28.12.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities L 332/17 COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2852/2000 of 22 December 2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of polyester staple fibres 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 Community (') and in particular Article 9 thereof, Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: A. PROCEDURE 1. Provisional measures (1) By Commission Regulation (EC) No 1472/2000 (3 (‘the provisional Regulation’) provisional anti-dumping duties were imposed on imports into the Community of poly- ester staple fibres (PSF) falling within CN code 5503 20 00 and originating in India and the Republic of Korea. 2. Subsequent procedure (2)  Following the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties, several parties submitted comments in writing. In accordance with the provisions of Article 6(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (the basic Regula- tion’), the parties which so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard. Parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a defin- itive anti-dumping duty and the definitive collection, at the level of the definitive duty, of amounts secured by way of provisional duty. They were also granted a period within which to make representations subsequent to this disclosure. (3)  The oral and written comments submitted within the deadlines set for that purpose by the interested parties were considered and, where deemed appropriate, duly taken into account for the definitive findings. (4)  Certain interested parties claimed that the initiation stan- dards applied by the Commission were improper and arbitrary. They further claimed that the initiation of a new proceeding against the Republic of Korea two months after the termination of a previous proceeding (see recital 7 of the provisional Regulation), contradicted (") OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2238/2000 (O] L 257, 11.10.2000, p. 2). () O] L 166, 6.7.2000, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1899/2000 (O] L 228, 8.9.2000, p. 24). the finding in that investigation that there was no likeli- hood of a recurrence of dumping. In this respect, it should be noted that the finding that there was no likelihood of a recurrence of dumping was based on findings related to a twelve month investigation period ending in September 1997, ie. two years before the initiation of the current proceeding. In addition, the Commission had examined the new evidence submitted in the complaint of August 1999 and considered this evidence sufficient to initiate the present investigation. (5)  The Commission continued to seek and verify all infor- mation deemed necessary for its definitive findings. B. PRODUCT CONCERNED (6) A users' association claimed that the Notice of Initiation of the present proceeding did not cover PSF types for non-spinning applications, and that consequently these PSF types should have been excluded from the proceeding. (7) It should be noted that the Notice of Initiation, as well as the complaint, clearly reproduce the description of the relevant CN code which covers all types of PSF imported from the exporting producers of the countries concerned and produced by the Community industry irrespective of their use. The wording of the description of the relevant CN code was understood correctly by all interested parties to this proceeding except for the users' association mentioned, that repeated a claim that had already been rejected in an earlier investigation on imports of PSF from Australia, Indonesia and Thailand contained in Regulation (EC) No 1522/2000 (%). (8)  Some interested parties also argued that, in any event, a differentiation should be made between PSF types used for spinning applications (also called woven, hereafter referred to as PSF-Sp) and PSF used for non-spinning applications (also called non-woven or fibrefill, hereafter referred to as PSF-NW) because of different specific basic physical characteristics, determining the end-use of the product. Accordingly, it was claimed that imported fibres should be subject to neutral laboratory certificates attesting these characteristics. Furthermore, it was alleged that interchangeability, if any, between PSF-Sp and PSF-NW was very limited and only concerned certain types of fibres originally intended for PSF-Sp which might be used as PSF-NW. PSF-NW therefore, if not excluded from investigation, should at least have been examined in a separate proceeding. () O] L 175, 14.7.2000, p. 10.