HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"L 58/14
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
3.3.2011
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 205/2011
of 28 February 2011
amending Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
(4) In September 2006, by Regulation (EC) No
1424/2006 ( 6 ), the Council, following a new exporting
producer request, amended Regulation (EC) No
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
1676/2001 in respect of an Indian PET film producer.
Union,
The amended Regulation established a dumping margin
of 15,5 % and an anti-dumping duty rate of 3,5 % for the
company concerned taking into account the company’s
export subsidy margin as ascertained in the anti-subsidy
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of
investigation which led to the adoption of Regulation
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports
(EC) No 367/2006. Since the company did not have
from countries not members of the European Community ( 1 )
an individual countervailing duty, the rate established
(‘the basic anti-dumping Regulation’), and in particular
for all other companies was applied.
Article 9(4) and Article 11(3), (5) and (6) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European
(5) In November 2007, by Regulation (EC) No
Commission (‘the Commission’) after consulting the Advisory
1292/2007 ( 7 ), the Council imposed a definitive anti-
Committee,
dumping duty on imports of PET film originating in
India following an expiry review pursuant to
Article 11(2) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation. By
the same Regulation a partial interim review, pursuant to
Whereas:
Article 11(3) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation,
limited to one Indian exporting producer was terminated.
A. PROCEDURE
1. Previous investigation and existing anti-dumping
(6) In
January
2009,
by
Regulation
(EC)
No
15/2009
( 8 ), the
measures
Council, following a partial interim review initiated by
the Commission on its own initiative concerning the
(1) In
August
2001,
by
Regulation
(EC)
No
1676/2001
( 2 ),
subsidisation of five Indian PET film producers,
the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on
amended the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on
imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film orig
these companies by Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007
inating, inter alia, in India. The measures consisted of
and the definitive countervailing duties imposed by Regu
an ad valorem anti-dumping duty ranging between 0 %
lation (EC) No 367/2006.
and 62,6 % imposed on imports from individually
named exporting producers, with a residual duty rate
of 53,3 % on imports from all other companies.
(7) Regulation
(EC)
No
1292/2007
also
maintained
the
extension of the measures to Brazil and Israel with
certain companies being exempted. The last amendment
(2) In
March
2006,
by
Regulation
(EC)
No
366/2006
( 3 ), the
to Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 in this regard was
Council amended the measures imposed by Regulation
made by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No
(EC) No 1676/2001. The anti-dumping duty imposed
806/2010 of 13 September 2010 amending Regulations
ranged between 0 % and 18 %, taking into account the
(EC) No 1292/2007 and (EC) No 367/2006 as regards
findings of the expiry review of the definitive counter
the granting of an exemption from the measures
vailing duties which are detailed in Regulation (EC) No
imposed under those Regulations to one Israeli
367/2006 ( 4 ).
exporter of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film orig
inating in India and terminating the registration of
imports from that exporter ( 9 ).
(3) In
August
2006,
by
Regulation
(EC)
No
1288/2006
( 5 ),
the Council, following an interim review concerning the
subsidisation of an Indian PET film producer, amended
the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on that
(8) It
should
be
noted
that
Vacmet
India
Limited
is
subject
to
producer by Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001.
a residual anti-dumping duty of 17,3 % on the basis of
Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007.
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
( 2 ) OJ L 227, 23.8.2001, p. 1.
( 6 ) OJ L 270, 29.9.2006, p. 1.
( 3 ) OJ L 68, 8.3.2006, p. 6.
( 7 ) OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 1.
( 4 ) OJ L 68, 8.3.2006, p. 15.
( 8 ) OJ L 6, 10.1.2009, p. 1.
( 5 ) OJ L 236, 31.8.2006, p. 1.
( 9 ) OJ L 242, 15.9.2010, p. 6.

---

EN
3.3.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
58/15
2. Existing countervailing measures
(16) In
order
to
obtain
the
information
necessary
for
its
inves
tigation, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the
(9) It
should
also
be
noted
that
Vacmet
India
Limited
is
applicant and received a reply within the deadline set
subject to a countervailing duty of 19,1 % on the basis
for that purpose.
of Regulation (EC) No 367/2006.
3. Request for a partial interim review
(17) The
Commission
sought
and
verified
all
information
it
deemed necessary for the determination of dumping. A
(10) On
7
August
2009,
the
Commission
received
a
request
verification visit was carried out at the premises of the
for a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of
applicant.
the basic Regulation. The request, limited in scope to the
examination of dumping, was lodged by Vacmet India
Limited, an exporting producer from India (‘the
B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
applicant’). In its request, the applicant claimed that the
circumstances on the basis of which measures were
1. Product concerned
imposed have changed and that these changes are of a
lasting nature. The applicant provided prima facie
(18) The product concerned by this review is the same as that
evidence that the continued imposition of the measure
defined in the Regulation imposing the measures in force
at its current level is no longer necessary to offset
(Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007), namely polyethylene
dumping.
terephthalate (PET) film, originating in India, currently
falling within CN codes ex
3920
62
19 and
ex 3920 62 90.
4. Initiation of a review
(11) Having determined, after consulting the Advisory
Committee, that sufficient evidence existed to justify
2. Like product
the initiation of a partial interim review, the Commission
announced on 14 January 2010, by a notice published in
(19) As in previous investigations, this investigation has
the Official Journal of the European Union (
shown that PET film produced in India and exported

1 ) (‘notice of
initiation’), the initiation of a partial interim review, in
to the EU and the PET film produced and sold
accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation,
domestically on the Indian market, as well as the PET
limited in scope to the examination of dumping in
film produced and sold in the EU by the Union
respect of the applicant.
producers have the same basic physical and chemical
characteristics and the same basic uses.
(12) The
partial
interim
review
investigation
was
also
to
assess
the need, depending on the review findings, to amend
(20) These
products are therefore considered to be alike
the rate of duty currently applicable to imports of the
within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regu
product concerned from exporting producers in the
lation.
country concerned not individually mentioned in
Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007, i.e. the
anti-dumping duty rate as applying to ‘all other
companies’ in India.
C. DUMPING
(a) Normal Value
(13) On
14
January
2010,
the
Commission
also
announced,
by a notice of initiation published in the Official Journal of
(21) In
order
to
establish
normal
value,
it
was
first
determined
the European Union (
whether the total volume of domestic sales of the like

2 ), the initiation of a partial interim
review of the countervailing measures limited in scope to
product was representative in accordance of Article 2(2)
the examination of subsidisation as far as the applicant is
of the basic Regulation, namely whether these sales
concerned.
represented 5 % of the sales volume of the product
concerned exported to the EU. The Commission estab
lished that the like product was sold domestically by the
5. Investigation
applicant in overall representative volumes. This repre
sentativity test was then carried out on a type-by-type
(14) The investigation of the level of dumping covered the
basis. It was found that two types were not sold
period from 1 January to 31 December 2009 (‘review
domestically at all.
investigation period’ or ‘RIP’).
(15) The
Commission
officially
informed
the
applicant,
and
(22) The
Commission subsequently
examined
whether
the
the authorities of the exporting country and the Union
domestic sales of the like product could be regarded as
industry, of the initiation of the partial interim review
being sold in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to
investigation. Interested parties were given the oppor
Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by
tunity to make their views known in writing and to be
establishing, for the like product sold on the Indian
heard.
market, the proportion of profitable domestic sales to
independent customers during the RIP. It was found
( 1 ) OJ C 8, 14.1.2010, p. 27.
that more than 90 % of the domestic sales were
( 2 ) OJ C 8, 14.1.2010, p. 29.
profitable.

---

L 58/16
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
3.3.2011
(23) For
the
product
types
sold
domestically
and
which
passed
costs, commissions, financial costs and packing costs
the representativity test mentioned in recital 21 above, it
paid by the applicant where applicable and justified.
was established that for one product type, all domestic
transactions were not profitable and thus were not made
in the ordinary course of trade in accordance with
(d) Dumping margin
Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.
(30) As
provided
for
pursuant
to
Article
2(11)
of
the
basic
Regulation, the weighted average normal value by type
(24) For
the
product
types
which
were
sold
in
sufficient
was compared with the weighted average export price of
quantities and sold in the ordinary course of trade in
the corresponding type of the product concerned. This
India, normal value was established on the basis of
comparison did not show the existence of dumping.
prices paid or payable by unrelated customers pursuant
to Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation. For the other
types, namely the type mentioned in recital 23 above
D. LASTING NATURE OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES
and the types not sold domestically, normal value was
constructed on the basis of the costs of manufacturing
(31) In
accordance
with
Article
11(3)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
incurred by the applicant for the exported model in
it was also examined whether the changed circumstances
question plus a reasonable amount for sales, general
alleged by the applicant could reasonably be considered
and administrative (SG&A) costs and for profit in
to be of a lasting nature.
accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.
(32) The
investigation
showed
that
the
indicative
dumping
(25) Given
the
high
level
of
profitable
domestic
sales
made
in
margin calculated for the export sales of the applicant
the ordinary course of trade, the SG&A costs and the
to third countries in the RIP was also negative. In terms
profit were based on all domestic sales of the like
of volume, these sales were several times higher than the
product on the domestic market.
export sales to the EU.
(b) Export price
(33) It
was
also
found
that
the
applicant
made
significant
investments as from 2007 to improve its production
(26) In
all
cases
where
PET
film
was
directly
exported
to
process and to produce the basic raw material which is
independent customers in the EU, the export prices
necessary for the production of the product concerned.
were established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the
These changes have resulted in, in particular, a reduction
basic Regulation, namely on the basis of prices actually
of costs and have thus explained the direct impact on the
paid or payable.
Company dumping margin. This change in circumstances
can be considered to be of a lasting nature.
(27) For
the
export
sales
to
the
EU
made
through
a
related
company, the export price was established on the basis
of prices at which the imported products were first resold
(34) It
was
therefore
considered
that
the
circumstances
that
to an independent buyer in accordance with Article 2(9)
led to the initiation of this interim review are unlikely to
of the basic Regulation.
change in the foreseeable future in a manner that would
affect the findings of the present interim review. Hence, it
was concluded that the changed circumstances are of a
lasting nature and that the application of the anti-
(28) For
this
purpose,
adjustments
were
made
for
all
costs
dumping measure at its current level is no longer
incurred between importation and resale to the first inde
justified.
pendent customer in the Union market. A reasonable
margin for SG&A costs and profit was also deducted
for these sales. The percentages used to calculate the
profit and the SG&A costs were in line with those
E. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
reported in the Profit and Loss account of the related
company.
(35) In the light of the results of this review investigation, it is
considered appropriate to amend the anti-dumping duty
applicable to imports of the product concerned from the
applicant to 0 %.
(c) Comparison
(29) The
comparison
between
the
weighted
average
normal
value and the weighted average export price was made
(36) Pursuant
to
Article
14(1)
of
the
basic
Regulation
and
on an ex-works basis and at the same level of trade. In
Article 24(1), second subparagraph, of Council Regu
order to ensure a fair comparison between normal value
lation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection
and the export price, account was taken, in accordance
against subsidised imports from countries not members
with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, of differences
of the European Community ( 1 ), no product shall be
in factors which were demonstrated to affect prices and
subject to both anti-dumping and countervailing duties
price comparability. For this purpose, due allowance in
for the purpose of dealing with one and the same
the form of adjustments was made for differences in
transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary
( 1 ) OJ L 188, 18.7.2009, p. 93.

---

EN
3.3.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
58/17
situation arising from dumping or from export subsi
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
disation. As mentioned in recital 9 above, the applicant
is subject to a countervailing duty. Since the anti-
dumping duty established for the applicant is 0 % with
Article 1
regard to the product concerned, this situation does not
arise in the present case.
The table in Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 is
hereby amended by inserting the following:
(37) Interested
parties
were
informed
of
the
essential
facts
and
‘Vacmet India Limited, Anant Plaza, IInd
0,0 A992’
considerations on the basis of which it was intended to
Floor, 4/117-2A, Civil Lines, Church
propose to amend the duty rate applicable to the
Road, Agra-282002, Uttar Pradesh, India
applicant and were given an opportunity to comment.
Article 2
(38) The
oral
and
written
comments
submitted
by
the
parties
were considered and, where appropriate, the definitive
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its
findings have been modified accordingly,
publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 28 February 2011.
For the Council
The President
FELLEGI T.

---