23. 5. 97 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 131/1 (Acts whose publication is obligatory) COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No %07/97 of 20 May 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) No 54/93 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of synthetic fibres of polyesters originating in India and the Republic of Korea 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 54/93 (%), the Council imposed, inter alia, a definitive anti-dumping duty of 7,2 % on imports of synthetic staple fibres of polyesters, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, commonly referred to as synthetic fibres of polyester (hereinafter referred to as the ‘product concerned’ of ‘PSF’), currently clas- sifiable within CN code 5503 20 00 and originating in India, with the exception of imports from five Indian exporters specifically mentioned, which were subject either to a lesser rate of duty or to no duty at all. B. PRESENT PROCEDURE In January 1996, the Commission received, from the Indian producer Viral Filaments Limited (here- inafter referred to as ‘Viral’ or the ‘company’), an (') 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 NoL 9,15.1.1993, p. 2. Regulation as amended by Regu- lation (EC) No 1489/96 (O] No L 189, 30. 7. 1996, p. 10). @ application for a review of the measures currently in force, i.e. a request to initiate a ‘new exporter’ review proceeding of Regulation (EEC) No 54/93, pursuant to Article 11 (4) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Basic Regulation’). Viral claimed that it was not related to any of the expoters or producers in India subject to the anti-dumping measures in force with regard to the product concerned. Futhermore, it claimed that it did not export the product concerned during the period of investigation on which the current meas- rues in force were based with regard to the deter- mination of dumping, ie. the period from 1 January to 31 August 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘original investigation period’). Finally, Viral also claimed that it had actually exported the product concerned to the Community and that it had also entered into irrevocable contractual obliga- tions to export significant quantities of PSF to the Community. The Commission, after having verified the evidence submitted by the Indian exporter concerned, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a review in accordance with Article 11 (4) of the Basic Regulation, after consultation of the Advisory Committee and after the Community industry concerned had geen given the opportunity to comment, initiated, by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1285/96 (%), a review of Regulation (EEC) No 54/93 with regard to Viral and commenced its investigation. In the Regulation initiating the review, the Commission also repealed the anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 54/93 with regard to imports of the product concerned, produced and exproted to the Community by Viral, and directed customs authorities, pursuant to Article 14 (5) of the Basic Regulation, to take appropriate steps to register such imports. () OJ No L 165, 4. 7. 1996, p. 21.