Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1748 of 18 August 2025 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating in India following an expiry review pursuant to Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council

		2020	2021	2022	2023	RIP
All other third countries	Import volume (tonnes)	807 660	659 672	1 027 563	1 255 423	1 156 366
All other third countries	Index	100	82	127	155	143
All other third countries	Market share (%)	19	16	24	32	30
All other third countries	Average price (EUR/tonne)	772	944	1 406	1 080	1 023
All other third countries	Index	100	122	182	140	132
Vietnam	Import volume (tonnes)	92 359	91 709	156 729	278 180	359 575
Vietnam	Market share (%)	2	2	4	7	9
Vietnam	Index	100	99	170	301	389
Vietnam	Average price (EUR/tonne)	732	940	1 426	1 022	986
Vietnam	Index	100	128	195	140	135
Türkiye	Import volume (tonnes)	124 883	160 162	173 613	214 650	257 022
Türkiye	Index	100	128	139	172	206
Türkiye	Market share (%)	3	4	4	5	7
Türkiye	Average price (EUR/tonne)	787	940	1 441	1 111	1 055
Türkiye	Index	100	119	183	141	134
Egypt	Import volume (tonnes)	81 942	70 786	172 913	207 161	204 264
Egypt	Index	100	86	211	253	249
Egypt	Market share (%)	2	2	4	5	5
Egypt	Average price (EUR/tonne)	794	1 020	1 474	1 052	1 013
Egypt	Index	100	128	185	132	128
Other third countries	Import volume (tonnes)	508 476	337 016	524 307	555 433	335 505
Other third countries	Market share (%)	12	8	12	14	9
Other third countries	Average price (EUR/tonne)	772	931	1 365	1 109	1 044

• (153) The volume of imports from all other third countries increased by 11 % between 2020 and the review investigation period, from 807 660 tonnes in 2020 to 1 156 366 tonnes in the review investigation period. The market share of imports from all other third countries remained within the range 16 % – 32 % during the period considered. The average price of imports from all other third countries increased by 32 % during the period considered.

• (154) Most imports came from Vietnam (9,3 % market share in the review investigation period), Türkiye (6,7 % market share in the review investigation period) and Egypt (5,3 % market share in the review investigation period). Import volumes from each of the three importers increased significantly over the period considered. Their prices were oscillating around those of the Union industry over the period considered.

• (155) Finally, the import volumes of the remaining third countries (other than India, Vietnam, Türkiye and Egypt) decreased considerably by 34 % between 2020 and the review investigation period. Their market share decreased by 3 percentage points over the period considered, from 11,7 % in 2020 to 8,7 % in the review investigation period. Import prices from these countries were on average higher than import prices from India over the period 2020-2022, when the Indian import quantities were still representative.

4.4.   Economic situation of the Union industry

4.4.1.   General remarks

• (156) In accordance with Article 8(4) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry during the period considered.

• (157) As mentioned in recital (24), sampling was applied for the determination of possible injury suffered by the Union industry.

• (158) For the injury determination, the Commission distinguished between macroeconomic and microeconomic injury indicators. The Commission assessed macroeconomic indicators relating to the whole Union industry on the basis of data obtained from the applicant, cross-checked with the information provided by a number of Union producers at pre-initiation stage and the verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers. The Commission assessed the microeconomic indicators on the basis of the data contained in the questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers, which were verified. Both sets of data were found representative of the economic situation of the Union industry.

• (159) The macroeconomic indicators are: production, production capacity, capacity utilisation, sales volume, market share, growth, employment, productivity, magnitude of the subsidy rates, and recovery from past subsidisation.

• (160) The microeconomic indicators are: average unit prices, unit cost, labour costs, closing stocks, profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital.

4.4.2.   Macroeconomic indicators

(a) Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation

• (161) The total Union production, production capacity and capacity utilisation developed as follows over the period considered:

Table 4

Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation of Union producers

	2020	2021	2022	2023	RIP
Production volume (tonnes)	3 323 632	3 367 963	3 250 341	2 668 477	2 665 170
Index (2020=100)	100	101	98	80	80
Production capacity (tonnes)	3 879 892	3 956 555	4 043 716	4 079 010	4 039 787
Index (2020=100)	100	102	104	105	104
Capacity utilisation (%)	86	85	80	65	66
Source: information provided by the applicant, verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: information provided by the applicant, verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: information provided by the applicant, verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: information provided by the applicant, verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: information provided by the applicant, verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: information provided by the applicant, verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

• (162) The production volume slightly increased from 2020 to 2021 to then decrease below 2020 levels in 2022 and drop even more significantly (by 20 % compared to 2020) in the review investigation period.

• (163) The production capacity was relatively stable across the period considered, overall increasing by 4 %.

• (164) Since the production volume decreased during the period considered, while the capacity slightly increased, the capacity utilisation dropped by 20 percentage points during the period considered.

(b) Sales volume and market share

• (165) The Union industry’s sales volume and market share developed as follows over the period considered:

Table 5

Sales volume and market share of Union producers

	2020	2021	2022	2023	RIP
Sales volume in the Union (tonnes)	3 411 954	3 289 452	3 211 733	2 716 543	2 687 928
Index (2020=100)	100	96	94	80	79
Market share (%)	78,5	80,8	73,6	68,3	69,9
Source: information provided by the applicant, verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: information provided by the applicant, verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: information provided by the applicant, verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: information provided by the applicant, verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: information provided by the applicant, verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: information provided by the applicant, verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

• (166) The total sales of the Union industry in the Union market decreased continuously over the period considered, dropping by 21 % between 2020 and the review investigation period. Overall, the decrease in Union sales was in line with the declining Union consumption, although the Union sales decreased at a steeper rate compared to the consumption (-11 %) over the same period. The Union industry’s market share correspondingly decreased by 8,6 percentage points over the period considered.

(c) Growth

• (167) Between 2020 and the review investigation period, the Union consumption decreased by 11 %. The sales volume of the Union industry decreased by 21 % which translated into a loss in market share of 8,6 percentage points.

(d) Employment and productivity

• (168) The employment and productivity developed as follows over the period considered:

Table 6

Employment and productivity of Union producers

	2020	2021	2022	2023	RIP
Number of employees	1 629	1 683	1 767	1 766	1 787
Index (2020=100)	100	103	109	108	110
Productivity (tonnes/employee)	2 040	2 001	1 839	1 511	1 492
Index (2020=100)	100	98	90	74	73
Source: information provided by the applicant, verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: information provided by the applicant, verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: information provided by the applicant, verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: information provided by the applicant, verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: information provided by the applicant, verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: information provided by the applicant, verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

• (169) The employment of the Union industry increased by 10 % during the period considered.

• (170) Due to the decrease in production (decrease of 20 %) accompanied by the increase in employment, the productivity decreased by 27 % over the same period.

(e) Magnitude of the subsidy margin and recovery from past subsidisation

• (171) As concluded in the recital (151), the Indian export sales to the Union were not considered representative of the price and the quantities.

• (172) Relieved from the pressure of subsidised imports from India, the Union industry managed to respond to the challenges posed by the demand decline and high cost of production. However, the industry is still vulnerable, as evidenced by the very low profit levels and the low level of demand in the review investigation period.

4.4.3.   Microeconomic indicators ⁵⁵

(a) Prices and factors affecting prices

• (173) The average sales prices of the Union industry to unrelated customers in the Union developed as follows over the period considered:

Table 7

Average sales prices in the Union and unit cost

	2020	2021	2022	2023	RIP
Average unit selling price in the Union (EUR/tonne)	[650 – 780 ]	[950 – 1 140 ]	[1 250 – 1 500 ]	[900 – 1 080 ]	[900 – 1 080 ]
Index (2020=100)	100	133	200	151	147
Unit cost of production (EUR/tonne)	[700 – 840 ]	[850 – 1 020 ]	[1 250 – 1 500 ]	[1 050 – 1 250 ]	[1 000 – 1 200 ]
Index (2020=100)	100	128	187	159	151
Source: verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

• (174) The table above shows the evolution of the unit ex-works sales price on the Union market as compared to the corresponding cost of production. In general, the evolution of the cost of production followed the same trend as the sales prices.

• (175) The Union industry’s average unit sales price to unrelated customers in the Union increased by 100 % from 2020 to 2022, to then decrease towards the end of the review investigation period, and overall increasing by 47 % over the period considered. The major increase in prices in 2022 was due mainly to the tight PET supply and successful passing-on of increase in raw material prices in the course of that year.

• (176) The average cost of production of the Union industry increased over the period considered to the similar extent as the sales prices (by 51 %). The major factor having influenced the increase in the unit cost of production was the increase in the raw material price ⁵⁶ over the period considered.

(b) Labour costs

• (177) The average labour costs developed as follows over the period considered:

Table 8

Average labour costs per employee

	2020	2021	2022	2023	RIP
Average labour costs per employee (EUR/employee)	[25 000 – 30 000 ]	[25 000 – 30 000 ]	[30 000 – 36 000 ]	[30 000 – 36 000 ]	[35 000 – 42 000 ]
Index (2020=100)	100	104	118	126	135
Source: verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

• (178) The average labour costs per employee increased by 35 % over the period considered.

(c) Closing stocks

• (179) Stock levels developed as follows over the period considered:

Table 9

Closing stocks

	2020	2021	2022	2023	RIP
Closing stocks (tonnes)	[30 000 – 36 000 ]	[35 000 – 42 000 ]	[70 000 – 84 000 ]	[35 000 – 42 000 ]	[20 000 – 24 000 ]
Index (2020=100)	100	136	231	132	68
Closing stocks as a percentage of production	5 - 7	5 - 8	10 - 13	5 - 8	2 - 5
Source: verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

• (180) The level of closing stocks of the sampled Union producers decreased by 32 % during the period considered. In the review investigation period, the level of stocks represented around 3 % of its production.

(d) Profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital

• (181) The profitability, cash flow, investments and return on investments developed as follows over the period considered:

Table 10

Profitability, cash flow, investments and return on investments

	2020	2021	2022	2023	RIP
Profitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover)	[1 - 4 ]	[3 - 6 ]	[3 - 7 ]	[0 - 3 ]	[1 - 3 ]
Index (2020=100)	100	249	165	21	125
Cash flow (EUR)	[42 000 000 – 50 000 000 ]	[48 000 000 – 58 000 000 ]	[55 000 000 – 65 000 000 ]	[58 000 000 – 70 000 000 ]	[48 000 000 – 60 000 000 ]
Index (2020=100)	100	115	131	141	116
Investments (EUR)	[4 300 000 – 5 200 000 ]	[4 700 000 – 5 700 000 ]	[10 000 000 – 13 000 000 ]	[8 000 000 – 11 000 000 ]	[8 000 000 – 11 000 000 ]
Index (2020=100)	100	108	253	206	187
Return on investments (%)	[5 - 20 ]	[25 - 40 ]	[45 - 60 ]	[-10 - 0 ]	[5 - 20 ]
Index (2020=100)	100	275	393	-28	73
Source: verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

• (182) The Commission established the profitability of the Union industry by expressing the pre-tax net profit of the sales of the like product to unrelated customers in the Union as a percentage of the turnover of those sales. The profitability of the Union industry was positive over the period considered, although it dropped to near break even figures in 2023 (after being negatively affected by the dumped imports from the People’s Republic of China following the rise in profits in 2021 and 2022. In any event, the profitability in the review investigation period remained far below the target profit of 7 % established during the original review investigation ⁵⁷.

• (183) The net cash flow is the Union producer’s ability to self-finance its activities. The net cash flow was increasing from the start of the period considered until 2023 to then decrease in the review investigation period. Overall, it shows an increase of 16 % over the period considered.

• (184) During the period considered, the annual flow of investments in the product under review made by the Union industry started to increase mainly in 2022, following the increase in profitability levels in 2021. Investments reached around EUR 10-12 million in the second part of the period considered, with investments related to maintenance, increase in the capacity, efficiency and environmental compliance of the production plants.

• (185) The return on investments is the profit in percentage of the net book value of investments. The return on investment from the production and sale of the like product improved between 2020-2022, significantly dropping in 2023 to finally reach [5 % - 20 %] during the review investigation period.

4.4.4.   Conclusion on the situation of the Union industry

• (186) The investigation has shown that the situation of the industry on a macro level slightly deteriorated over the period considered, with the decline in production and sales (-20 % and -21 % respectively) outpacing the drop in consumption (-11 %). Furthermore, the market share of the Union industry decreased by 9 percentage points, yet still maintaining 70 % of the Union market in the review investigation period.

• (187) The situation of the industry on a micro level was rather positive, although still vulnerable. The cash flow and profitability were positive (although far from the target profit) over the period considered, while the closing stocks decreased over the same period (both in absolute values and as a production percentage). In any event, the demand fluctuations cannot guarantee uptick in production and sales on the Union market.

• (188) Taking the above developments into account, it can be concluded that while the Union industry did not suffer material injury during the review investigation period within the meaning of Article 8 of the basic Regulation, it is in a very fragile state. The Commission recalled that PET is considered a commodity and that the market is very price sensitive. For that reason, the Union industry cannot raise its prices without risking losing the sales volume necessary to keep fixed costs per tonne at a low and more competitive level.

• (189) In this regard, the Commission further examined the likelihood of recurrence of injury originally caused by subsidised imports from India if measures were repealed.

4.5.   Likelihood of recurrence of injury

4.5.1.   Preliminary remark

• (190) The Commission concluded in recital (188) that the Union industry did not suffer material injury during the review investigation period. Therefore, the Commission assessed, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, whether there would be a likelihood of recurrence of injury originally caused by the subsidised imports from India if the measures were allowed to lapse. In this regard, the Commission examined: (a) the attractiveness of the Union market; (b) production capacity and spare capacity in India; (c) likely price levels of imports from India in the absence of countervailing measures; and (d) existence of trade restrictive measures in other third countries on exports of PET from India.

(a) Attractiveness of the Union market

• (191) Consistent with the findings in the previous expiry review (see recitals (177)-(178) of the last expiry review), the Union market remains attractive in terms of its size and prices (see recital (195)). The attractiveness of the Union market is also confirmed by the consistently high PET imports from India over the period considered (until 2023, when the GSP treatment was suspended), despite the countervailing measures being in force.

(b) Production capacity and spare capacity available in India

• (192) The investigation established that India had a substantial, 17 % growth in its production capacity over the period considered, reaching around [2 000 – 2 700] thousand tonnes at the end of 2023, while PET demand in India reached only around [1 200 – 1 500] thousand tonnes in the same year ⁵⁸. The Indian industry is expected to increase its capacity further, with a 41 % increase projected for the period 2024-2027 ⁵⁹. With a gap between domestic consumption and production capacity available for exports of around [800 – 1 200] thousand tonnes in 2023, such excess capacity available for exports has to be considered significant as it represents around 25 % of the current Union consumption in the review investigation period.

(c) Likely price levels of imports from India in the absence of countervailing measures

• (193) Given the negligible imports from India during the review investigation period, the likely export price was established on the basis of exports of PET from India to the three biggest export markets in the review investigation period (United Arab Emirates, Israel and Japan) ⁶⁰.

• (194) A comparison was subsequently made between the prices of the like product produced and sold by the Union industry and the weighted average prices of PET produced in India and sold to United Arab Emirates, Israel and Japan in the review investigation period, adjusted to hypothetical Cost, Insurance, and Freight (CIF) at Union frontier level (without the customs duties).

• (195) The price comparison showed that the Indian prices were [8-12] % lower than the Union sales prices.

• (196) This is an indication of what could be the likely price level of imports from India should the measures in the Union be repealed.

• (197) Imposition of measures, coupled with the suspension of the GSP in India for PET imports, appears to have dissuaded Indian exporters from the flow of Indian PET on the Union market in large volumes and at low prices. As a result, there are only insignificant volumes of imports from India into the Union. However, should the current measures be lifted, Indian imports are very likely to reach the levels of pre-2023, when the market penetration rate was quite high (around 3 % market share), despite the measures in place.

• (198) On this basis, the Union industry is likely to be exposed to substantial volumes of imports from India at subsidised prices below the average prices of the Union industry, undermining its economic situation. As a result, the material injury is likely to recur should the measures against India lapse.

(d) Existence of trade restrictive measures in other third countries on exports of PET from India

• (199) The existence of trade defence measures in third countries is also an indication that the pricing behaviour of Indian exports is likely to replicate on the Union market.

• (200) For instance, trade defence measures are currently in place against Indian imports in the United Kingdom, South Africa and the United States. The limitations in these export markets for India is another indicator that the Union market is likely to be targeted if the measures were allowed to lapse.

4.5.2.   Impact on the Union industry

• (201) The investigation has shown that the imports from India continued to be subsidised and that there are no indications that the subsidisation would be discontinued in the future.

• (202) It can be reasonably expected that, as a consequence of the attractiveness of the Union market, should the measures be repealed, at least part of the spare capacity in India will, in all likelihood, be (re-)directed to the Union market.

• (203) In recital (198) it was concluded that it is likely that the exporting producers from India will export significant quantities of product under review to the Union should measures be allowed to lapse and that these exports would be made at subsidised prices.

• (204) In terms of volumes, it is very likely that Indian exporting producers will gain further market share from the Union industry which would face an immediate drop in its sales volumes and an increase in its fixed costs per unit. Indeed, the PET industry is a capital intensive industry which needs to maintain a certain volume of production to keep the fixed costs at reasonable levels. The increase in fixed costs following a decrease in production and sales would negatively affect the profitability. As a consequence, the profitability of the Union industry and its overall economic situation would be negatively affected and material injury would recur. In parallel, the Union industry would be precluded from making the necessary investments to achieve the Union sustainability objectives.

• (205) Based on the above the Commission concluded that there is a strong likelihood of recurrence of injury from Indian imports should the measures be repealed.

4.5.3.   Comments of the parties

• (206) In response to the definitive disclosure, the GOI claimed that the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury to the Union industry was unlikely, as Indian PET imports have collapsed to near-zero during the RIP. According to the GOI, any injury suffered by the Union industry is more likely to be linked to imports from third countries, which have a much larger market share. In this context, the GOI referred to number of economic trends, such as decrease in Union sales volumes, increase in the cost of production and drop in profitability in 2023 and claimed that this evolution of trends was due to the factors other than Indian imports.

• (207) First, as established in recital (188) it was not concluded that the Union industry had suffered material injury during the review investigation period, making the analysis of causation and attribution of injury to imports from India/other third countries or to other factors redundant. Second, despite the negligible level of Indian imports, as set out in recital (203), it is likely that the exporting producers from India would export significant quantities of PET to the Union should measures be allowed to lapse and that these exports would be made at subsidised prices.

• (208) The GOI also pointed out that the Union industry’s production capacity increased during the RIP, its market share remained stable, its sales prices increased and that the Union industry’s profitability was positive over the period considered, while Indian imports were at low levels.

• (209) It is not disputed that some of the economic indicators of the Union industry were positive over the period considered or in the RIP while the Indian imports were negligible in the RIP. This however does not invalidate the conclusion reached that there is a likelihood of recurrence of injury, should the measures be allowed to lapse. Therefore, the GOI’s arguments had to be rejected.

5. UNION INTEREST

• (210) In accordance with Article 31 of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether maintaining the existing countervailing measures against India would be against the interest of the Union as a whole. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers and users.

• (211) It is recalled that, in the original investigations, the adoption of measures was considered not to be against the interest of the Union.

• (212) All interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known pursuant to Article 31(2) of the basic Regulation.

• (213) On this basis, the Commission examined whether, despite the conclusions on the likelihood of continuation of subsidisation and recurrence of injury, compelling reasons existed which would lead to the conclusion that it was not in the Union interest to maintain the existing measures.

5.1.   Interest of the Union industry

• (214) The continuation of the countervailing measures on imports of PET from India would help the Union industry to continue the ongoing investments, in particular those related to increase in capacity for recycled PET and aimed at boosting the competitiveness of the Union industry. The continuation of the measures would also enable the Union industry to better respond to demand fluctuations and stabilize its economic performance as it would help avoiding that the Union industry be exposed to the substantial volumes of Indian subsidised imports undercutting the Union industry sales prices.

• (215) Accordingly, the Commission concluded that the maintenance of countervailing measures against India would be in the interest of the Union industry.

5.2.   Interest of importers, traders and users

• (216) One importer came forward following the publication of the notice of initiation and during the investigation, however without completing the dedicated questionnaire. Although it cannot be ruled out that the imposition of the countervailing measures had a negative impact on their activity, the importers are not dependent on India and can source the product under review from numerous other supplying countries such as Vietnam, Türkiye and Egypt. Hence, even with the countervailing measures for India in place, supply of PET in the Union is not limited and competitive market prices exist. Therefore, similar to the conclusion reached in the previous expiry review investigation, the Commission concluded that from the importers’ perspective, there are no compelling reasons not to extend the existing measures.

5.3.   Interest of users

• (217) No user came forward following the publication of the notice of initiation and during the investigation. Therefore, there were no indications that the conclusions reached in previous investigations are no longer valid and that the maintenance of the measures would have a negative impact on the users outweighing the positive impact of the measures.

5.4.   Conclusion on Union interest

• (218) In view of the above, the Commission concluded that there are no compelling reasons of Union interest against the extension of the current countervailing measures on imports from India.

5.5.   Comments of the parties

• (219) Following the definitive disclosure, the GOI argued that the conclusion that maintaining the measures supports Union industry investments is speculative, as the Union industry faced no Indian imports during the review investigation period and has shown no current injury that would warrant continued protection.

• (220) As it follows from Table 10 above, the increase in investments of the Union producers was approximately twofold towards the end of the period considered. It was precisely the imposition of measures and subsequent decline in Indian imports that encouraged the Union industry to boost their investments and it can be reasonably expected that such trend will continue, should the measures be kept intact. Therefore, and contrary to the GOI’s claim, the conclusion drawn by the Commission is in no way speculative or invalidating the overall conclusion reached on the Union interest.

• (221) The GOI also disputed the Commission’s analysis of importers, which dismissed concerns based on unsubstantiated assumptions about alternative supply sources, without demonstrating that third-country imports can fully substitute Indian PET in terms of quality, cost, and availability.

• (222) It was noted that the Commission’s finding about alternative supply sources are based on a positive evidence on imports (see notably Section 4.3.3) and are hence in no way unsubstantiated. Moreover, the GOI failed to demonstrate how Indian PET, considered a commodity product, would differ in quality and availability compared to PET from other sources and why could the fairly priced Indian PET not continue to flow to the Union. As a result, the GOI’s argument was dismissed.

• (223) Additionally, the GOI noted that the absence of user participation cannot be interpreted as an endorsement of the measures, and that no updated analysis has been provided to assess the current impact on users. Overall, the GOI submitted that no compelling Union interest exists to justify extending duties in the absence of demonstrated injury or market distortion.

• (224) It was noted that no users have participated in the current expiry review proceedings, no other relevant data impacting on the user or overall Union interest were provided to the Commission and that the Commission is not mandated by the basic Regulation to update its user interest analysis in these circumstances. Furthermore, the GOI failed to provide in its response to the definitive disclosure any substantive evidence demonstrating that maintaining the measures would be against the interest of the users and the interest of the Union as a whole. Thus, the Commission was correct to conclude that the findings made in previous investigations continued to be valid and the GOI’s claims were rejected accordingly.

6. COUNTERVAILING MEASURES

• (225) On the basis of the conclusions reached by the Commission on continuation of subsidy, recurrence of injury and Union interest, the countervailing measures on imports of PET from India should be maintained.

• (226) To minimise the risks of circumvention due to the difference in countervailing duty rates, special measures are needed to ensure the application of the individual duties and exemptions. The application of individual duties or exemptions is only applicable upon presentation of a valid commercial invoice to the customs authorities of the Member States. The invoice must conform to the requirements set out in Article 1(3) of this regulation. Until such invoice is presented, imports should be subject to the countervailing duty applicable to ‘all other companies’ in India.

• (227) While presentation of this invoice is necessary for the customs authorities of the Member States to apply the individual rates of countervailing duty and exemptions to imports, it is not the only element to be taken into account by the customs authorities. Indeed, even if presented with an invoice meeting all the requirements set out in Article 1(3) of this regulation, the customs authorities of Member States must carry out their usual checks and may, like in all other cases, require additional documents (shipping documents etc.) for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the particulars contained in the declaration and ensure that the subsequent application of the lower rate of duty or exemption is justified, in compliance with customs law.

• (228) Should the exports by one of the companies benefiting from lower individual countervailing duty rates increase significantly in volume after the imposition of the measures concerned, such an increase in volume could be considered as constituting in itself a change in the pattern of trade due to the imposition of measures within the meaning of Article 23 of the basic Regulation. In such circumstances and provided the conditions are met an anti-circumvention investigation may be initiated. This investigation may, inter alia, examine the need for the removal of individual duty rates and the consequent imposition of a country-wide duty.

• (229) The individual company countervailing duty rates specified in this Regulation are exclusively applicable to imports of the product under review originating in India and produced by the named legal entities. Imports of the product under review produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, should be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other imports originating in India’. They should not be subject to any of the individual duty rates.

• (230) A company may request the application of these individual duty rates if it changes subsequently the name of its entity. The request must be addressed to the Commission ⁶¹. The request must contain all the relevant information enabling to demonstrate that the change does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the duty rate which applies to it. If the change of name of the company does not affect its right to benefit from the duty rate which applies to it, a regulation about the change of name will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

• (231) Futura Polyesters Ltd should be excluded from these measures since no subsidy was established for this exporter in the previous investigation.

• (232) All interested 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. They were also granted a period to make representations subsequent to this disclosure.

• (233) In view of Article 109 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council ⁶² when an amount is to be reimbursed following a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the interest to be paid should be the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations, as published in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union on the first calendar day of each month.

• (234) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Country of origin	Company	Countervailing duty (%)	TARIC additional code
India	Futura Polyesters Ltd	0	A184
India	IVL Dhunseri Petrochem Industries Private Limited	2,3	C380
India	Pearl Engineering Polymers Ltd	13,8	A182
India	Reliance Industries Limited	4,0	A181
India	Senpet Ltd	4,43	A183
India	All other companies	13,8	A999

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that 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, 18 August 2025.

For the Commission

The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/1748/oj

ISSN 1977-0677 (electronic edition)