<Strong>Determination of anti-dumping duty level</Strong>
(7)
Pursuant to Article 9(4) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, the amount of the anti-dumping duty shall not exceed the margin of dumping established but should be less than that margin if such lesser duty would be adequate to remove the injury to the Union industry. Consequently, the duty level should be established at the lowest level of the dumping margin and injury elimination level.
(8)
In this respect, it is recalled that, in the original anti-dumping investigation, the injury elimination level was in all cases above the dumping margins, as laid out in recital 195 of Regulation (EC) No 367/2001 and confirmed by recital 74 of Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001. Therefore, the anti-dumping duty should be set at the level of the dumping margins established in respect of the various Indian manufacturers, which are as follows:
|
OJ L 15, 20.1.2011, p. 1.
|
|
OJ L 270, 29.9.2006, p. 1.
|
|
OJ L 58, 3.3.2011, p. 14.
|
|
Jindal Poly Films Limited was at that time known as Jindal Polyester Limited.
|
|
Uflex Limited was at that time known as Flex Industries Limited.
|
| Company | Dumping margin and AD duty rate | Reference |
|---|
| Ester Industries Limited | 29,3 % | Regulation (EC) No 366/2006 |
| Garware Polyester Limited | 0 % | Implementing Regulation (EU) No 38/2011
|
| Jindal Poly Films Limited | 0 % | Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001
|
| Polyplex Corporation Limited | 3,7 % | Regulation (EC) No 366/2006 |
| SRF Limited | 15,5 % | Regulation (EC) No 1424/2006
|
| Uflex Limited | 3,2 % | Regulation (EC) No 366/2006
|
| Vacmet India Limited | 0 % | Implementing Regulation (EU) No 205/2011
|
| All other companies (except MTZ Polyfilms) | 29,3 % | Regulation (EC) No 366/2006 |
(9)
All known Indian exporting producers of PET film, the Indian authorities and the Union industry of PET film have received disclosure of the above course of action.
(10)
Following this disclosure, several Indian companies argued that, as no expiry review was requested for the countervailing measures, the Union industry was apparently in good shape and, therefore, the anti-dumping measures should be terminated as well. In addition, one exporting producer argued that the average dumping margin of the sample should be recalculated since, following an interim review, Garware Polyester Limited, which was one of the companies in the sample, had recently been made subject to a revised individual dumping margin. It should be noted that both claims go beyond the limited scope of the current Regulation which only aims at adjusting the level of the existing anti-dumping duty rates following the expiry of the concurrent countervailing measures on the same imports. Any request to amend the level of the anti-dumping duty rates following an alleged change in circumstances should be presented pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation. Therefore, these claims have to be rejected.
(11)
One Indian exporting producer argued that, as the countervailing duties had expired, the Commission should now grant a price adjustment to the Indian exporters using the DEPB scheme, which it had refused during the original investigation and interim review investigation. Without prejudice to whether such claim could be examined in the context of the current amending Regulation, it should be noted that, as summarised in recital 50 of Regulation (EC) No 367/2001 and recital 47 of the amending anti-dumping Regulation, the price adjustment claim for DEPB had not been accepted as the producers concerned had not demonstrated that price comparability between domestic and EU sales prices had been affected by the DEPB benefits. That situation has not changed with the expiry of the countervailing duty and this claim, therefore, has to be rejected.
(12)
No further substantive comments were received. Consequently, the duty rates should be revised to the levels of the dumping margin, as indicated in the table under recital 8 above,