turkey and did not completely eliminate Injury.
   Consequently, the subsidization of Imports had an additional
   injurious impact on the Community industry, which has not been
   eliminated by these anti-dumping measures.
 ---pagebreak---                                  - 12 -
   Indeed, Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 does not foresee
   that Injury can only be established if subsidization Is the only, or
   the principal cause of the overall injury suffered by an Industry.
   Therefore,   Injury caused by subsidization may Justify protective
   measures, even if it Is only a part of a larger Injury due also to
   other factors. In this particular case, the Investigation has indeed
   shown that in spite of the ant I-dumping measures taken the situation
   of the Community Industry is still precarious and that, thus, the
   measures against dumped Imports have not fully remedied the injury
   caused by unfair pricing.
35 It was further claimed by the Turkish authorities that the
   difficulties encountered by the Community industry were predominantly
   caused by fundamental structural problems.
36 The Council acknowledged that the Community industry had suffered
   major economic problems In the past. To overcome these problems, the
   Community producers had taken a number of restructuring measures,
   which had Improved their performance. This restructuring of the
   Community Industry has however now been jeopardized by unfair and
   injurious pricing from different imports by a number of countries, as
   evidenced by the profitability figures set out in recital 52 of the
   Commission Regulation. The Council considered it therefore Incorrect
   to blame structural problems for the Injury actually caused by unfair
   pricing.
37 The Turkish Government argued further, that as the effect of dumped
   Imports from Turkey   were considered together with those of dumped
   Imports from five other countries in assessing Injury in these anti-
   dumping cases, the Council would - a contrario - not have the
   possibility in this anti-subsidies case to determine whether the
   subsidized imports from Turkey have caused injury.
 ---pagebreak---                                     - 13 -
38   However, for the reasons given in recitals 56 - 58 of the Commission
     Regulation and In view of the considerations above, the Council
     confirms that the subsidized Turkish Imports have caused material
      injury to the Community Industry.
                             H.COMMUNITY INTEREST
39   The Commission has stated In recitals 59 to 63 of its Regulation the
      reasons why the interest of the Community called for Intervention to
     prevent Injury during the proceeding.   The Council considered these
      reasons to be val id.
     One Turkish exporter and the Turkish Government argued, however,
      that duties would prevent price competition on the Community market,
     which would not be In the Community interest.
40    In this respect, the Council recalls that countervailing duties are
      Intended to re-establish a fair competitive situation and that it Is
     therefore necessary to eliminate the effect of the subsidy on the
      imports,  resulting in the Community industry being further exposed
     to fair competition, also from exports by the Turkish companies, on
     the Community market.   Therefore, the Council confirmed the
     Commission findings concerning the Community interest.
   I. THE ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TQ THE EEC - TURKEY ASSOCIATION   AGREEMENT
41   The Turkish Government contended that the Commission did not use the
     appropriate Instrument against the Turkish subsidy schemes   by
     Imposing duties under Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, as special rules
     exist under the Additional Protocol to the EEC-Turkey Association
     Agreement of 23 November 1970.
 ---pagebreak---                                   - 14 -
42 Article 43 (2) of this Additional Protocol, which allows Turkey to be
   considered as being in a situation specified In Article 92 (3) (a) of
   the EEC Treaty, considers such aid compatible with the proper
   functioning of the Association only If it does not alter the
   conditions of trade to an extent Inconsistent with the mutual
    interest of the contracting parties.
   The Turkish Government was of the opinion that hence it was entitled
   under Article 43 (2) to grant these subsidies.
43 The Council considered however that the Commission has correctly
   assessed its findings on injury and causality and it further
   confirmed that by the subsidization of the Turkish Imports, the
   conditions of trade have been altered In a manner which is
    Inconsistent with the mutual Interest of the contracting parties.
44 The Community has, in accordance with Article 45 of the Additional
   Protocol, further submitted to the Association Council for Its
   approval, the countervailing duties which the Community intends to
   collect definitively on Imports of fibres and yarns from Turkey.   In
   the absence however of any decision, under Article 45 by the
   Association Council, the Community is further allowed under Article
   46 of the Additional Protocol to take safeguard measures which it
   feels appropriate In order to overcome difficulties due to this
   absence of a decision of the Association Council.
             J. GATT - SUBSIDIES COPE - DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
45 The Turkish Government alleged further that, contrary to recitals 36
   and 37 of the Commission Regulation, the requirements of Article 14
   of the Agreement on Interpretation and Application of Articles VI,
   XVI and XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
   (Subsidies Code) had been violated.
 ---pagebreak---                                   - 15 -
46 Concerning domestic subsidies, the special provisions for developing
   countries (Art. 14 Subsidies Code) however do not restrict the
   possibility for another signatory to apply Its countervaiIing-duty
   laws, in case subsidized exports from a developing country cause
   material Injury to Its domestic industry (Article 14 (7) GATT
   Subsidies Code).
   In addition, insofar as export subsidies are concerned, the Council
   has noted in this respect that Turkey has entered into a commitment
   vis-a-vis the signatories of the GATT Subsidies Code (Article 14 (5)
   and (6) refers)to phase out Its export subsidies at the end of 1989.
   Turkey has not respected this commitment.
47 The Council considered that the Community is entitled under the
   Subsidies Code to apply countervailing duties.
                            K.INJURY THRESHOLD
48 The Commission has calculated the amount of the duty, necessary to
   remove the Injury by comparing, for each of the four products, the
   prices of the Turkish products in the Community during the
    Investigation period with a target price of the Community industry
   calculated on the average production costs for each product of
   representative Community producers plus a reasonable profit margin (6
   X for fibre and 7 X for yarns).   The differences between these two
   prices were considered to constitute    the amount by which the prices
   of the Turkish products should be increased at the Community frontier
   in order to remove the Injury caused by the subsidized Imports.
 ---pagebreak---                                    - 16 -
    The Turkish Government and one Turkish exporter considered that, In
    calculating the injury threshold, a profit margin of 3 X is a more
    realistic margin to apply to Community producers. No basis has been
    provided, however, to justify applying a 3 X profit margin. The
    Council noted that the Commission established the profit margin on
    the basis of the average profit margin of Community producers in 1985
    and 1986 since for most of that period the Injurious impact on
    Community producers of unfairly priced third country imports was
    st111 moderate.
    In these circumstances, the Council confirmed the basis of selecting
    the level of profit margin used in this Instance and thus the
    findings of the Commission under Recitals 64 and 65 of the Commission
    Regulation.
                              L.  UNDERTAKING
49  Following the parties being informed of the essential facts and
    considerations on the basis of which It was intended to recommend the
     imposition of definitive duties and the definitive collection of
    amounts secured by way of a provisional duty, the Government of
    Turkey offered an undertaking which Is considered to be acceptable.
    The effect of this undertaking will be to phase out the most
     important export-subsidy (the Corporate Tax Exemption) which will
    remedy the material injury caused by the Turkish subsidies.
    After consultation with the Advisory Committee, this undertaking was
    accepted by Commission Decision 91/.../EEC^ 3 *. The Council has
    further noted that the investigation in this case has been
    terminated.
(3) See page ... of this Official Journal.
 ---pagebreak---                                    - 17 -
50  Since part of these rates of definitive countervailing duties would
    have been suspended In view of the ant I-dumping duties imposed by
    Regulations (EEC) No 3905/88<1> and 3946/99<2>, only net definitive
    countervailing duties would have been Imposed as listed in Article 1
    of this Regulation.
                    M. CUMULATION OF ANT I-DUMPING DUTIES
                         AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES
51  The Commission has set out in recitals 67 to 70 of the Commission
    Regulation, the question as to whether ant I-dumping duties and
    countervailing duties can be cumulated in accordance with Article 13
     (9) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 and Article VI (5) of the GATT.
52  The Council accepted the Commission reasoning as set out In Recitals
    67 to 70 of the Commission Regulation and it confirmed that   Art. 13
     (9) does not preclude that countervailing duties are Imposed in
    addition to ant I-dumping duties against the domestic subsidies found,
    as well as against export subsidies which cannot have influenced the
    anti-dumping duty since the companies concerned first availed of them
    after the anti-dumping duties were Imposed.
53  While the ant I-dumping duties are in force, that part of the
    countervailing duty which corresponds to the export subsidies which
    will have influenced the dumping margin, should only be Imposed to
    the extent that It exceeds the ant I-dumping duty.
(1) OJ No L 347, 16.12.1988, p. 10.
(2) OJ No L 348, 17.12.1988, p. 49.
 ---pagebreak---                                     - 18 -
                    N. COLLECTION OF PROVISIONAL DUTIES
54   in view of the subsidy level definitively established as mentioned
    above and the seriousness of the Injury caused to the Community
     Industry, the Council considered it necessary that amounts collected
    by way of provisional countervailing duties should be definitively
    collected at the level of the net countervailing duty established
     (Article 1 of this Regulation).
    HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION :
                                  Article 1
The amounts collected or secured by way of provisional countervailing
duty pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 1432/91 shall be collected at the
following rates of duty.
(i) Polyester staple fibres     -       3.19X
         (TARIC additional code: 8527)
    For the company hereunder, the following rate shall apply:
         Sonmez Filament        -       0.58X
         (TARIC additional code: 8526)
(ii)     Polyester textured filament yarn - 1.98X
         (TARIC additional code: 8532)
 ---pagebreak---                                    - 19 -
    For the companies hereunder, the following rates shall apply:
    SASA                -    1.31%
    (TARIC additional code: 8531)
    Sonmez Filament    -     0.58X
    (TARIC additional code: 8530)
    Sonmez ASF         -     0.58X
    (TARIC additional code: 8529)
    Pôlyteks           -     1.48X
     (TARIC additional code: 8528)
(ill)    Polyester filament yarn        -   9.99X
     (TARIC additional code: 8534)
    The following company is exempted from this rate:
                    Sonmez Filament
                    (TARIC additional code: 8533)
(iv)     Partially Oriented Polyester Yarn (POY) - 7.29X
         (TARIC additional code: 8536)
    The following company is exempted from this rate:
         Sonmez ASF
         (TARIC additional code: 8535)
Amounts provisionally collected or secured which are not covered by the
above rates shall be released.
 ---pagebreak---                                    - 20 -
                                 Article 2
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 a 11 Member States.
Done at Brussels, September 1991           For the Council,
 ---pagebreak---                                                                       ISSN 0254-1475
                                                               COM(91) 334 final
                                                      DOCUMENTS
EN                                                                               02
                                Catalogue number : CB-CO-91-385-EN-C
                                                             ISBN 92-77-75625-X
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
1^2985 Luxembourg