Council Regulation (EC) No 1515/2006 of 10 October 2006 repealing the anti-dumping duty on imports of synthetic staple fibres of polyesters originating in Australia, India, Indonesia and Thailand and terminating the proceedings in respect of such imports, following expiry reviews pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96, and terminating the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of such imports originating in Thailand

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Articles 11(2) and 11(3) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

(1) In July 2000, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1522/2000 (2), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of synthetic staple fibres of polyesters (polyester staple fibres or PSF) originating in Australia, Indonesia and Thailand. The investigation that led to these measures will be referred to as ‘the original investigation 1’.

(2) In December 2000, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 2852/2000 (3), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of PSF originating in India and the Republic of Korea. The investigation that led to these measures will be referred to as ‘the original investigation 2’.

(3) The measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 2852/2000 consisted of an ad valorem duty, except for imports from one Indian exporting producer from which an undertaking was accepted by Commission Decision 2000/818/EC (4). Following an interim review covering both dumping and injury, the measures on imports originating in the Republic of Korea have been amended and renewed for five years by Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2005 (5).

(4) Following the publication of two notices of impending expiry, one concerning the anti-dumping measures in force on imports of PSF originating in Australia, Indonesia and Thailand (6) and another regarding the anti-dumping measures in force on imports of PSF originating in India (7), the Commission, on 13 April 2005 and 23 September 2005, received requests to review these measures pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

(5) These requests were lodged by the Comité International de la Rayonne et des Fibres Synthétiques (CIRFS) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the total Community production of PSF. The requests were based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a recurrence of dumping and injury to the Community industry.

(6) Furthermore, a request for a partial interim review of Regulation (EC) No 1522/2000 was received from Tuntex (Thailand) Public Company Limited (Tuntex), a producer of PSF in Thailand subject to the anti-dumping measures in force.

(7) In the request pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, Tuntex provided prima facie evidence to support its claims that, as far as it is concerned, the circumstances on the basis of which measures were established have changed and that these changes are of a lasting nature. Tuntex provided evidence showing that a comparison of normal value based on its own cost/domestic prices and its export prices to a third country market would lead to a reduction of dumping significantly below the level of the current measure (27,7 %). Therefore, Tuntex claimed that the continued imposition of measures at the existing levels, which were based on the level of dumping previously established, was no longer necessary to offset dumping.

(8) Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of two reviews pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation and one review, limited in scope to the examination of dumping, pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, the Commission initiated these three reviews by notices published in the Official Journal of the European Union (8).

(9) The Commission officially advised the producers in Australia, India, Indonesia and Thailand, importers, users and their associations in the Community known to be concerned, the representatives of the exporting countries concerned, CIRFS and known Community producers of the initiation of the expiry reviews. 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 notices of initiation.

(10) The Commission officially advised Tuntex, as well as the representatives of the exporting country, of the initiation of the partial interim review. Interested parties were also given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.

(11) In view of the large number of Indian, Indonesian and Thai producers as well as Community producers listed in the requests for the expiry reviews, and the large number of Community importers of PSF known to be concerned, it was considered appropriate, in conformity with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, to examine whether sampling should be used. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the above parties were requested, pursuant to Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, to make themselves known within 15 days of the initiation of the reviews and to provide the Commission with the information requested in the notices of initiation.

(12) After examination of the information submitted and given the low number of cooperating producers in India, Indonesia and Thailand which indicated their willingness to cooperate, it was decided that sampling was not necessary as regards producers in these countries.

(13) No importer provided the Commission with the information requested in the notices of initiation and, therefore, sampling for importers was not necessary. In fact, no importer cooperated in the reviews.

(14) Ten Community producers completed the sampling form and formally agreed to cooperate further in the investigation. Five out of these ten companies, which were found to be representative of the Community industry in terms of volume of production and sales of PSF in the Community, were selected for the sample. This sample constituted the largest representative volume of production and sales of PSF in the Community which could reasonably be investigated within the time available.

(15) Questionnaires were, therefore, sent to the five sampled Community producers, to the producers in Australia and to those which cooperated with the sampling exercise for their country and to known users. The five non-sampled Community producers were requested to provide information on certain injury indicators and to comment on the impact of the repeal or maintenance of the anti-dumping measures.

(16) Replies to the questionnaires were received from four out of five sampled Community producers (so the sample represented 38 % of production and sales in the Community), one producer in Australia, three producers in India, four producers in Indonesia, four producers in Thailand (two of them related) and eight users. Two associations of users made submissions. Furthermore, four out of five non-sampled Community producers provided the information requested (so the cooperating producers represented 60 % of production in the Community).

(18) As regards the expiry reviews, the investigation on the continuation and/or recurrence of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005 (review investigation period or RIP). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of a likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2002 up to the end of the RIP (period considered). The investigation period used in the partial interim review for the investigation of dumping is the same as the RIP used in the expiry reviews.

(19) The definition of the product concerned corresponds to the one that was used in the original investigations mentioned in recitals 1 and 2.

(20) The product concerned is synthetic staple fibres of polyesters, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning originating in Australia, India, Indonesia and Thailand, currently classifiable within CN code 5503 20 00 . It is commonly referred to as polyester staple fibres or PSF.

(21) PSF is a basic material used at various stages of the manufacturing process of textile products. PSF is either used for spinning, i.e. manufacturing filaments for the production of textiles, after mixing or not with other fibres such as cotton and wool, or for non-woven applications such as filling, i.e. stuffing or padding of certain textile goods such as cushions, car seats and jackets.

(22) The product is sold in different product types which can be identified through different specifications such as denier or decitex, tenacity, lustre and silicon treatment. From a production point of view, a distinction can be made between virgin PSF, produced from virgin raw materials, and regenerated PSF, produced from recycled polyester. Finally, the quality may be first grade or sub-standard.

(23) The investigation has shown that all types of the product concerned as defined in recital 20, despite differences in a variety of factors as defined in the preceding recital, have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and the same uses. Therefore, and for the purpose of the current reviews, all types of the product concerned are considered as one product.

(24) The current reviews have shown that the product concerned and the PSF produced and sold on the domestic markets of the countries concerned as well as the PSF manufactured and sold in the Community by the Community producers have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and the same uses. Therefore, these products are considered to be a like product within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

(25) Concerning the expiry reviews, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether dumping was currently taking place and whether the expiry of the measures would be likely to lead to a continuation or a recurrence of dumping.

(26) During the RIP, exports to the Community of PSF originating in Australia, India, Indonesia and Thailand (the countries concerned) were negligible. According to Eurostat, imports from the countries concerned amounted to only 1 056 tonnes during the RIP (0,1 % of Community consumption), whilst they were more than 69 000 tonnes during the investigation periods of the original investigations.

(27) All cooperating producers had no or negligible export sales of PSF to the Community in the RIP and, thus, no representative dumping calculations could be made in order to determine the likelihood of continuation of dumping.

(28) Consequently, for the likelihood of recurrence of dumping analysis account was taken, amongst others, of prices for exports to other third countries.

(29) Given the findings of the expiry reviews set out below, it was not considered necessary to pursue the interim review requested by Tuntex.

Preliminary remarks

(30) The sole producer of PSF in Australia has stopped exporting PSF to all markets, including the Community, in 2003. The company has invested in a new flexible production line allegedly in order to cover only a regional part of the Australian PSF market; mainly the market of the State of Victoria where it is located.

Relationship between the domestic price level and the price level in the Community

(31) Since there were no exports to any country during the RIP, the domestic prices in Australia, which were found to be loss making but above variable cost, were compared and found significantly lower than the average price of the Community producers in the RIP. This is an indication that the company might have an incentive to resume some exports to the Community should measures be repealed. However, as set out in recital 32, the company has no capacity to resume any significant volume of exports to the Community.

Unused capacity and stocks

(32) Although the capacity utilisation of the Australian producer was not very high in the RIP, the available spare capacity is a small fraction of the Community consumption (significantly less than 0,5 %). Even if all this spare capacity were sold at dumped prices to the Community following the repeal of the measures in force, the effect on the Community market would be minimal. Stocks is not a meaningful indicator as regards PSF produced in Australia because the product is mainly sold on client order basis.

(33) Finally, it is recalled that the company has not exported to any third country PSF since 2003, irrespective of the existence of similar spare capacity during this period. Consequently, it is concluded that there is no likelihood of recurrence of dumped exports in significant volumes from Australia to the Community should the existing measures be repealed.

Preliminary remarks

(34) Three Indian PSF producers cooperated in the investigation. Two of them had some minor export sales to the Community in the RIP; the third had no exports to the Community. It is noted that one of these cooperating producers had three related companies producing PSF in India. However, these related producers were not investigated separately, since only one of them made some — very limited — direct sales of PSF in the RIP, all on the domestic market.

(35) It is known that there was at least one small PSF producer in India in the RIP, which did not cooperate in the investigation. For those non-cooperating producer(s), the information available from Eurostat and other sources was analysed. On that basis, it was found that the Indian exports of PSF to the Community from other than the cooperating Indian producers were also negligible in the RIP. However, no reliable information as to the production capacity and volumes, stocks and sales was available for the non-cooperating company/companies. In this respect, and in the absence of any indication to the contrary, it was considered that findings for any non-cooperating companies would be in line with those established for cooperating companies.

(36) Since there were no sufficient exports to the Community for a representative dumping analysis in the RIP and in order to establish whether dumping would be likely to recur should the measures be repealed, the pricing behaviour of the cooperating producers on other export markets and their production capacity and stocks were examined. The analysis was based on the information provided by the cooperating producers mentioned in recital 17.

Relationship between export prices to third countries and the price level in India

(37) Data from the three Indian cooperating producers showed that export prices to third countries were lower than domestic prices in India. In fact, the investigation established that overall this price difference ranged in the RIP between 15 % and 27 %. This may indicate a likelihood of recurrence of dumping on exports to the Community should measures be repealed.

Relationship between export prices to third countries and the price level in the Community

(38) It was found that the sales prices of the Community producers in the Community were on average considerably higher than the export prices of the cooperating Indian producers to other third countries in the RIP. This may indicate that the prevailing price level for the product concerned in the Community market could make this market attractive for the Indian producers. On this basis, it was considered that there is an economic incentive to shift exports from other third countries to the higher priced Community market in case of repeal of the measures in force. However, since prices in the Community are considerably higher than export prices to other third countries, it is unlikely that any exports to the Community would be made at dumped prices should measures be repealed.

Unused capacity and stocks

(39) There were no significant spare capacities in the three cooperating companies in India during the RIP. However, two of these major producers were already implementing significant investments into their PSF production, which will result in an aggregated increase of their production capacity by 361 000 tonnes per annum in the year 2007. These investments were said to be based on developments on the Indian PSF market, which they allege is expected to grow sharply this year and in the near future. According to the information available, the Indian PSF market size is currently about 610 000 tonnes per annum. It is noted that the above production capacity increase represents more than 50 % of the total production capacity of the three cooperating Indian producers in the RIP. It is also noted that, according to the information available, there was at least one new PSF producer in India in the start-up phase of production for this product at the time of the investigation. On the other hand, the biggest Indian producer acquired recently a Community producer which is non-cooperating with the investigation. Thus, this Indian exporter may have no interest to export to the Community significant quantities of PSF in the future. Moreover, data from the cooperating producers show that their domestic sales have been increasing during the period considered and that they will continue increasing in the future. Thus, the new capacities will meet the rising domestic demand although it cannot be excluded that there might be at times some excess capacity.

(40) Stock levels for the three Indian producers did not show any significant change in the period considered. It is, however, noted that stocks can not be considered a meaningful indicator in the case of India because the production of one of the cooperating producers is based on orders from customers and another cooperating producer manufactures significant quantities of PSF for captive use.

(41) Overall, it is considered that there is no likelihood of resumption of exports to the Community in significant quantities and that, even if a part of the new production capacities in India would end up in the Community should measures be repealed, it is unlikely that such exports would be made at dumped prices (see recital 38).

Preliminary remarks

(42) Four Indonesian PSF producers cooperated in the investigation. None of these producers had related companies producing PSF in Indonesia. Three of them had some minor export sales to the Community in the RIP; the fourth had no exports to the Community.

(43) It is known that there were at least five active PSF producers in Indonesia during the RIP, which did not cooperate in the investigation. For those non-cooperating producers, the information available from Eurostat and other sources was analysed. On that basis, it was found that the Indonesian exports of PSF to the Community from other than the cooperating Indonesian producers were also negligible in the RIP. No reliable information as to the production capacity and volumes, stocks and sales was available for these non-cooperating companies. In this respect, and in the absence of any indication to the contrary, it was considered that findings for any non-cooperating companies would be in line with those established for cooperating companies. The examination of whether it would be likely that dumping recurs should the measures be repealed was therefore based on the information available, i.e. the information provided by the cooperating producers mentioned in recital 17.