No L 299/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 23. 11. %96 COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2237/96 of 22 November 1996 initiating a ‘new exporter’ review of Regulation (EEC) No 830/92 concerning the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain polyester yarns (man-made staple fibres) originating, inter alia, in Indonesia, repealing the duty with regard to imports from an exporter in this country and making these imports subject to registration THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 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 Commu- nity ('), and in particular Article 11 (4) thereof, After consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: A. Request for a review (1)  The Commission has received an application for a ‘new exporter’ review pursuant to Article 11 (4) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Basic Regulation’). The application was lodged on 25 June 1996 by P.T. World Yamatex Spinning Mills, Indonesia, an exporter in Indonesia which claims it did not export the product concerned during the period of investigation on which the anti-dumping measures were based with regard to the determination of dumping, i.e. the period 1 January to 31 December 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the original investigation period). B. Product (2)  The products concerned are single and multiple (folded) or cabled yarns containing 85 % or more by weight of polyester staple fibres, not put up for retail sale, falling within CN codes 5509 21 10, 5509 21 90, 5509 22 10 and 5509 2290 and other yarns of staple fibres mixed mainly or solely either with artificial staple fibres or with cotton, not put up for retail sale, falling within CN codes 5509 51 00 and 5509 53 00. These codes are given for information only and have no binding effect on the classification of the product. C. Existing measures (3 By Council Regulation (EEC) No 830/92 (?), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1168/95 (), the Council imposed, inter alia, a definitive anti- () O] No L 56, 6. 3. 1996, p. 1 () O] No L 88, 3. 4. 1992, p. | () OJ No L 118, 25. 5. 1995, p. 1. (6) ) dumping duty of 11,9 % on imports of the product concerned originating in Indonesia, with the exception of several companies especially mentioned, which are subject to a lesser duty. D. Grounds for the review The applicant, P.T. World Yamatex Spinning Mills, Indonesia, has shown that it is not related to any of the exporters or producers in Indonesia which are subject to the aforementioned anti-dumping measures on the product concerned, and that it actually started exporting to the Community after the original investigation period. The applicant has further shown that it entered into a long term contract to export a significant quantity of the product concerned to the Community. Community producers known to be concerned have been informed of the above application and have been given an opportunity to comment. In the light of the above, the Commission concludes that there is sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of a review pursuant to Article 11 (4) of the Basic Regulation with a view to determine the applicant’s individual margin of dumping and, should dumping be found, the level of duty to which its imports of the product concerned into the Community should be subject. E. Repeal of the duty in force and registration of imports Pursuant to Article 11 (4) of the Basic Regulation, the anti-dumping duty in force shall be repealed with regard to imports of the product concerned originating in Indonesia which is produced and exported by the applicant. At the same time, such imports shall be made subject to registration in accordance with Article 14 (5) of that Regulation, in order to ensure that, should the review result in a determination of dumping in respect of the appli- cant, anti-dumping duties can be levied retroact- ively to the date of the initiation of this review. The amount of the applicant’s possible future liability cannot be estimated at this stage of the proceeding.