Council Regulation (EC) No 192/2007 of 22 February 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Thailand and Taiwan following an expiry review and a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(2) and Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96
- (158) With regard to imports of the two cooperating Korean companies, the investigation has shown either de minimis or no dumping. Therefore, in accordance with Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation, those imports concerned could not be cumulatively assessed. However, it was found that the margin of dumping established in relation to the imports from India, Malaysia and Taiwan was above the de minimis level. Concerning imports from Indonesia and Thailand, the investigation has shown that the imports were not representative and therefore no dumping margin could be established. However, it was also concluded that should measures be allowed to lapse, there is a likelihood of recurrence of dumping. As regards the quantities exported by each of the six countries concerned it was considered that if the measures were repealed, imports from each of the countries concerned would be likely to increase to levels significantly above those reached in the RIP and would certainly exceed the negligibility threshold. As regards the condition of competition, the investigation has confirmed that PET chips imported from the countries concerned were alike in all their essential physical and technical characteristics. Moreover, these chips were interchangeable with those produced in the Community and they were marketed in the Community during the same period, through similar sales channels under similar commercial conditions. The imported PET chips were therefore considered to compete with each other and with the PET chips produced in the Community.
- (159) In the light of the above, it was considered that all the criteria set out in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation were met regarding imports from India, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Taiwan and the dumped imports from the Republic of Korea. The imports from the six countries concerned were therefore examined cumulatively with the exception of those non-dumped imports produced by the two cooperating Korean exporting producers.
Volume, market share and prices of imports
- (160) With respect to the six countries concerned, the import volumes, market shares and average prices developed as indicated below. The data are based on Eurostat statistics. In these figures, non-dumped Korean imports should in principle be taken out. For reasons of confidentiality, however, they have been deliberately included. The development of the trend would be however substantially the same if the data concerning the non-dumped Korean imports would be taken out.
- (161) Between 2002 and the RIP, imports from the countries concerned decreased by 13 %, i.e. from 192 000 tonnes in 2002 to 167 000 tonnes in the RIP. Compared to the year 2002, they remained unchanged in 2003 and decreased by 3 % in 2004, and by another 10 % in the RIP.
Table 2
| 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | RIP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Volume | 192 192 | 191 455 | 186 892 | 166 982 |
| Index | 100 | 100 | 97 | 87 |
| Market share | 9,4 % | 8,6 % | 8,4 % | 7,0 % |
| Prices (EUR/tonne) | 850 | 803 | 854 | 1 030 |
| Index | 100 | 94 | 100 | 121 |
ECONOMIC SITUATION OF THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRYPreliminary remarks
- (162) At the beginning of the review, sampling of the Community producers was foreseen but considering that their number was not excessive, it was decided to include all of them and consequently, injury factors have been assessed on the basis of information collected at the level of the entire Community industry.
- (163) Pursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Community industry.
Analysis of economic indicatorsProduction
- (164) The Community industry's production increased by 20 % between 2002 and the RIP, i.e. from a level of 1 465 000 tonnes in 2002 to 1 760 000 tonnes in the RIP. The yearly increase was 4,8 % in 2003 and 4,6 % in 2004. A further increase occurred in the RIP, when production soared by 150 000 tonnes, i.e. by 10,8 %. This was due to the restructuring process undertaken by the industry with the aim to better control the production costs and thereby take advantage of the growing consumption in the Community market which, as stated above, increased by 19 % between 2002 and the RIP (from 2 million tonnes in 2002 to 2,4 million tonnes in the RIP).
Table 3
| 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | RIP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Production (tonnes) | 1 464 522 | 1 534 480 | 1 602 086 | 1 760 828 |
| Index | 100 | 105 | 109 | 120 |
Capacity and capacity utilisation
- (165) Production capacity increased by 22 % between 2002 and the RIP, i.e. from a level of 1 760 000 tonnes in 2002 to 2 156 000 tonnes in the RIP. The increase occurred mainly in the RIP, when production capacity, compared to the year 2004, increased by 300 000 tonnes, i.e. 16,7 %. This significant increase of production capacity was parallel to the increase of production over the same period (see recital 164). The increase in production capacity resulted from additional investments in production lines designed to take advantage of the growing market. The capacity utilisation increased by four percentage points in 2003, remained on this level in 2004 and then decreased in the RIP by five percentage points to the level of 82 %. The decrease between 2004 and the RIP results from the significant increase of production capacity in that period. Consequently, a higher production volume in the RIP, when compared with 2004, coincided with a lower capacity utilisation rate.
Table 4
| 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | RIP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Production capacity (tonnes) | 1 760 332 | 1 762 378 | 1 848 315 | 2 156 294 |
| Index | 100 | 100 | 105 | 122 |
| Capacity utilisation | 83 % | 87 % | 87 % | 82 % |
| Index | 100 | 105 | 104 | 98 |
Sales and market share
- (166) The volume sold by the Community industry on the Community market increased by 21 % between 2002 and the RIP. A growth of 2 % in 2003 was followed by an increase in both 2004 and the RIP, by 8 and 11 percentage points respectively. Notwithstanding the increase of sales due to the higher consumption, the Community industry's market share fell by four percentage points in 2003 to then gradually rise by five percentage points in 2004 and one percentage point in the RIP.
Table 5
| 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | RIP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sales in the EC (tonnes) | 1 306 768 | 1 333 976 | 1 438 883 | 1 586 902 |
| Index | 100 | 102 | 110 | 121 |
| Market share | 64 % | 60 % | 65 % | 66 % |
Growth
- (167) Overall, it has to be noted that the Community industry's market share increased by 2 % in the period considered, which shows that its growth lagged behind the growth of consumption of the overall market.
Employment
- (168) The level of employment of the Community industry increased by 18 % in the period considered. The main increase occurred in 2003 (11 percentage points) and 2004 (further six percentage points). Although this rising tendency continued in the RIP, the increase amounted to only two percentage points. This increase of 18 % during the whole period is linked to the production level which increased by 20 %.
Table 6
| 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | RIP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Employees | 1 010 | 1 124 | 1 170 | 1 190 |
| Index | 100 | 111 | 116 | 118 |
Productivity
- (169) The Community industry's productivity, measured as the output in tonnes per person employed per year, had an overall increase during the period considered. Productivity initially fell by 6 % in 2003 compared to the year 2002 and remained at this level in 2004 but productivity in the RIP then increased significantly by more than 8 % compared to 2004.
Table 7
| 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | RIP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Productivity (tonne/employee) | 1 450 | 1 365 | 1 369 | 1 480 |
| Index | 100 | 94 | 94 | 102 |
Wages
- (170) It has to be noted that PET chips production is a capital intensive industry and that therefore labour costs have a limited impact on the overall cost of the product. During the period, wages increased by 12 %, compared to a 20 % increase of the overall production cost. Another significant indicator is the cost of wages spent per tonne produced. During the period, this cost decreased by 6 %.
Table 8
| 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | RIP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wages (EUR million) | 62,3 | 63,0 | 66,3 | 69,5 |
| Index | 100 | 101 | 106 | 112 |
| Wages per tonne produced (EUR) | 44,4 | 42,9 | 43,6 | 41,9 |
| Index | 100 | 96 | 98 | 94 |
Magnitude of the actual margin of dumping and recovery from the effects of past dumping
- (171) As concerns the impact on the Community industry of the magnitude of the actual margin of dumping, given the volume and the prices of the imports from the countries concerned, this impact cannot be considered to be negligible.
Sales prices and factors affecting Community prices
- (172) The unit sales prices increased from EUR 924/tonne in 2002 to EUR 1 058/tonne in the RIP. Overall, the tendency was rising (by 15 % in the whole period). This increase is to a large extent a consequence of the increase in the price of raw materials, which is due to the increase in the oil price. Although the Community industry had increased prices it was not in the position to pass the increase on to the downstream sector and fully reflect the increase of raw materials prices in its sales prices. This was principally due to the fact that the increase in the price of raw materials was higher than the increase of PET prices. In addition, the Community industry had to face the pressure from imports. With the aim to maintain its market share, the Community industry could only moderately increase its prices and thus experienced price suppression.
Table 9
| 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | RIP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weighted average price (EUR/tonne) | 924 | 902 | 1 006 | 1 058 |
| Index | 100 | 98 | 109 | 115 |
Cost of production of the main raw materials
- (173) Bearing in mind that around 850 kg of purified terephthalic acid (PTA) and 350 kg of mono ethylene glycol (MEG) (the main raw materials) are needed to produce 1 tonne of PET, the costs of raw materials (PTA and MEG) increased significantly respectively by 67 % and by 31 % between 2002 and the RIP to reach the level of EUR 770/tonne (PTA) and EUR 721/tonne (MEG) (average of the RIP). Although a small decline in prices of PTA has been noted in the third quarter of 2005 when the prices dropped to the level of EUR 700/tonne, and a substantially stable price was observed for MEG, it has to be pointed out that the raw materials are purchased in advance based on long term contracts. As a result, for the period considered, despite the small decline in prices of PTA at the end of the RIP, the Community industry still bears the consequences of the heavily increased costs. In addition, due to the situation on the world oil market the prices of raw materials for the production of PET are susceptible of unpredictable changes but they are most likely to remain at a high level. All these factors contribute to an increased level of vulnerability of the Community PET producers.
Table 10
| Average cost (EUR/tonne) | Average cost (EUR/tonne) | Average cost (EUR/tonne) | Average cost (EUR/tonne) | Average cost (EUR/tonne) |
| 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | RIP | |
| — PTA | 460 | 566 | 718 | 770 |
| Index | 100 | 123 | 156 | 167 |
| — MEG | 551 | 550 | 650 | 721 |
| Index | 100 | 100 | 118 | 131 |
- (174) By comparison, the average unit cost per tonne of PET chips produced by the Community industry was the following:
Table 11
| 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | RIP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weighted average cost (EUR/tonne) | 899 | 918 | 1 013 | 1 092 |
| Index | 100 | 102 | 113 | 121 |
- (175) During the period considered, as indicated in tables 10 and 11, the main raw materials have continuously increased (PTA by 67 %, MEG by 31 %), while the overall cost of production raised only by 21 %. However, as shown in table 9 prices have only increased by 15 % due to the fact that the Community industry was not in a position to pass the increase on to the downstream sector and fully reflect the rise in the price of raw materials in its sales prices.
Stocks
- (176) The evolution of stocks over the whole period considered, i.e. between 2002 and the RIP is down by 10 %. However as in the original investigations, stocks should not be considered as a meaningful indicator as regards PET produced by the Community industry, given the seasonal nature of the PET market throughout the year. When compared to the production, stocks represent around 5/6 % of the output.
Table 12
| 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | RIP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stocks (tonnes) | 101 554 | 110 695 | 90 422 | 91 123 |
| Index | 100 | 109 | 89 | 90 |
Profitability, return on investments and cash flow
- (177) Profitability on sales represents the profit generated by sales of the product concerned in the Community. Return on total assets and cash flow could only be measured at the level of the narrowest group of products which included the like product, pursuant to Article 3(8) of the basic Regulation. Moreover, return on investments has been calculated on the basis of return on total assets, as return on total assets is considered more relevant for the analysis of the trend.
Table 13
| 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | RIP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-tax profit margin on sales in the Community | 2,7 % | –1,8 % | –0,7 % | –3,2 % |
| Return on total assets | 2,0 % | –1,4 % | –0,6 % | –2,4 % |
| Cash flow (% of total sales) | 18,1 % | 5,5 % | 10,1 % | –2,6 % |
- (178) Further to the price suppression starting in 2002 and coinciding with a strong increase of dumped imports from the countries concerned, the financial situation of the Community industry deteriorated and turned into losses in 2003. After a small recovery in 2004 due to the measures imposed on PRC and Australia, losses increased to – 3,2 % in the RIP. It is therefore noted that there is a clear downward trend.
- (179) The trends for return on total assets and for cash flow developed similarly i.e. showed a relatively good situation in 2002, a deterioration in 2003, a small recovery in 2004 and a further deterioration in the RIP.
Investments and ability to raise capital
Table 14
| 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | RIP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Investments (EUR 1 000) | 31 779 | 42 302 | 63 986 | 50 397 |
| Index | 100 | 133 | 201 | 159 |
- (180) The investments were partly dedicated to an increase of capacity and partly to the improvement of the production process. The bulk of the expenditure was made in 2004 and during the RIP, coinciding with the increase of the capacity and with the aim to maintain market share in view of the increased consumption. Nevertheless, the current situation of the Community industry and the evolution of the Community and world markets for PET marked out by lack of profitability were not an incentive to make excessive investments. Although in some circumstances Community producers have been able to raise capital (in particular from related companies), the lack of profitability of PET did not encourage investment and in some cases the decision was postponed.
Conclusion on the situation of the Community industry
- (181) The constant increase of consumption partly due to new applications (beer, wine inter alia) and partly due to the increase of consumption in the countries acceding to the EU in 2004, obliged the Community industry to increase capacity and production in order not to lose market share. To do so, an important restructuring process accompanied by a frequent change of the ownership of the different producers, took place in 2004 and during the RIP. In parallel, the number of production lines was generally increased in order to follow the increase of the consumption and to concurrently achieve economies of scale. Thus, some economic indicators, i.e. consumption, capacity production, production, EU sales, employment indeed followed a positive trend.
- (182) However, all those restructuring efforts described above could not counterbalance the impact of the constant and massive increase of raw material prices in the period considered. The higher raw material costs could not be passed on to the downstream sector to the extent it would have been necessary to maintain a certain level of profitability. This coincided with the low price level of the imports from the countries concerned which clearly exerted a significant downward pressure on the price of the Community industry. Thus, despite the apparent positive developments concerning production, sales and sales price, the overall financial situation of the Community industry deteriorated and is reflected in the negative developments of profitability (from 2,7 % profit in 2002 to 3,2 % losses in the RIP), of export sales, production cost, return on investments and cash flow.
- (183) Consequently, despite some apparent positive trends showed by the injury indicators, the situation of the Community industry is still far from the levels that could be expected had it fully recovered from the injury found in the original investigations.
- (184) It is therefore concluded that the situation of the Community industry has slightly improved, as compared to the period preceding the imposition of measures, but is still very fragile and vulnerable. Furthermore, the price pressure from imports did not allow the Community industry to fully reflect the increase of raw materials prices in its sales prices.
Imports from other countriesOther countries concerned by anti-dumping measures
- (185) As mentioned in recital 2, it is recalled that, since August 2004, there have also been definitive anti-dumping measures in force on imports of PET originating in Australia and the PRC.
- (186) During the period considered, the total volume of imports from these countries increased by 12 % (from 65 000 tonnes to 73 000 tonnes). Although there was a significant increase in the market share (by four percentage points) in the year 2003, this rising tendency was reversed in 2004 when the market share of imports decreased to the level of 2,4 %. In the RIP a slight increase of 0,6 % stemming from Chinese imports has been noted. The effect of the definitive anti-dumping duties is reflected as from 2004. Whereas imports from Australia ceased completely, the volume of imports from China increased steadily by 130 % in 2003, decreased in 2004 in coincidence with the measures and increased again by 47 % during the RIP. Australian prices decreased by 7 % in 2003 and by another 6 % in 2004. Chinese prices increased slowly in 2003 and 2004 and by 24 % in the RIP, i.e. from EUR 827 to EUR 1 022 per tonne. As a conclusion it is noted that significant imports from these two countries were made at prices constantly lower than the Community prices, thus contributing to the injury suffered by the Community industry.
Table 15
| 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | RIP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australia | Australia | Australia | Australia | Australia |
| Volume (tonnes) | 17 179 | 18 727 | 2 842 | — |
| Price (EUR/tonne) | 851 | 789 | 741 | — |
| Market share | 0,8 % | 0,8 % | 0,1 % | — |
| People's Republic of China | People's Republic of China | People's Republic of China | People's Republic of China | People's Republic of China |
| Volume (tonnes) | 47 875 | 131 343 | 49 678 | 72 814 |
| Price (EUR/tonne) | 804 | 806 | 827 | 1 022 |
| Market share | 2,3 % | 5,9 % | 2,2 % | 3 % |
| Total tonnes | 65 054 | 150 070 | 52 520 | 72 814 |
| Total market share | 3,1 % | 6,8 % | 2,4 % | 3 % |
Other third countries not mentioned above
- (187) In these figures, non-dumped Korean imports should in principle be included. For reasons of confidentiality they have been deliberately taken out. However the development of the trend would be substantially the same if the Korean non-dumped imports were to be included.
- (188) Between 2002 and the RIP, total imports of PET originating in other countries have increased by 136 %, to reach 174 000 tonnes. Their market share in the EU increased from 3,6 to 7,1 % in the period considered. The table below illustrates these trends.
Table 16
| 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | RIP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total volume (tonnes) of which: | 73 549 | 119 973 | 182 687 | 173 597 |
| Pakistan | 28 558 | 83 208 | 55 125 | 73 426 |
| USA | 20 570 | 16 105 | 49 763 | 50 393 |
| Mexico | 1 476 | 20 | 32 112 | 20 501 |
| Turkey | 7 208 | 17 001 | 24 032 | 15 374 |
| Others | 15 737 | 3 639 | 21 655 | 13 903 |
| Market share | 3,6 % | 5,4 % | 8,2 % | 7,1 % |
- (189) Imports from Pakistan rose by 157 % over the period considered, and in particular after the termination of the proceeding against them in 2004. Imports from the United States increased considerably, i.e. by 144 % to reach 50 000 tonnes in the RIP. Imports from Mexico passed from 1 500 tonnes in 2002 to 20 000 tonnes in the RIP, an increase of 1 390 %. As far as Turkey is concerned, its imports were rising significantly between 2002 and 2004 (by 244 %), to then decrease in the RIP by 36 %. Regarding the prices it is important to note, however, that the prices of the imports from the United States, Mexico and Turkey increased and were higher than prices of other imports and of those of the Community industry. Moreover, most likely, imports from USA are Pet G, a special variety of PET having higher viscosity requirements and sold on average at 50 % more than normal PET. Imports prices for Pakistan were lower than the average prices of the Community industry from 2002 to 2004. During the RIP, import prices from Pakistan increased at the level of the Community industry. Therefore, it is considered that these imports could not affect the situation of the Community market.
Export Activity of the Community Industry
- (190) The export activity of the Community industry showed a downward trend during the period considered, i.e. decreasing from 7,9 % to 4,9 % of the Community industry's total sales. Only in 2003, the Community industry's export performance increased considerably, probably due to low EU sales prices. However, during the RIP, they represent less than 5 % of the total sales. It should be noted that export prices were constantly above EC sales price.
Table 17
| 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | RIP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Export sales (tonnes) | 111 381 | 141 627 | 97 686 | 82 388 |
| Index | 100 | 127 | 87 | 74 |
| % of total sales | 7,9 % | 9,6 % | 6,3 % | 4,9 % |
| Price per tonne | 959 | 942 | 1 026 | 1 096 |
| Index | 100 | 98 | 107 | 114 |
CONCLUSION ON THE LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF INJURY
- (191) As concluded previously, the exporting producers in India, Indonesia, Thailand, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Malaysia have the potential to increase their export volumes to the Community market.
- (192) The cif export prices of PET originating in India, Thailand and Malaysia were higher than the prices of the Community industry. The difference, however, was not significant which leads to the conclusion that in the absence of anti-dumping duties these countries could exercise an even stronger price pressure on the Community industry. Moreover, the prices of Korean, Taiwanese and Indonesian imports into the Community were lower than the Community price. The difference was small for the Republic of Korea and Taiwan (3 to 4 %) and significant in the case of Indonesia (amounting to 27 %). Therefore there is a clear indication for a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury.
- (193) As indicated above, the situation of the Community industry has also been considerably affected by the imports from the PRC. The prices of those imports were below the Community price (EUR 1 022/tonne as compared to 1 058 in the Community). In addition, in terms of volume, the imports from the PRC amounted to 73 000 tonnes, representing a market share of 3 % in the RIP.
- (194) Furthermore, in terms of volumes of imports from the countries concerned, it can be concluded that there is likelihood that those quantities will significantly increase due to the overall production capacity and spare capacity available in the countries concerned as further detailed in recital 199.
- (195) On the basis of the foregoing, it is concluded that the import prices would most likely be lower on the Community market in the absence of anti-dumping measures, as the producers in these countries would possibly try to regain lost market shares or to increase their current market shares. Such price behaviour, coupled with the ability of the exporting producers in these countries to sell significant quantities of PET on the Community market, would in all likelihood have the effect of reinforcing the price pressure, with an expected further negative impact on the situation of the Community industry.
- (196) In this context, it should be recalled that in all the six countries concerned a significant spare production capacity was established, ranging from 37 000 tonnes in Malaysia to 400 000 tonnes in Taiwan, and totalling around 1 million tonnes, i.e. 45 % of the Community industry production capacity. In addition the import prices oscillated in the period concerned slightly above or below Community prices. The prices of imports originating in Taiwan, for example, a country with by far the highest spare production capacity, fell during the period when anti-dumping measures were in force below the level of Community prices. Furthermore, the prevailing price level in the Community makes the EU an attractive market. Thus, it can be concluded that should the measures be allowed to lapse, there exists a strong incentive for producers in the countries concerned to redirect their sales to the EU market at low prices.
- (197) Moreover, recent publicly available information indicates that unusual quantities of PET chips have been purchased by operators in Bulgaria and Romania from the Asian countries under review. The shipments were due to take place in November and December 2006. This information is an indication of the likelihood of recurrence of injury to the Community industry, as it clearly demonstrates that significantly more imports from the countries concerned would be present on the Community market in the absence of anti-dumping measures.
- (198) As shown above, although the situation of the Community industry has slightly improved when compared to the one before the imposition of anti-dumping measures, it remains vulnerable and fragile. It is likely that if the Community industry was exposed to increased volumes of imports from the countries concerned at dumped prices, this would result in a deterioration of its financial situation and most probably in the further loss of profitability. On this basis, it is therefore concluded that the repeal of the measures against India, Indonesia, Thailand, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Malaysia would in all likelihood result in the recurrence of injury to the Community industry.
COMMUNITY INTERESTIntroduction
- (199) According to Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the maintenance of the existing anti-dumping measures would be against the interest of the Community as a whole. The determination of the Community interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved. The present investigation analyses a situation in which anti-dumping measures have already been in place and allows for assessment of any undue negative impact on the parties concerned due to the current anti-dumping measures.
- (200) On this basis, it was examined whether, despite the conclusions on the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed which would lead to the conclusion that it is not in the Community interest to maintain measures in this particular case.
Interest of the Community industry
- (201) As outlined above, there is a clear likelihood of recurrence of injurious dumping if measures were to be repealed. All Community producers but two fully cooperated and indicated their support for the ongoing measures. One Community producer linked to one of the Korean exporters has also expressed support for the measures. It has to be considered, however, that its mother company is exporting at 0 % duty.
- (202) The continuation of anti-dumping measures on imports from countries concerned would enhance the possibility for the Community industry to reach a reasonable level of profitability. More importantly, it will avoid that the Community industry is pushed out of the market. Indeed, there is a clear likelihood of injurious dumping in substantial volumes which the Community industry could not withstand. The Community industry would therefore continue to benefit from the maintenance of the current anti-dumping measures, in particular as there are now also measures against imports originating in Australia and the PRC.
Interest of importers
- (203) The Commission sent questionnaires to 18 importers/traders of the product concerned. However, cooperation from the importers/traders that are purchasing mainly from the countries concerned and representing around 5 % of the EU consumption was very low. Only one importer/trader supplied data and the bulk of its purchases were made from the Community industry. Only marginal quantities were from the countries concerned or from other exporting countries. This importer/trader would prefer a market with zero duties although they are currently enjoying healthy financial results. Bearing in mind that the measures in force did not considerably affect importers, it is concluded that maintaining the existing anti-dumping measures against imports originating in India, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan would not have a significant negative effect on the situation of the importers in the Community.
Interest of converters/users
- (204) The Commission sent questionnaires to 47 known converters/users. Only 10 converters/users with an overall low representativity replied to the questionnaire.
- (205) According to the information on purchases supplied in their responses to the questionnaire, cooperating converters/users during the RIP represent about 20 % of total Community consumption of PET. They purchased during the RIP 95 % of their PET from Community producers and the remainder from imports originating in countries other than those subject to these reviews. A number of arguments against the imposition of duties were presented.
- (206) Five converters (transforming PET chips in pre-forms and bottle grade and representing 10 % of the consumption) replied to the questionnaire. The cost of PET chips accounts for 55 % of their final product (mostly pre-forms). It has been established that they import negligible quantities from the countries concerned and other third countries. Nevertheless they oppose the imposition of duties claiming that the prolongation of the measures could have the effect of artificially raising the prices in Europe.
- (207) Five users accounting for about 10 % of the consumption supplied rather incomplete data. The low level of cooperation from the big users is likely to be due to the fact that the last investigation concerning imports from PRC, Australia and Pakistan took place only two years ago. PET costs account for around 6/7 % of the overall cost and are therefore rather limited. Although they have declared no imports from the countries concerned, similarly as the converters, they oppose the imposition of duties claiming that the measures could have the effect of artificially raising the prices in Europe.
- (208) Considering the rather good financial situation of the downstream industry, in contrast to the one of the Community industry, no converter/user put forward the argument that maintaining the current duties could lead to a loss of jobs or to moving manufacturing facilities overseas.
- (209) Furthermore, in terms of output, the Community industry adapted its size to match the increased consumption and therefore it is very likely that the unused capacity of the Community industry could fully cover the amount of the imports.
- (210) Bearing in mind that there are still alternative sources of supply with no anti-dumping measures, i.e. Mexico, Turkey, USA, Brazil, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia the Community users would moreover be able to rely on (or to switch to) diversified suppliers of the product concerned.
- (211) As concerns the performance of the user industry, the investigation has shown that during the period considered, the cooperating users increased their turnover, maintained employment stable and rather improved their overall profitability. Therefore it was found that they were not negatively affected by the anti-dumping measures.
- (212) On the basis of the above, it is concluded that maintaining the existing anti-dumping measures against imports originating in India, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan would not have a significant negative effect on the situation of the users in the Community.
Interest of suppliers
- (213) The suppliers of raw material (mono ethylene glycol (MEG)) and purified terephthalic acid (PTA), DMT and isophthalic acid (IPA), all petrochemical products derivatives of naphtha, clearly indicated their support for the measures. They would benefit from the fact that the Community industry would very likely be able to recover from the effects of dumping and thus improve their performance.
Conclusion on Community interest
- (214) Taking into account all of the factors outlined above, it is concluded that there are no compelling reasons against the maintenance of the current anti-dumping measures.
RELATION BETWEEN ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES
- (215) For one export country, namely India, a parallel investigation on the expiry of countervailing measures has been carried out (see recital 10). This investigation confirmed the necessity to continue the application of such measures at unchanged levels. The present investigation also concluded that anti-dumping measures on exports from India should be kept in force at unchanged levels. In that respect, reference is made to recital 125 of Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000. As the measures currently proposed for exports of PET from India remain unchanged, it follows that Article 14(1) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 24(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 are complied with.
FINAL PROVISIONS
- (216) All parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the existing measures be maintained respectively their levels be amended where warranted. They were also granted a period to submit comments and claims subsequent to disclosure. In particular one Indian exporter alleged that in the absence of measures it is not likely that India will re-direct sales to the Community. This exporter claimed that emerging markets are more attractive than the Community, that Indian demand is growing fast and that, therefore, no spare capacity is available. It is however to be considered that, notwithstanding an increase of the demand in the Indian market, the investigation at company level indicated spare capacities, in excess of the increase in demand on the Indian market, as also confirmed by the market intelligence report mentioned at recital 74. It is therefore concluded that none of the disclosure comments received were such as to alter the conclusions as contained in this regulation.
- (217) It follows from the above that the anti-dumping duties are maintained respectively, their levels are amended where warranted,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of polyethylene terephthalate having a viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher, according to the ISO Standard 1628-5, falling within CN code 3907 60 20 and originating in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand.
Except as provided for in Article 2, the rate of the anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty for products manufactured by the companies listed below shall be as follows:
| Country | Company | Anti-dumping duty (EUR/tonne) | TARIC additional code |
|---|---|---|---|
| India | Reliance Industries Ltd | 132,6 | A181 |
| India | Pearl Engineering Polymers Ltd | 87,5 | A182 |
| India | Senpet Ltd | 200,9 | A183 |
| India | Futura Polyesters Ltd | 161,2 | A184 |
| India | South Asian Petrochem Ltd | 88,9 | A585 |
| India | All other companies | 153,6 | A999 |
| Indonesia | P.T. Mitsubishi Chemical Indonesia | 187,7 | A191 |
| Indonesia | P.T. Indorama Synthetics Tbk | 92,1 | A192 |
| Indonesia | P.T. Polypet Karyapersada | 178,9 | A193 |
| Indonesia | All other companies | 187,7 | A999 |
| Malaysia | Hualon Corp. (M) Sdn. Bhd. | 36,0 | A186 |
| Malaysia | MpI Polyester Industries Sdn. Bhd. | 160,1 | A185 |
| Malaysia | All other companies | 160,1 | A999 |
| Republic of Korea | SK Chemicals Group: | A196 | |
| Republic of Korea | SK Chemicals Co. Ltd | 0 | A196 |
| Republic of Korea | Huvis Corp. | 0 | |
| Republic of Korea | KP Chemical Group: | A195 | |
| Republic of Korea | Honam Petrochemicals Corp. | 0 | A195 |
| Republic of Korea | KP Chemical Corp. | 0 | |
| Republic of Korea | All other companies | 148,3 | A999 |
| Taiwan | Far Eastern Textile Ltd | 36,3 | A808 |
| Taiwan | Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corp. | 67,0 | A809 |
| Taiwan | Lealea Enterprise Co., Ltd | 0 | A996 |
| Taiwan | All other companies | 143,4 | A999 |
| Thailand | Thai Shingkong Industry Corp. Ltd | 83,2 | A190 |
| Thailand | Indo Pet (Thailand) Ltd | 83,2 | A468 |
| Thailand | All other companies | 83,2 | A999 |
In cases where goods have been damaged before entry into free circulation and, therefore, the price actually paid or payable is apportioned for the determination of the customs value pursuant to Article 145 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code ([^E0010]), the amount of anti-dumping duty, calculated on the basis of the amounts set above, shall be reduced by a percentage which corresponds to the apportioning of the price actually paid or payable.
Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2, the definitive anti-dumping duty shall not apply to imports released for free circulation in accordance with Article 2.
Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.
Article 2
Imports shall be exempt from the anti-dumping duties imposed by Article 1 provided that they are produced and directly exported (i.e. invoiced and shipped) to a company acting as an importer in the Community by the companies mentioned in paragraph 3, declared under the appropriate TARIC additional code and that the conditions set out in paragraph 2 are met.
When the request for release for free circulation is presented, exemption from the duties shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs service of the Member State concerned of a valid ‘Undertaking Invoice’ issued by the exporting companies mentioned in paragraph 3, containing the essential elements listed in the Annex. Exemption from the duty shall further be conditional on the goods declared and presented to customs corresponding precisely to the description on the Undertaking Invoice.
Imports accompanied by an Undertaking Invoice shall be declared under the following TARIC additional codes:
| Country | Companies | TARIC additional code |
|---|---|---|
| India | Reliance Industries Ltd | A181 |
| India | Pearl Engineering Polymers Ltd | A182 |
| India | Dhunseri Petrochem & Tea Ltd | A585 |
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following 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.
ANNEX
Elements to be indicated in the Undertaking Invoice referred to in Article 2(2):
- 1.The Undertaking Invoice number.
- 2.The TARIC additional code under which the goods on the invoice may be customs-cleared at Community borders (as specified in the Regulation).
- 3.The exact description of the goods, including: —the product reporting code number (PRC) (as established in the undertaking offered by the producing exporter in question), —CN code, —quantity (to be given in units).
- 4.The description of the terms of the sale, including: —price per unit, —the applicable payment terms, —the applicable delivery terms, —total discounts and rebates.
- 5.Name of the company acting as an importer to which the invoice is issued directly by the company.
- 6.The name of the official of the company that has issued the undertaking invoice and the following signed declaration: ‘I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for direct export to the European Community of the goods covered by this invoice is being made within the scope and under the terms of the undertaking offered by … (name of company), and accepted by the European Commission through Decision 2000/745/EC. I declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct.’
[^E0001]: OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ L 340, 23.12.2005, p. 17).
[^E0002]: OJ L 301, 30.11.2000, p. 21. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1646/2005 (OJ L 266, 11.10.2005, p. 10).
[^E0003]: OJ L 271, 19.8.2004, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2167/2005 (OJ L 345, 28.12.2005, p. 11).
[^E0004]: OJ C 52, 2.3.2005, p. 2.
[^E0005]: OJ C 304, 1.12.2005, p. 9.
[^E0006]: OJ C 129, 2.6.2006, p. 23.
[^E0007]: OJ L 288, 21.10.1997, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 12).
[^E0008]: Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000, recital 125, and Regulation (EC) No 496/2002 (OJ L 78, 21.3.2002, p. 4), recital 19.
[^E0009]: OJ L 19, 21.1.2005, p. 6, recital 58.
[^E0010]: OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1875/2006 (OJ L 360, 19.12.2006, p. 64).
Reading this document does not replace reading the official text published in the Official Journal of the European Union. We assume no responsibility for any inaccuracies arising from the conversion of the original to this format.
This text is published under EUR-Lex's own terms of reuse, not a Legalize or public-domain licence.
EUR-Lex
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu — Source: EUR-Lex (Publications Office of the European Union). Reused under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. Only EU legislation published in the printed Official Journal of the European Union is deemed authentic; consolidated texts are reproduced here for documentation purposes and have been reformatted to Markdown.