Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2010)295 - Amendment of Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film from India - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2010)295 - Amendment of Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate ... |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2010)295  |
| date | 08-06-2010 |
Grounds for and objectives of the proposal This proposal concerns the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community ('the basic Regulation') in the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India.
General context This proposal is made in the context of the implementation of the basic Regulation and is the result of an investigation which was carried out in line with the substantive and procedural requirements laid out in the basic Regulation.
Existing measures in the area of the proposal Council Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1124/2007 in relation to the Jindal Poly Films Limited (the applicant in the present partial interim review) and as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 15/2009.
Consistency with the other policies and objectives of the Union Not applicable.
CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Consultation of interested parties
Interested parties concerned by the proceeding have had the possibility to defend their interests during the investigation, in line with the provisions of the basic Regulation.
Collection and use of expertise
There was no need for external expertise.
Impact assessment This proposal is the result of the implementation of the basic Regulation. The basic Regulation does not provide for a general impact assessment but contains an exhaustive list of conditions that have to be assessed.
Summary of the proposed action On 9 September 2009, the Commission initiated a partial interim review limited to the level of subsidisation of the countervailing duty in force in respect of imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India. The review was initiated because the applicant, an exporting producer in India, provided sufficient prima facie evidence - that the circumstances with regard to subsidisation on the basis of which measures were established have changed and that these changes are of a lasting nature. The partial interim review investigation confirmed that (i) the level of subsidisation with regard to the concerned co-operating Indian producer has decreased; (ii) the actual modalities of the investigated schemes and their countervailiability have not changed with respect to the previous investigation. Since it was demonstrated that the applicant will continue to receive subsidies in the future of an amount which is less than the one determined in the previous interim review investigation, the level of the measures should be amended to reflect the new findings. The changed circumstances were found to be of a lasting nature. Therefore, it is proposed that the Council adopts the attached proposal for a Regulation so as to amend the duty rate applicable to the concerned co-operating Indian producer.
Legal basis Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community.
Subsidiarity principle The proposal falls under the exclusive competence of the Union. The subsidiarity principle therefore does not apply.
Proportionality principle The proposal complies with the proportionality principle because the form of action is described in the above-mentioned basic Regulation and leaves no scope for national decision. An indication of how financial and administrative burden falling upon the Union, national governments, regional and local authorities, economic operators and citizens is minimized and proportionate to the objective of the proposal is not applicable.
Choice of instruments
Proposed instruments: regulation.
Other means would not be adequate because the basic Regulation does not provide for alternative options.
The proposal has no implication for the Union budget.
..