13. 12. 94 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 320/1 I (Acts whose publication is obligatory) COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 3009/94 of 8 December 1994 amending Regulation (EEC) No 830/92 by repealing the anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyester yarns originating in India THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or sub- sidized imports from countries not members of the Euro- pean Economic Community(’), and in particular Article 14 thereof, Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commis- sion after consultation within the Advisory Committee, Whereas : A. PREVIOUS PROCEDURE (1) By Regulation (EEC) No 830/92 (3, the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyester yarn falling within CN codes 5509 21 10, 5509 21 90, 5509 2210, 5509 22 90, 5509 51 00 and 5509 53 00 originating in Taiwan, Indonesia, India, the People’s Republic of China and Turkey. (2 In recital 60 of Regulation (EEC) No 830/92 the Council noted that the Commission would be ready to initiate without delay a review proceeding for the exporters who supplied sufficient evidence to the Commission that they had not exported the products concerned to the Community during the original investigation period (1 January to 31 December 1989), that they only started such exports after the said period or had a firm intention (') OJ No L 209, 2. 8. 1988, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 522/94 (O] No L 66, 10. 3. 1994, p. 10). (» OJ No L 88, 3. 4. 1992, p. 1. of doing so and that they were not related to, or associated with, any of the companies subject to the anti-dumping duty (so-called newcomers). B. REVIEW (3)  Thirty Indian companies made themselves known to the Commission, claiming that they had not exported the product concerned during the investi- gation period and had only commenced doing so after that period. They also claimed that they were not related to any of the companies involved in the original investigation subject to the anti-dumping duties and requested a newcomer review be opened. (4 On request, these companies provided evidence of the facts they alleged. The evidence provided by seventeen of the producers concerned has been considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a review in accordance with the provisions of Articles 7 and 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 (here- inafter referred to as ‘the basic Regulation’) and the Commission, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, initiated a review of Regulation (EEC) No 830/92 with regard to these producers (3). (55  The notice of initiation also made provision for an extension of the review to any other producer in India, where warranted. (6) No request for review of the original injury findings was made and no indication was received that the circumstances of injury as originally established have changed. () OJ No C 339, 22. 12. 1992, p. 2.