HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
20.1.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
15/17
COMMISSION DECISION
of 19 January 2011
terminating the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of purified terephthalic acid and its
salts originating in Thailand
(2011/31/EU)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
mutually agreed solution. The Government of Thailand
accepted the offer of consultations and consultations
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
were subsequently held. During the consultations, no
Union,
mutually agreed solution could be arrived at. However,
due note was taken of comments made by the authorities
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of
of Thailand in regard to the allegations contained in the
11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from
complaint regarding the lack of countervailability of the
countries not members of the European Community ( 1 ) (‘the
schemes. During the consultations, submissions were
basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 14 thereof,
received from the Government of Thailand.
After consulting the Advisory Committee,
1.2. Parties concerned by the proceeding
Whereas:
(5) The
Commission
officially
advised
the
complainants,
other known producers in the Union, the known
1.
exporting producers in Thailand, the representatives of
PROCEDURE
the exporting country concerned and known importers
1.1. Initiation
and users of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested
parties were given the opportunity to make their views
(1) On
22
December
2009,
the
European
Commission
(the
known in writing and to request a hearing within the
‘Commission’) announced by a notice published in the
time limit set out in the Notice of initiation. All
Official Journal of the European Union ( 2 ) (‘Notice of
interested parties who so requested and showed that
initiation’), the initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding
there were particular reasons why they should be heard
concerning imports into the Union of purified tereph
were granted a hearing.
thalic acid and its salts (‘PTA’) originating in Thailand
(‘the country concerned’).
(6) The
Commission
sent
questionnaires
to
the
authorities
of
the exporting country, the complainants, other known
(2) The
anti-subsidy
proceeding
was
initiated
following
a
producers in the Union, the known exporting
complaint lodged on 13 November 2009 by BP
producers in Thailand and to the known importers and
Aromatics Limited NV and CEPSA Quimica S.A. (‘the
users of product concerned and to all other parties that
complainants’) representing a major proportion, in this
requested a questionnaire within the deadlines set out in
case more than 50 %, of the total Union production of
the Notice of initiation.
PTA. The complaint contained prima facie evidence of
subsidisation of the product concerned originating in
(7) Questionnaire
replies
were
received
from
the
authorities
the country concerned and of material injury resulting
of Thailand, from the three known Thai exporting
therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the
producers, from three Union producers, from one
opening of a proceeding.
Union importer, and from five Union users.
(3)
On the same day, the Commission announced, by a
(8) The
Commission
sought
and
verified
all
the
information
notice published in the Official Journal of the European
deemed necessary for the determination of subsidisation,
Union ( 3 ), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding
resulting injury and Union interest.
with regard to imports into the Union of PTA originating
in Thailand. This investigation has been terminated by
(9) Verification
visits
were
carried
out
at
the
premises
of
the
means of Commission Decision 2011/32/EU ( 4 ).
following State authorities:
(4) Prior to the initiation of the proceeding and in
Office of Board of Investment, Bangkok, Thailand.
accordance with Article 10(7) of the basic Regulation,
the Commission notified the Government of Thailand
(10) Verification
visits
were
carried
out
at
the
premises
of
the
that it had received a properly documented complaint
following companies:
alleging that subsidised imports of PTA originating in
Thailand were causing material injury to the Union
(a) Union producers:
industry. The Government of Thailand was invited for
consultations with the aim of clarifying the situation as
regards the contents of the complaint and arriving at a
— BP Aromatics Limited NV, Geel, Belgium,
— CEPSA Química, S.A., Madrid, Spain,
( 1 ) OJ L 188, 18.7.2009, p. 93.
( 2 ) OJ C 313, 22.12.2009, p. 22.
( 3 ) OJ C 313, 22.12.2009, p. 17.
— Lotte Chemical UK Ltd (formerly Artenius),
( 4 ) See page 22 of this Official Journal.
Wilton, Redcar, United Kingdom;

---

L 15/18
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
20.1.2011
(b) Union importers:
characteristics and uses. They are therefore considered to
be alike within the meaning of Article 2(c) of the basic
— Mitsui & Co. Benelux NV, Brussels, Belgium;
Regulation.
(c) Union users:
3. SUBSIDISATION
3.1. Introduction
— DSM Powder Coating Resins B.V., Zwolle,
Netherlands,
(16) On the basis of the information contained in the
complaint and the replies to the Commission’s ques
tionnaire, the following schemes, which allegedly
— M&G Polimeri Italia SPA, Patrica (Frosinone),
involved the granting of subsidies by a Governmental
Italy,
authority, were investigated:
— NOVAPET S.A., Barbastro (Huesca), Spain,
— exemption or reduction on duties on imports of
machinery,
— UAB NEO Group, Klaipeda, Lithuania;
— exemption from corporate income tax,
(d) Exporting producers in Thailand:
— exemption of import duties on raw and essential
— TPT Petrochemicals Public Company Ltd,
materials used in the manufacturing of export
Bangkok, Thailand (hereinafter ‘TPT’),
products,
— TPT Petrochemicals Public Company Ltd, Rayong,
— double deduction from taxable income of transpor
Thailand (hereinafter ‘TPT’),
tation, electricity and water costs for 10 years from
the date of first revenue derived from the promoted
— Indorama Petrochem Ltd, Rayong, Thailand (here
activity,
inafter ‘Indorama’),
— deduction from net profit of 25 % of the project’s
— Siam Mitsui PTA Company Ltd, Rayong, Thailand
infrastructure installation or construction costs in
(hereinafter ‘SMPC’).
addition to normal depreciation,
(11) Given
that
both
TPT
and
Indorama
are
owned
by
the
— tax and duty compensation of the exported goods
same holding company, they will be referred to in this
produced in Thailand.
document as the ‘Indorama group’.
3.2. General
1.3. Investigation period and period considered
(17) Investment
Promotion
Act
B.E.
2544
(‘IPA’)
provides
(12) The
investigation
of
subsidisation
and
injury
covered
the
incentives to promote development of the Thai
period from 1 December 2008 to 30 November 2009
economy. The IPA, which is administered by the Board
(the ‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of
of Investment of Thailand (‘BOI’), grants the benefits
trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the
resulting from the schemes mentioned in section 3.1.
period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the investi
above with respect to the qualifying projects. In order
gation period (‘the period considered’).
to receive IPA benefits, each company makes an appli
cation to the BOI for a ‘Certificate of promotion’, which
specifies the goods to be produced and benefits granted.
2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
2.1. Product concerned
(18) Tax and Duty Compensation of Exported Goods
Produced in the Kingdom Act B.E.2524 (1981) prescribes
(13) The
product
concerned
is
terephthalic
acid
and
its
salts
of
the criteria and conditions for the participation in tax
a purity by weight of 99,5 % or more, currently falling
and duty compensation of exported merchandise
within CN code ex 2917 36 00 (‘the product concerned’).
scheme. This scheme is administered by the Thai
Ministry of Finance.
(14) PTA is obtained by the purification of crude terephthalic
acid, which is a result of making paraxylene (PX) react
(19) The
sum
of
all
calculated
subsidies
for
each
individual
with a solvent and a catalyst solution.
company is under the de minimis threshold, i.e. less than
2 % ad valorem. Therefore, in accordance with
2.2. Like product
Article 14(3) and 14(5) of the basic anti-subsidy Regu
lation, even if all the subsidies in question were counter
(15) The product concerned and the PTA produced and sold
vailable, no anti-subsidy duties could be imposed on the
on the domestic market of Thailand, as well as the PTA
Thai exporters. Because of the de minimis subsidisation
produced and sold in the Union by the Union industry
the specificity of the subsidy schemes mentioned in
were found to have the same basic physical and chemical
recital 16 was not examined.

---

EN
20.1.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
15/19
(20) However, for the purpose of clarity, details of the
(b) C o n c l u s i o n
schemes and the corresponding subsidy rates for indi
vidual companies are set out below, without prejudice
(26) None
of
the
investigated
companies
benefited
from
this
to whether or not the subsidies are considered to be
scheme during the investigation period. All of the Thai
countervailable.
exporting producers offset the profits generated during
the investigation period against losses they were carrying
forward from previous accounting periods. This practice
3.3. Individual Schemes
is allowed by the Thai Revenue Code for all companies,
3.3.1. Exemption or reduction on duties on imports of
both promoted by BOI and non-promoted by BOI, and
machinery
does not constitute a subsidy. Due to this fact inves
tigated companies did not use the corporate income
(a) L e g a l B a s i s
tax exemption scheme.
(21) Article 28 of the IPA provides the legal basis for an
exemption from duties on machinery imports. Under
this scheme companies are entitled to the full
exemption from payment of import duty on machinery
3.3.3. Double deduction from taxable income of transpor
as approved by the BOI, providing that no such
tation, electricity and water costs for 10 years from
machinery comparable in quality is being produced or
the date of first revenue derived from the promoted
assembled within Thailand. Article 29 of IPA provides
activity
the legal basis for the 50 % reduction on import duties
(a) L e g a l B a s i s
on imported machinery.

(27) Article 35(2) of the IPA provides the legal basis for the
(b) P r a c t i c a l i m p l e m e n t a t i o n
double deduction from taxable income of transportation,
electricity and water costs for 10 years from the date of
(22) In
order
to
benefit
from
this
scheme,
the
company
must
first revenue derived from the promoted activity.
posses a Certificate of promotion which specifies that it
is entitled to an exemption or reduction on duties on
imports of machinery pursuant to Articles 28 and 29 of
the IPA. The Customs Department will receive a copy of
the licence and the so-called ‘Master list of Machinery’,
(b) P r a c t i c a l i m p l e m e n t a t i o n
previously approved by the BOI, and will, on importation
of the machinery, release this machinery without import
(28) In
order
to
benefit
from
this
scheme,
the
company
must
duty being paid.
posses a Certificate of promotion which specifies that it
is entitled to double deduction from taxable income of
transportation, electricity, and water costs pursuant to
(c) C a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e s u b s i d y a m o u n t
Article 35(2) of the IPA. In addition to the usual
deduction of the abovementioned costs, the BOI-
(23) The benefit to the exporters was calculated on the basis
promoted companies are allowed to deduct the same
of the amount of unpaid customs duty due on imported
amount a second time from their profit on the tax
capital goods, by spreading this amount across a period
return certificate. The company must fill out a special
which reflects the normal depreciation of such capital
column in its annual tax return designated for the
goods in the industry of the product concerned. This
promoted activity. Consequently the taxable net profit
period has been established to be 15 years, which is in
is decreased by this amount; or the net loss is
line with the depreciation periods used by the majority of
increased by this amount.
the companies producing product concerned, both in
Thailand and in the EU. The amount so calculated
which is attributable to the investigation period has
been adjusted by adding interest during the investigation
period, in order to establish the full benefit to the
(c) C a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e s u b s i d y a m o u n t
recipient under this scheme, the commercial interest
rate in Thailand during the investigation period being
(29) The
benefit
of
this
scheme
should
be
calculated
on
the
considered appropriate. This amount has then been
basis of the amount deducted a second time from the net
allocated over total sales during the investigation period.
profit as recorded on the tax return in the special column
for promoted activities. For non-promoted activities this
amount would be part of the net profit liable for
(d) C o n c l u s i o n
corporate income tax, therefore 30 % of this amount
(normal corporate tax rate in Thailand) forms the
(24) Indorama
Group
received
a
benefit
of
0,3
%,
and
Siam
Mitsui PTA Co., Ltd received a benefit of 0,19 %.
benefit for the companies. This amount has then been
allocated over total sales during the investigation period.
3.3.2. Exemption from corporate income tax
(a) L e g a l B a s i s
(d) C o n c l u s i o n
(25) Article
31 of the IPA provides the legal basis for
corporate income tax exemption. Normal corporate
(30) Indorama
Group
received
a
benefit
of
0,55
%,
and
Siam
income tax in Thailand is 30 %.
Mitsui PTA Co., Ltd received a benefit of 0,57 %.

---

L 15/20
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
20.1.2011
3.3.4. Deduction from net profit of 25 % of the project’s
(c) C a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e s u b s i d y a m o u n t
infrastructure, installation or construction costs in
addition to normal depreciation
(37) The benefit for this scheme is the actual amount received
as a refund and consequently recorded in companies’
(a) L e g a l B a s i s
accounts as income. This amount has then been
allocated over export sales during the investigation
(31) Article 35(3) of the IPA provides the legal basis for this
period.
scheme. The scheme involves a permission to deduct
from the net profit, in addition to normal depreciation,
an amount not exceeding 25 % of the project’s cost of
(d) C o n c l u s i o n
installation or construction of facilities used in the
promoted activity. The beneficiary should avail himself
(38) Indorama
Group
received
a
benefit
of
0,36
%
and
Siam
of the benefit within 10 years from the date the
Mitsui PTA Co., Ltd also received a benefit of 0,36 %.
income is derived from the promoted activity.
3.4. Amount of subsidies
(b) C o n c l u s i o n
(39) The
provisional
amounts
of
subsidies
in
accordance
with
(32) None
of
the
investigated
companies
benefited
from
this
the provisions of the basic Regulation, expressed ad
scheme during the investigation period. In the periods
valorem, for the Thai exporting producers are:
before the investigation period all of the exporting
producers either did not benefit from the income tax
exemption scheme (since they were netting of profits
— Indorama Petrochem Limited: 1,3 %,
against cumulated losses from the past) or were
making losses. For theses reasons they could not obtain
benefits from this scheme.
— TPT Petrochemical Public Company Limited: 1 %,
3.3.5. Exemption of import duties on raw and essential
— Siam Mitsui PTA Co., Ltd: 1,1 %.
materials used in the manufacturing of export products
(a) L e g a l B a s i s
(40) Due
to
the
fact
that
Indorama
Petrochem
Limited
and
TPT Petrochemical Public Company Limited are part of
(33) Article 36(1) of the IPA provides the legal basis for this
the same group, a common anti-subsidy duty rate was
scheme. Under this scheme the BOI is authorised to grant
established for them. The final rate for Indorama/TPT
the exemption of import duties on raw materials and
group is 1,2 %.
essential materials used in the manufacture of goods
for export. Companies in any zone are eligible for this
scheme provided that they are promoted.
Summary table
(b) C o n c l u s i o n
Import duty
exemption or
Double
Export Tax
Total
reduction on deduction from compensation subsidy
(34) None
of
the
investigated
companies
benefited
from
this
machinery
taxable income
Scheme
margin
scheme during the investigation period. The import duty
Scheme
Scheme
on the main raw materials used in production of PTA is
zero. Therefore there was no benefit from this scheme
Siam
0,19 % 0,57
% 0,36
% 1,1
%
for the investigated Thai exporters.
Mitsui
Indorama 0,18
% 0,78
% 0,35
% 1,3
%
3.3.6. Tax and duty compensation of the exported goods
produced in Thailand
TPT 0,47
% 0,23
% 0,36
% 1
%
(a) L e g a l B a s i s
Indorama/
0,3 % 0,55
% 0,36
% 1,2
%
TPT Group
(35) ‘Notification of the Compensation of Tax of Export
Merchandise Produced in the Kingdom 1/2547 – Rate
of Compensation’ provides for the benefit from this
scheme.
(41) In
view
of
the de minimis amounts of countervailable
subsidies for the Thai exporting producers, provisional
measures on imports of PTA originating in Thailand
(b) P r a c t i c a l i m p l e m e n t a t i o n
should not be imposed.
(36) Companies receive refund in the value of 0,38 % of the
FOB value of exported goods. The benefit is calculated
4. INJURY, CAUSATION AND UNION INTEREST
per export transaction, but companies usually submit
several applications for refund at the same time. The
(42) In
view
of
the
above
findings
with
respect
to
subsidies
it
companies submit applications for refunds to the
is not considered necessary to present any analysis on
relevant authority and receive the refund.
injury, causation and Union interest.

---

EN
20.1.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
15/21
5. TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING
(47) As
far
as
injury
aspects
are
concerned
no
representations
were submitted by any interested party.
(43) The
proceeding
should
therefore
be
terminated
as
the
amounts of countervailable subsidies for the Thai
exporting producers are less than 2 % ad valorem.
(48) In
conclusion,
no
comments
from
any
interested
party
Interested parties were informed accordingly and were
undermine the findings that protective measures are
given the opportunity to comment.
unnecessary.
(44) With
respect
to
subsidy
aspects
comments
were
received
(49) In
light
of
all
the
above,
the
Commission
therefore
from the Government of Thailand (‘GOT’) and one of the
concludes that the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning
complainants.
imports into the Union of purified terephthalic acid

and its salts originating in Thailand should be terminated
without the imposition of anti-subsidy measures,
(45) The
GOT
argued
that
the
schemes
investigated
cannot
be
considered as specific subsidy schemes since they form
part of the country’s decentralisation policy, they are not
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
export contingent and do not limit access to certain
business sectors or regions. In this respect it is noted
Sole Article
that the investigation has established clearly that the
investigated schemes that the exporting producers used
The anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of terephthalic
during the IP (import duty exemption on machinery,
acid and its salts of a purity by weight of 99,5 % or more,
double deduction from taxable income, and export tax
currently falling within CN code ex 2917 36 00, originating in
compensation) are countervailable subsidies in line with
Thailand, is hereby terminated.
the provisions of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.
Therefore, the claims of the GOT have to be rejected.
Done at Brussels, 19 January 2011.
(46) One
of
the
complainants
argued
that
some
subsidies,
in
particular the income tax exemption scheme, should have
For the Commission
been spread on a shorter period. This had to be rejected
because none of the exporting producers benefited from
The President
this scheme during the IP.
José Manuel BARROSO

---