HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
20.1.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
15/1
II
(Non-legislative acts)
REGULATIONS
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 38/2011
of 18 January 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,
(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, Garware
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Polyester Limited, amended the definitive anti-dumping
Union,
duty imposed on that company by Regulation (EC) No
1676/2001.
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports
from countries not members of the European Community (
(4) In September 2006, by Regulation (EC) No

1 )
(the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 9(4) and
1424/2006 ( 6 ), the Council, following a new exporting
Article 11(3), (5) and (6) thereof,
producer request, amended Regulation (EC) No
1676/2001 in respect of one Indian exporter. The
amended Regulation established a dumping margin of
15,5 % and a anti-dumping duty rate of 3,5 % for the
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European
company concerned taking into account the company’s
Commission (Commission) after consulting the Advisory
export subsidy margin as ascertained in the anti-subsidy
Committee,
investigation which led to the adoption of Regulation
(EC) No 367/2006. Since the company did not have
an individual countervailing duty, the rate established
Whereas:
for all other companies was applied.
A. PROCEDURE
(5) In November 2007, by Regulation (EC) No
1. Previous investigations and existing anti-dumping
1292/2007 ( 7 ), the Council imposed a definitive anti-
measures
dumping duty on imports of PET film originating in
India following an expiry review pursuant to
(1) In
August
2001,
by
Regulation
(EC)
No
1676/2001
( 2 ),
Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. By the same Regu
the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on
lation a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3)
imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film orig
of the basic Regulation, limited in scope to the exam
inating, inter alia, in India. The measures consisted of
ination of dumping in respect of one Indian exporting
an ad valorem anti-dumping duty ranging between 0 %
producer, was terminated.
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.
(6) In
January
2009,
by
Regulation
(EC)
No
15/2009
( 8 ), the
Council, following a partial interim review initiated by
(2) In
March
2006,
by
Regulation
(EC)
No
366/2006
( 3 ), the
the Commission on its own initiative concerning the
Council amended the measures imposed by Regulation
subsidisation of five Indian PET film producers,
(EC) No 1676/2001. The anti-dumping duty imposed
amended the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed on
ranged between 0 % and 18 %, taking into account the
these companies by Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 and
findings of the expiry review of the definitive counter
the definitive countervailing duties imposed on these
vailing duties (Council Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 ( 4 )).
companies by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006.
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
( 5 ) OJ L 236, 31.8.2006, p. 1.
( 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.

---

L 15/2
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
20.1.2011
(7) Regulation
(EC)
No
1292/2007
also
maintained
the (14) The
Commission
officially
informed
the
applicant,
the
extension of the measures to Brazil and Israel with
authorities of the exporting country, and the Union
certain companies being exempted. The last amendment
industry, of the initiation of the partial interim review
to Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 in this regard was
investigation. Interested parties were given the oppor
made by Council Regulation (EC) No 806/2010 ( 1 ).
tunity to make their views known in writing and to be
heard.
(8) Applicant
of
this
interim
review
—
Garware
Polyester
Limited is currently subject to a definitive anti-dumping
(15) In
order
to
obtain
the
information
necessary
for
its
inves
duty of 14,7 %.
tigation, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the
applicant and received a reply within the deadline set
for that purpose.
2. Existing countervailing measures
(9) It
should
also
be
noted
that
Garware
Polyester
Limited
is
subject to a countervailing duty of 5,4 % on the basis of
(16) The
Commission
sought
and
verified
all
information
it
Regulation (EC) No 15/2009.
deemed necessary for the determination of dumping. A
verification visit was carried out at the premises of the
applicant.
3. Request for a partial interim review
(10) In
August
2009,
the
Commission
received
a
request
for
a
B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the
basic Regulation. The request, limited in scope to the
1. Product concerned
examination of dumping, was lodged by Garware
Polyester Limited, an exporting producer from India
(17) The product concerned by this review is the same as that
(‘Garware’ or ‘the applicant’). In its request, the
defined in Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 imposing the
applicant claimed that the circumstances on the basis
measures in force, namely polyethylene terephthalate
of which measures were imposed have changed and
(PET) film, originating in India, currently falling within
that these changes are of a lasting nature. The
CN codes ex 3920 62 19 and ex 3920 62 90.
applicant provided prima facie evidence that the
continued imposition of the measure at its current level
is no longer necessary to offset dumping.
2. Like product
(18) As in previous investigations, this investigation has
4. Initiation of a review
shown that PET film produced in India and exported
to the Union and the PET film produced and sold
(11) Having determined, after consulting the Advisory
domestically on the Indian market, as well as the PET
Committee, that sufficient evidence existed to justify
film produced and sold in the EU by the Union
the initiation of a partial interim review, the Commission
producers, have the same basic physical and chemical
announced by a ‘Notice of Initiation’ published on
characteristics and the same basic uses.
1 December 2009 in the Official Journal of the European
Union ( 2 ) the initiation of a partial interim review in
accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation
limited in scope to the examination of dumping in
(19) These
products are therefore considered to be alike
respect of the applicant.
within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regu
lation.
(12) The
partial
interim
review
investigation
was
also
to
assess
the need, depending on the review findings, to amend
C. DUMPING
the rate of duty currently applicable to imports of the
product concerned from exporting producers in the
(a) Normal value
country concerned not individually mentioned in
Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007, i.e. the
(20) In
accordance
with
Article
2(2)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
anti-dumping duty rate as applying to ‘all other
the Commission first examined whether the applicant’s
companies’ in India.
domestic sales of the like product to independent
customers were representative, i.e. whether the total
volume of such sales was equal to at least 5 % of the
total volume of the corresponding export sales to the
5. Investigation
Union.
(13) The investigation of the level of dumping covered the
period from 1 October 2008 to 30 September 2009
(‘review investigation period’ or ‘RIP’).
(21) The
Commission
subsequently
identified
those
types
of
the like product sold domestically by the company that
( 1 ) OJ L 242, 15.9.2010, p. 6.
were identical or directly comparable to the types sold
( 2 ) OJ C 291, 1.12.2009, p. 28.
for export to the Union.

---

EN
20.1.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
15/3
(22) It
was
further
examined
whether
the
domestic
sales
of
the form of adjustments was made for differences in
the applicant were representative for each product type,
transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary
i.e. whether domestic sales of each product type
costs, commissions, financial costs and packing costs
constituted at least 5 % of the sales volume of the
paid by the applicant where applicable and justified.
same product type to the Union. For the product types
sold in representative quantities it was then examined
whether such sales were made in the ordinary course
of trade, in accordance with Article 2(4) of the basic
(d) Dumping margin
Regulation.
(27) As
provided
for
under
Article
2(11)
of
the
basic
Regu
lation, the weighted average normal value by type was
compared with the weighted average export price of the
corresponding type of the product concerned. This
(23) The
examination
as
to
whether
the
domestic
sales
of
comparison did not show the existence of dumping.
each product type, sold domestically in representative
quantities, could be regarded as having been made in
the ordinary course of trade was made by establishing
the proportion of the profitable sales to independent
D. LASTING NATURE OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES
customers of the type in question. In all cases where
(28) In
accordance
with
Article
11(3)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
the domestic sales of the particular product type were
it was also examined whether the changed circumstances
made in sufficient quantities and in the ordinary course
could reasonably be considered to be of a lasting nature.
of trade, normal value was based on the actual domestic
price, calculated as a weighted average of all the domestic
sales of that type made during the RIP.
(29) In
this
regard
the
investigation
showed
that
after
the
previous investigation, i.e. the expiry review referred to
in recital 5, Garware has made significant changes in its
production process and technology. The company has
(24) For
the
remaining
product
types
where
domestic
sales
shifted from dimethyl terephthalate (DMT) to purified
were not representative or not sold in the ordinary
terephthalic acid (PTA) as the main raw material.
course of trade, normal value was constructed in
During the investigation period of that expiry review
accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.
Garware was the only Indian exporting producer which
Normal value was constructed by adding to the manu
was still using the old technology based on DMT. This
facturing costs of the exported types, adjusted where
change of technology as well as the investment in a new
necessary, a reasonable percentage for selling, general
plant for manufacturing chips has resulted in a significant
and administrative expenses and a reasonable margin
reduction of costs of manufacturing between the
for profit, on the basis of actual data pertaining to
previous expiry review and the current review. This
production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade,
cost reduction has a direct impact on the dumping
of the like product, by the exporting producer under
margin. This change in circumstances can therefore be
investigation in accordance with the first sentence of
considered to be of a lasting nature.
Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation.
(30) It
should
be also
noted that
an
indicative
dumping
margin calculated for export sales of the applicant to
(b) Export price
third countries in the RIP was negative. In terms of
volume these sales were several times higher than the
(25) Since
all
export
sales
of
the
cooperating
Indian
exporting
export sales to the Union.
producer to the Union were made directly to inde
pendent customers, the export price was established on
the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for the
product concerned in accordance with Article 2(8) of the
(31) It
was
therefore
considered
that
the
circumstances
that
basic Regulation.
led to the initiation of this interim review are unlikely to
change in the foreseeable future in a manner that would
affect the findings of the interim review. Therefore it was
concluded that the changed circumstances are of a lasting
nature and that the application of the measure at its
(c) Comparison
current level is no longer justified.
(26) The
comparison
between
the
weighted
average
normal
value and the weighted average export price was made
on an ex-works basis and at the same level of trade. In
E. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
order to ensure a fair comparison between normal value
and the export price, account was taken, in accordance
(32) In the light of the results of this review investigation, it is
with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, of differences
considered appropriate to amend the anti-dumping duty
in factors which were demonstrated to affect prices and
applicable to imports of the product concerned from
price comparability. For this purpose, due allowance in
Garware to 0 %.

---

L 15/4
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
20.1.2011
(33) Pursuant to 14(1) of the basic Regulation and
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 24(1), second subparagraph of Council Regulation
(EC) No 597/2009 ( 1 ), no product shall be subject to
both anti-dumping and countervailing duties for the
Article 1
purpose of dealing with one and the same situation
The entry concerning Garware Polyester Limited, in the table in
arising from dumping or from export subsidisation. As
Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007, shall be replaced
mentioned in recital 9 above, the applicant is subject to a
by the following:
countervailing duty. Since the anti-dumping duty estab
lished for the applicant is 0 % with regard to the product
concerned, this situation does not arise in the present
case.
‘Garware Polyester Limited, Garware House, 50-A,
0,0 A028’

Swami Nityanand Marg, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai
400 057, India
(34) Interested
parties
were
informed
of
the
essential
facts
and
considerations on the basis of which it was intended to
Article 2
propose to amend the duty rate applicable to the
applicant and were given opportunity to comment. No
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its
comments were received,
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, 18 January 2011.
For the Council
The President
G. MATOLCSY
( 1 ) OJ L 188, 18.7.2009, p. 93.

---