HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
25.9.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
253/1
II
(Non-legislative acts)
REGULATIONS
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 917/2013
of 23 September 2013
amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 857/2010 imposing a definitive countervailing duty
and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain polyethylene
terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
‘the company concerned’), lodged an application at the
General Court seeking the annulment of the contested
Regulation in so far as it applied to the applicant ( 3 ).
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union,
(3)
On 11 October 2012, the General Court in its judgment
in Case T-556/10 (‘the General Court judgment’) found
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of
that the failure by the Commission and the Council to
11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from
take account of the figure resulting from the revision of
countries not members of the European Community ( 1 ) (‘the
line 74 of the 2008 tax return of the company
basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 15(1) thereof,
concerned, and the error resulting therefrom, affected
the legality of Article 1 of the contested Regulation in
so far as the definitive countervailing duty fixed by the
Council exceeded the duty applicable in the absence of
Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission
that error. Therefore, the General Court annulled
after consulting the Advisory Committee,
Article 1 of the contested Regulation in so far as it
concerned Novatex and in so far as the definitive
countervailing duty exceeded that applicable in the
absence of the error.
Whereas:
A. PROCEDURE
(4) In
Case
T-2/95
( 4 ), the General Court held that, in cases
(1) By Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No
where a proceeding consists of several administrative
857/2010 (
steps, the annulment of one of those steps does not

2 ) (‘the contested Regulation’), the Council
imposed definitive countervailing duties ranging from
annul the complete proceeding. This anti-subsidy
EUR 42,34 per tonne to EUR 139,70 per tonne on
proceeding is an example of such a multi-step
imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate having a
proceeding. Consequently, the annulment of a part of
viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher, according to
the contested Regulation does not imply the annulment
the ISO Standard 1628-5, originating in Iran, Pakistan
of the entire procedure prior to the adoption of that
and the United Arab Emirates.
Regulation. Moreover, according to Article 266 of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the
Union institutions are obliged to comply with the
General Court judgment. This also implies the possibility
to remedy the aspects of the contested Regulation which
(2) On
6
December
2010,
the
cooperating
exporting
producer in Pakistan, namely Novatex Ltd (‘Novatex’ or
led to its partial annulment, while leaving unchanged the
uncontested parts which are unaffected by the General
Court judgment. It should be noted that all other findings
( 1 ) OJ L 188, 18.7.2009, p. 93.
made in the contested Regulation remain valid.
( 2 ) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 857/2010 of
27 September 2010 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and
collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of
( 3 ) Case T-556/10 Novatex Ltd v Council of the European Union.
certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and
( 4 ) Case T-2/95 Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS) v Council [1998] ECR
the United Arab Emirates (OJ L 254, 29.9.2010, p. 10).
II-3939.

---

L 253/2
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
25.9.2013
(5) Following
the
General
Court
judgment,
on
17
May
2013
regard to Novatex, insofar as the definitive countervailing
the Commission partially reopened the anti-subsidy
duty exceeded the duty applicable in the absence of the
investigation concerning imports of certain polyethylene
error identified by the Court, should not imply the
terephthalate originating, inter alia, in Pakistan (‘the
annulment of the entire procedure prior to the
notice’) ( 1 ). The reopening was limited in scope to the
adoption of that Regulation.
implementation of the General Court judgment in so
far as Novatex is concerned.
(6) The
Commission
officially
advised
the
exporting (12) The
recalculation
of
Novatex’s
subsidy
duty
rate,
taking
producers, importers, users and raw material suppliers
account of the revised line 74 of the company’s tax
known to be concerned, the representatives of the
return, indeed results in a corrected amount of EUR
exporting country and the Union industry of the partial
35,39 per tonne.
reopening of the investigation. Interested parties were
given the opportunity to make their views known in
writing and to request a hearing within the time-limit
set out in the notice. No interested party requested to
be heard.
(13) The revised duty rate should indeed be applied retro
actively, i.e. from the date of entry into force of the
contested Regulation.
(7) All
parties
concerned
were
informed
of
the
essential
facts
and considerations on the basis of which it was intended
to recommend the imposition of an amended definitive
countervailing duty on Novatex. They were granted a
4. Conclusion
period within which to make representations subsequent
to disclosure.
(14) Account
has
been
taken
of
the
comments
made,
and
having analysed them it is concluded that the implemen
tation of the General Court judgment should take the
form of a revision of the countervailing duty rate
B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL COURT
applicable to Novatex, which should be reduced from
JUDGMENT
EUR 44,02 per tonne to EUR 35,39 per tonne. As
1. Preliminary remark
Novatex was the sole exporting producer of the
product concerned in Pakistan during the investigation
(8)
It is recalled that the reason for the partial annulment of
period, this revised duty rate applies to all imports from
the contested Regulation was that the Commission and
Pakistan. The revised duty rate should be applied retro
the Council should have taken account of the fact that
actively, i.e. from the date of entry into force of the
line 74 of the 2008 tax return of the company
contested Regulation. However, as provided for by
concerned had been revised.
Article 2 of that Regulation, the amounts secured by
way of provisional countervailing duty pursuant to Regu
lation (EU) No 473/2010 ( 2 ) on imports from Pakistan
can only be definitively collected at the rate of the
2. Comments of interested parties
definitive countervailing duty of EUR 35,39 per tonne,
imposed pursuant to the present amendment to Article 1
(9) Within
the
applicable
deadline
for
submitting
comments,
of the contested Regulation. The amounts secured in
the company concerned commented that following the
excess of the rate of the definitive countervailing duty
General Court judgment, the definitive countervailing
should be released. In addition, for the sake of trans
duty for imports into the Union of certain polyethylene
parency, it should be pointed out that Regulation (EU)
terephthalate originating in Pakistan should be reduced
No 473/2010 entered into force on the day following
by 1,02 %. Novatex further stated that the countervailing
that of its publication in the Official Journal of the
duty applicable to Novatex should be set at 4,1 % or EUR
European Union, namely on 2 June 2010 (and not on
35,39 per tonne as from 1 June 2010 (the alleged date
1 June 2010, as stated by Novatex).
of entry into force of the provisional duty).
(10) No
further
comments
of
any
substance
on
the
partial
re-
opening were received.
(15) Customs
authorities
should
be
instructed
to
proceed
with
the reimbursement of the amount of duties paid in
excess of the amount of EUR 35,39 per tonne for the
imports concerned, in compliance with the applicable
3. Analysis of comments
customs legislation.
(11) Having
analysed
the
above
comments,
it
is
confirmed
that the annulment of the contested Regulation with
( 2 ) Commission Regulation (EU) No 473/2010 of 31 May 2010
imposing a provisional countervailing duty on imports of certain
polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the
( 1 ) OJ C 138, 17.5.2013, p. 32–34.
United Arab Emirates (OJ L 134, 1.6.2010, p. 25-58).

---

EN
25.9.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
253/3
C. DISCLOSURE
‘Country
Definitive countervailing duty rate
(EUR/tonne)
(16) Interested
parties
were
informed
of
the
essential
facts
and
considerations on the basis of which it was intended to
Iran: all companies 139,70
implement the General Court judgment. All interested
parties were given an opportunity to comment within
Pakistan: all companies 35,39
the 10-day period prescribed in Article 30(5) of the
basic Regulation.
United Arab Emirates: all
42,34’
companies
(17) No
comments
of
substance
were
received.
2. The
revised
duty
rate
of
EUR
35,39
per
tonne
for
Pakistan
shall be applicable as from 30 September 2010.
D. AMENDMENT OF THE MEASURES
(18) In light of the results of the partial reopening, it is
considered appropriate to amend the countervailing
3. The
amounts
of
duties
paid
or
entered
into
the
accounts
duty applicable to imports of certain polyethylene tereph
pursuant to Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No
thalate having a viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher,
857/2010 in its initial version and the amounts of provisional
according to the ISO Standard 1628-5, originating in
duties definitively collected pursuant to Article 2 of the same
Pakistan to EUR 35,39 per tonne.
Regulation in its initial version, which exceed those as estab
lished on the basis of Article 1 of this Regulation, shall be
repaid or remitted. Repayment and remission shall be
(19) This
procedure
does
not
affect
the
date
on
which
the
requested from national customs authorities in accordance
measures imposed by the contested Regulation will
with the applicable customs legislation. Unless otherwise spec
expire, namely 30 September 2015,
ified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall
apply.
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Article 2
1. The
table
in
Article
1(2)
of
Implementing
Regulation
(EU)
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that
No 857/2010 is replaced by the following:
of its 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, 23 September 2013.
For the Council
The President
V. JUKNA

---

Document Outline

• �

---