No L 131/4 Official Journal of the European Communities 23. 5. 97 COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 908/97 of 20 May 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) No 830/92 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyester yarns (man-made staple fibres) originating in Taiwan, Indonesia, India, the People’s Republic of China and Turkey and collecting definitively the provisional duty 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 Com- munity ('), and in particular Article 11 (4) thereof, Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commis- sion after consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: ) @ A. PREVIOUS PROCEDURE By Regulation (EEC) No 830/92 (), the Council imposed, inter alia, a definitive anti-dumping duty of 10,1 % on imports of single and multiple (folded) or cabled yarns containing 85 % or more by weight of polyester staple fibres, not put up for retail sale, and other yarns of polyester staple fibres mixed mainly or solely either with artificial staple fibres or with cotton, not put up for retail sale, commonly referred to as certain polyester yarns (hereinafter referred to as the ‘product concerned’ or ‘yarn’), currently classifiable within CN codes 5509 21 10, 5509 21 90, 5509 2210, 5509 22 90, 5509 5100 and 5509 5300, and originating in Turkey, with the exception of imports from two Turkish exporters specifically mentioned, which were subject to a lesser rate of duty, and of 11,9 % on imports of the product concerned originating in Indonesia, with the exception of those imports from one Indonesian exporter specifically mentioned, which was subject to no duty at all By Regulation (EC) No 1168/95 (%), the Council amended Regulation (EEC) No 830/92 in further excluding seven Indonesian exporters from any anti-dumping duty. (") OJ No L 56, 6. 3. 1996, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regu- lation (EC) No 2331/96 (O No L 317, 6. 12. 1996, p. 1). () OJ No L 88, 3. 4. 1992, p. L. () O No L 118, 25. 5. 1995, p. 1. ) ) ) B. PRESENT PROCEDURES In October 1995, the Commission received from the Turkish producer Kipas AS (hereinafter referred to as ‘Kipas’ or the ‘company’) an application for a review of the measures currently in force, ie. a request to initiate a ‘new exporter review pro- ceeding of Regulation (EEC) No 830/92, pursuant to Article 11(4) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Basic Regulation’). Kipas claimed that it was not related to any of the exporters or producers in Turkey subject to the anti-dumping measures in force with regard to the product concerned. Furthermore, it claimed that it did not export the product concerned during the period of investiga- tion on which the current measures in force were based with regard to the determination of dumping, ie. the period from 1 January to 31 December 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘original invest- igation period’). Finally, Kipas also claimed that it had actually exported the product concerned to the Community and that it had also entered into irre- vocable contractual obligations to export significant quantities of yarn to the Community. In June 1996, an Indonesian manufacturer, PT World Yamatex Spinning Mills, Indonesia (here- inafter referred to as ‘Yamatex’ or the ‘company’) submitted a request to initiate a ‘new exporter’ review proceeding of Regulation (EEC) No 830/92. Yamatex claimed to have no link or relation to any of the Indonesian exporters or producers subject to the anti-dumping measures in force with regard to the product concerned, that it had not exported the product concerned during the original investigation period and that it had entered into irrevocable contractual obligations to export significant quant- ities of yarns to the Community. After having verified the evidence submitted by Kipas and Yamatex, which was in both cases con- sidered sufficient to justify the initiation of a review in accordance with Article 11 (4) of the Basic Regu- laiton, after consultation of the Advisory Committee and after the Community industry